361–370 of 438 posts
Haven't Tokamak Energy in the UK done better than this already back in 2019 with their 24T magnet based on similar HTS tape technology?
https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/tokamak-energy-exceeds-targe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But are they surmountable AND cheaper than existing nuclear or other energy sources? DT fusion solves the two biggest arguments that are always raised by nuclear energy opponents: storage of nuclear waste (it doesn't produce high-level waste) and safety (it's not perfect but it can't explode). I wouldn't call it a "meh", even if it comes off as much more expensive than fission.
Very questionable if a fusion reactor is safer then a common molten salt fission reactor. I would argue that is far less likely to 'explode'. And you can burn up the waste majority of that waste, the leftover waste after that would not really a huge issue. Both of these are far more political problems then actual real problems a society based on modern fission would have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel that fusion is one of humanity's best shots at actively reversing climate change Couldn't the same thing be said about current fission reactors? I get that fusion doesn't have the downsides of fission... but I'm also worried that people will be "scared" of fusion in the same way they're against GMO vegetables and irradiated fruits, totally irrationally...
Sadly no. While I think that it would work and probably be cheaper and easier than fusion, fission has an absolutely abysmal public image. People are terrified of radiation, even if the danger is very low. This means it becomes prohibitively difficult and hence expensive to build and run a fission plant because safety has to be prioritized so heavily. That is even if permission is granted to build in the first place.…
The day-to-day danger perhaps, but it's kind of hilarious in a sad way to read this right after fukushima spent god knows how long leaking radioactive shit into the ocean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only ~30% of CO2 emissions are from power-plants (at least in the US, probably higher globally considering developing nations) then replacing those installations with fusion won't directly zero things out... ... But if "cost wasn't a factor" then we could just simply dedicate the electrical output of fusion plants to brute-force CO2 out of the air.
If fusion drives electricity prices into the ground, transportation is going to rapidly go electric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
don't solar panel prices half every five years (similar to moores law modified)? fusion would need to speed up then to be competitive with the solar revolution
solar needs sun and massive batteries to handle base load. fusion base load + solar + wind + batteries sounds like the end game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What ruined nuclear reputation is environmentalists who don't actually care for environment.
Parroting Shellenberger will never make you look like a serious participant in this discussion.
"criticizing [The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming in a Post-Environmental World] for demanding increased technological innovation rather than addressing the systemic concerns of people of color."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What ruined nuclear reputation is environmentalists who don't actually care for environment.
What ruined nuclear's reputation is corruption, and being the most expensive choice. (Although coal will end up overwhelmingly more costly, in the end!) Would it be so expensive without corruption? Who can say? Corruption is wired into the process. We are purely lucky that, for structural reasons, corruption is minimal on solar and wind projects. Probably this is because what it ought to cost is readily visible from…
There are definitely other challenges/limitations. For one, this approach increases the heat flux that the inner wall of the reactor will have to survive. The localized heat flux of the exhaust stream is expected to rival the heat flux of re-entry from orbit (20 MW/m^2) and could be as high as the power flux from the surface of the sun (~60MW/m^2). 20MW/m^2 is on the hairy edge of what's possible with today's technology, and that's without all the complications of neutron damage, plasma bombardment, etc. The current thinking is to spike the outer layer of the plasma with neon or nitrogen, to radiate most of the power as photons, but there are limitations & risks to that idea as well. Commonwealth's plan for SPARC (last I heard) was to oscillate the exhaust stream back & forth across the absorber plate to reduce the average heat flux.
The nuclear engineering side of fusion has been underfunded for a long time, so there's much that needs to be done on that front, in terms of demonstrating that the breeding of tritium from lithium can be done efficiently & without too much losses. Also, we should be developing better structural materials that can withstand neutron damage & not become (as) radioactive.
It's still very much an open question as to whether fusion could be made economical, even though it seems like it should be technically possible.