Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 833 posts

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#391

Post by bumby »

teawrecks wrote: post #316
spoils19 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The average HN reader strikes me as someone who can talk big, spout buzzwords, and play skeptic, but make them actually solve something and they crumble instantly. Maybe the average HN reader is smarter than the average reddit reader (very slightly if at all), but they're not more useful than someone who actually did work and shared it publicly.

>The average HN reader strikes me as someone who can talk big, spout buzzwords, and play skeptic, but make them actually solve something and they crumble instantly.

I'm sure many have experienced the phenomenon where they read some HN comments that sound authoritative and give them that level of credulity. And then they get into a discussion on a topic they may literally be an expert in and it's made glaring obvious the person they are in a discussion with only has a superficial understanding, yet takes the same authoritative tone.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#392

Post by SantalBlush »

happytiger wrote: post #334
boc wrote: post #251

It’s insane how much cynicism I’m seeing here. I know people who are nuclear scientists at LLNL - if they’re excited about this then it’s a big deal. The experiment actually created more energy than expected and damaged the sensors. This website is seriously infested with reflexive contrarians and it’s a not healthy.

Engineers tend to have a problem solving demeanor towards novelty, which is excellent for finding the problem with things. Showing a room full of problem solvers an unfinished problem that lacks critical supporting evidence will no doubt elicit a general response in the skeptical-to-cynical range. I would respectfully argue that is is a health and normal response given the audience, and should be an expected bias on…

This could pass as satire of a Hacker News comment.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#393

Post by mardifoufs »

spoils19 wrote: post #285
rogerkirkness wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The older I get the more I think it's just counter signaling that one is smarter than whoever did this work, which is almost certainly not the case.

Quoted post unavailable.

Surely this is sarcasm?

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#395

Post by lazzlazzlazz »

boc wrote: post #251

It’s insane how much cynicism I’m seeing here. I know people who are nuclear scientists at LLNL - if they’re excited about this then it’s a big deal. The experiment actually created more energy than expected and damaged the sensors. This website is seriously infested with reflexive contrarians and it’s a not healthy.

Hacker News is absolutely totally broken with cynicism. It has been getting worse for years now.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#396

Post by mbgerring »

boc wrote: post #251

It’s insane how much cynicism I’m seeing here. I know people who are nuclear scientists at LLNL - if they’re excited about this then it’s a big deal. The experiment actually created more energy than expected and damaged the sensors. This website is seriously infested with reflexive contrarians and it’s a not healthy.

People are cynical because the world is already feeling the effects of climate change, the technology exists today to move the grid to zero emissions, and because the work required to do that is a quotidian, slow-and-steady slog, it gets ignored in terms of both funding and mindshare in favor of things like nuclear fusion experiments.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#397

Post by NotYourLawyer »

boc wrote: post #251

It’s insane how much cynicism I’m seeing here. I know people who are nuclear scientists at LLNL - if they’re excited about this then it’s a big deal. The experiment actually created more energy than expected and damaged the sensors. This website is seriously infested with reflexive contrarians and it’s a not healthy.

It’s ok to be cynical about things that are massively overhyped. This development is an important milestone, but it is nowhere near what it is being reported as.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#398

Post by scottLobster »

boc wrote: post #251

It’s insane how much cynicism I’m seeing here. I know people who are nuclear scientists at LLNL - if they’re excited about this then it’s a big deal. The experiment actually created more energy than expected and damaged the sensors. This website is seriously infested with reflexive contrarians and it’s a not healthy.

My experience is that if scientists are exited about it then it's probably not a big deal to non-scientists. It may be a small piece of a big deal in a few decades.

Don't get me wrong I respect all the effort it takes to do something truly new, inventing technologies that previously didn't exist with the height of what we can produce today, and every step forward is a triumph. But is tomorrow's announcement going to lead to a step-change in anyone's life before my infant daughter goes to college? I doubt it, and I have work to do. I'm happy to be proven wrong though!

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#399

Post by nwiswell »

Retric wrote: post #326
Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is simply not true. according to IEA https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el... LCOE of nuclear is cheaper than almost all other possibilities we have. sure nuclear is very expensive up front, but a nuclear powerplant can run for 100 years while wind and solar had to be completely replaced every 25 years. your correct that nuclear has had some very expensive accidents, but the chance of a mo…

You see a lot of handwaving such as that very close to 0 statement with nuclear but someone’s got to be on the hook. The rate and cost of failures directly relate to insurance costs. A 1 in 100,000 chance per year to cause a 500 billion dollar accident represents a ~5 million per year insurance cost to offset that risk before considering the risk premium associated with insurance. And that’s on top of the normal risk…

> but there hasn’t been a power plant built and operated in the last 20 years that come even close to these numbers

If we are being honest, that also has a lot to do with why nuclear is so expensive.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#400

Post by themitigating »

mbgerring wrote: post #396
boc wrote: post #251

It’s insane how much cynicism I’m seeing here. I know people who are nuclear scientists at LLNL - if they’re excited about this then it’s a big deal. The experiment actually created more energy than expected and damaged the sensors. This website is seriously infested with reflexive contrarians and it’s a not healthy.

People are cynical because the world is already feeling the effects of climate change, the technology exists today to move the grid to zero emissions, and because the work required to do that is a quotidian, slow-and-steady slog, it gets ignored in terms of both funding and mindshare in favor of things like nuclear fusion experiments.

Are you claiming a key reason that low or zero emissions technology hasn't been implemented is due to scientists wasting time on nuclear fusion experiments? Not entire political spectrum who doesn't believe global warming to be real, overstated, or some sort of conspiracy.
Post reply on HN