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

Fusion News Ignites Optimism

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#51

Post by hutzlibu »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

While I'm excited for this, I'm also cynical about the public reaction to fusion power as it gets closer to success and eventual general availability. These past 2 years have highlighted to many how a combination of poor critical thinking and politicisation of so many aspects of our lives can lead to literal catastrophes. Will the public see Fusion as the wonderful advancement for humanity that it will likely be, or…

"green energy sector not making their minds up and flip flopping between solar/wind/fusion/etc"

Since fusion does not work sustainable yet (or at all), I would not classify it as green energy. (Where is for example the tritium coming from?)

But once it works - it likely will not magically supply all of humanity at once in a way, that is way cheaper than what we can have with wind, water and sun now.

So why flip flopping? We use what works. If fusion really works soon, awesome.

But honestly, I have to see, to believe. What I see is, that solar and co. are working now and do not require a fundamental breakthrough for very, very complex machinery under heavy fusion fire to work consistently.

And desserts for solarfarming, we have enough. As well, as many, many roofes in the cities. Solarfoils might be the next big thing to cover them big scale cheaply. And stationary batteries can be made of cheap materials avaible in abundance. Lots of other possibilities, too. Simple, reliable tech, compared to Fusion. So fusion would be nice to have, but I would not allocate more critical ressources to it, that might be better spend elsewhere.

Sure, investing into the energy grid, sounds not as sexy and interesting as building a fusion reactor. But maybe that is, what is currently more needed, to make it more flexible for the fluctating renewable energy sources.

And with the sun, we have already a big working fusion reactor. Why not focus on harvesting that energy more?

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#52

Post by pfdietz »

PedroBatista wrote: post #45

Until now Nuclear Fusion has produced optimism, careers and portfolio valuations but no energy. The theory is there, but the implementation is not and worse than that, there is no "it will get cheaper with industrialization" in sigh, because we are not even at that stage and there is no indication there is a realistic path to achieve the efficiency needed to be economically viable ( ever! ). The best positioned to de…

ITER may deliver something tangible, but also something that is not on any realistic path to being competitive. It's far too large for the power it (or DEMO) would produce.

It's also possible ITER will just deliver a negative outcome, if they can't figure out how to control disruptions sufficiently. A reactor that violently breaks itself is not something anyone would want to buy.

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#53

Post by ganzuul »

choeger wrote: post #46

Could someone enlighten me how laser fusion of prefabricated pellets (at least that's how I understand the idea in the article) can generate electricity? In a Tokamak or Stellarator, we collect heat on the outside, AFAIK and generate electricity in the good, old, "make something spin quickly" manner. But in a laser-ignition device, we need to shoot a pellet into some kind of chamber, so that chamber better be relativ…

Magnetohydrodynamics converting ion current into electrical current is often floated but seldom explained in detail.

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#54

Post by arethuza »

tsimionescu wrote: post #40
arethuza wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most modern weapon designs are actually fission-fusion-fission designs with most of the energy actually coming from the final fission step - the latter being driven by neutrons from the fusion step. Things get even more complicated with the fact that primaries are fusion boosted fission and the fusion step contains a fission "sparkplug".

Sure, but the fusion step is still important and somewhat poorly understood, so ICF experiments which mirror the conditions inside the fission-fusion step could be valuable for increasing yields.

Interestingly, a lot of recent developments in warhead design (e.g. the non-spherical primaries of the W-88) are actually about primary design - so I guess its possible this kind of research also feeds into the fusion boosting component of primaries.

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#55

Post by ganzuul »

aristophenes wrote: post #9

I don’t understand the appeal of this type of fusion (as opposed to the plasma reactor approach). We’ve known how to get positive energy out of fusion fuel since thermonuclear weapons in 1952. The really hard part would seem to be capturing that energy efficiently. This experiment is stuck at the ignition phase. When that’s positive energy they won’t be done, they’ll be able to start working on the practical problems…

My guess is they are actually researching femtotech.

ED: By now I assume I would be ignored if I was wrong.

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#56

Post by pfdietz »

pas wrote: post #8
danpalmer wrote: post #4

While I'm excited for this, I'm also cynical about the public reaction to fusion power as it gets closer to success and eventual general availability. These past 2 years have highlighted to many how a combination of poor critical thinking and politicisation of so many aspects of our lives can lead to literal catastrophes. Will the public see Fusion as the wonderful advancement for humanity that it will likely be, or…

Certainly we'll have all of the above. > Will it be spun as the green energy sector not making their minds up and flip flopping between solar/wind/fusion/etc? Well, the green energy sector is big. Solar companies push solar, wind folks push wind, and well, fusion folks are pushing for funding and VC money. But the important thing is, we need all of them. Plus batteries (and battery-like systems). And, yes, there will…

> But the important thing is, we need all of them.

Why do we need fusion?

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#57

Post by neutronicus »

blake1 wrote: post #29
wnkrshm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use of fusion as an energy source removes a lot of threats our civilizations are facing but it also comes with some caveats rooted in human behavior. Human energy consumption has always gone up when the supply got more efficient, from coal to oil to fission. While here, the power generation itself won't have such a drastic impact (unless humanity overdoes it, though, we seem to always do that) but maybe more power me…

Your first point is not supported by the data. The US Energy Information Agency keeps track of this[1], and the per capita energy use peaked around 2000. And we are much better at running an energy-efficient economy: energy use/real $ GDP has halved in the last century. The trend may not continue. People might start to do much more air travel (which would require massive runway building). Global warming might increas…

Yeah, capital-E Energy is mostly for capital-W Work and thermodynamics. Once you refrigerate your living space and don't walk anywhere and everything you want is brought to your door what else are you going to do?

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#58

Post by Someone »

neutronicus wrote: post #57
blake1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first point is not supported by the data. The US Energy Information Agency keeps track of this[1], and the per capita energy use peaked around 2000. And we are much better at running an energy-efficient economy: energy use/real $ GDP has halved in the last century. The trend may not continue. People might start to do much more air travel (which would require massive runway building). Global warming might increas…

Yeah, capital-E Energy is mostly for capital-W Work and thermodynamics. Once you refrigerate your living space and don't walk anywhere and everything you want is brought to your door what else are you going to do?

I’m not sure whether you’re serious, but:

Bigger cars? Supersonic city trips to the other side of the world? Weekends in Antarctica? A week in one of SpaceX’s hotels? High-resolution screens on every wall of your home, plus the AC needed to keep your house cool? Reshape a mountain to improve your view? Transform lead into gold? Mine bitcoin?

If energy were free, I foresee accelerated destruction of nature. At best, the world would become a gigantic park.

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#59

Post by danpalmer »

pfdietz wrote: post #36
pasabagi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> another dangerous nuclear thing I think this really understates the case against nuclear power. The problem with nuclear power stations is they are prone to the same kind of industrial accidents all large plants are prone to, and they are on the more dangerous end of the scale when it comes to what can happen if there is an industrial accident. You can say that people aren't accurately weighing the risks, but you c…

No, the problem with nuclear power stations is they are way too expensive. Fusion promises to make this main problem worse, not better. Fusion is a great example of solving the wrong problem.

This is a really good point, and could well be true, although I think it's a bit more complicated.

Fission has two problems: the emotional one – weapons/danger, and the practical one – cost. Yes weapons could be a practical issue, but I think it's more an "emotional" issue.

The question is, is it only the practical reason that is preventing widespread adoption of fission power? On the surface, maybe! Unpacking it a bit, I'm not sure. Anti-nuclear sentiment has caused government policy changes, not the cost issue. Similarly, restricting nuclear power technology to only certain countries is a political issue, not a cost issue, and more closely aligned with the former.

Cost is a big issue, but I do wonder if we'd get over it if the danger aspect disappeared. The long term economics of nuclear power are actually really good, it's just that it takes ~10 years to realise those economics compared to (e.g.) ~3 for natural gas.

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#60

Post by willis936 »

pfdietz wrote: post #52
PedroBatista wrote: post #45

Until now Nuclear Fusion has produced optimism, careers and portfolio valuations but no energy. The theory is there, but the implementation is not and worse than that, there is no "it will get cheaper with industrialization" in sigh, because we are not even at that stage and there is no indication there is a realistic path to achieve the efficiency needed to be economically viable ( ever! ). The best positioned to de…

ITER may deliver something tangible, but also something that is not on any realistic path to being competitive. It's far too large for the power it (or DEMO) would produce. It's also possible ITER will just deliver a negative outcome, if they can't figure out how to control disruptions sufficiently. A reactor that violently breaks itself is not something anyone would want to buy.

The primary reason for this is the use of Nb3Sn LTS confinement coils. REBCO is the next wave.
Post reply on HN