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

Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#61

Post by tuatoru »

deepnotderp wrote: post #60
megaman821 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers don't seem feasible. Near as I can tell, a steam generator with a magical source of never-ending heat would cost $15/MWh. There is no way a high-tech facility and the personnel required to run it are costing $10/MWh.

There are three routes to bypass this issue: 1. Move to supercritical Co2 turbines (lower mass —> lower cost), need RnD on corrosion resistant alloys 2. Move to thermoelectric or photovoltaic generators 3. Use aneutronic fusion Directly use the charged particles

1. would have been done already if there were such alloys.

2. photovoltaic generators seem popular, but the don't require spending money on a fusion core.

3. The problem is hard, so let's replace it with a harder one?

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#62

Post by tuatoru »

notfish wrote: post #34
megaman821 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers don't seem feasible. Near as I can tell, a steam generator with a magical source of never-ending heat would cost $15/MWh. There is no way a high-tech facility and the personnel required to run it are costing $10/MWh.

What’s your math on $15/MWh? As far as I can tell, the steam turbine is a pretty insignificant part of the price of coal energy generation

Are you allowing for cooling towers, water treatment, pipework, and so on? Also the grid connection hardware, spare turbines, cooling pumps, etc., and O&M costs?

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#63

Post by tonetegeatinst »

wolverine876 wrote: post #24
tonetegeatinst wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of people who are really into fusion research know that the military isn't going to be doing the same kind of fusion research as the groups looking into fusion as an energy source. Is what they did interesting sure, but alot of people who actually follow fusion development know that this was a PR meme that some news stretched. Fusion has always been 20 years away its a literal meme....and yet we are mak…

> a lot of people who are really into fusion research Do you mean researchers and other experts, or people who follow it? And does that include you? Are you a researcher?

I think it would be more of people who follow the research in general but also have a good understand of the principals of modern nuclear weapons using both fusion and fission to increase yield %

I'm just a guy that like to follow the research in hopes of clean cheap energy...the cheaper the better

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#64

Post by m463 »

Karellen wrote: post #45
gentleman11 wrote: post #40

Imagine a second Manhattan Project, except this time, it's to produce fusion energy and try to save the world from climate disasters instead of making a weapon. Who would you tap to participate in/lead this?

Why do you think finishing the fusion research (just another 10 years? again?), and then designing commercial reactors, and then building out all the fusion generation capacity we need, could possibly take less time/money/effort than just building out all the wind/solar/battery capacity instead, which we already know how to make?

I think it's a good strategy to have alternate energy sources.

We use energy in so many ways, we should also generate it in many ways too.

We should develop a portfolio of energy sources. Yes, the top ways might be solar, wind, batteries.

But what if we need energy at night during cold weather without wind? We will continue to burn giant oil tankers full of fossil fuels.

Looking back, the outlook for Solar PV in president carter era seemed just about as unsatisfying as fusion is now.

I also think fission should get some predictable sustained research funding, and political will to make it a part of the picture, but safe and modern.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#65

Post by defrost »

m463 wrote: post #64
Karellen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think finishing the fusion research (just another 10 years? again?), and then designing commercial reactors, and then building out all the fusion generation capacity we need, could possibly take less time/money/effort than just building out all the wind/solar/battery capacity instead, which we already know how to make?

I think it's a good strategy to have alternate energy sources. We use energy in so many ways, we should also generate it in many ways too. We should develop a portfolio of energy sources. Yes, the top ways might be solar, wind, batteries. But what if we need energy at night during cold weather without wind? We will continue to burn giant oil tankers full of fossil fuels. Looking back, the outlook for Solar PV in pres…

Things to ponder if you're having these conversations.

> a portfolio of energy sources. Yes, the top ways might be solar, wind, batteries.

Batteries are energy storage, not a source. Other storage methods are worth finding out about.

> what if we need energy at night during cold weather without wind? We will continue to burn giant oil tankers full of fossil fuels.

We already burn vast amounts of fossil fuels (how much per day globally | by various countries? it's worth a look).

The key thing here is how much less would be used if a country is only "topping up" energy storage and delivery during renewable down times?

What are the differences between a coal fired power station that drives a turbine and a gas powered power station that drives a turbine (ramping up | always "on" times, etc).

> I also think fission should get some predictable sustained research funding

In which country though? South Korea and China are steadily building fission power reactors, the USofA has had ongoing fission research as part of being a nuclear nation since the Manhatten project, it's DoE straddles nuclear for weapons and nuclear for power, they had nuclear submarines, etc.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#66

Post by hyperman1 »

zengid wrote: post #48
ess3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This basically the plot of the movie ”Real Genius”

Great film! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuv7SIVNkx8

Oh man. I saw that movie as a kid, and remember thinking the hyperactive girl was really cute. I recently happened to see her scenes again, and unfortunately, the memories were better than the real movie.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#67

Post by Turskarama »

repiret wrote: post #58
wolfram74 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$15/MWh is 1.5 ¢/KWh, right? that's pretty darn cheap and means that the other 10~20 cents would be transmission and fuel, yes?

20 cents? I pay 13/kWh.

You're within the stated range, do you think you have the most expensive electricity in the world? 25c/kwh isn't unreasonable. Ireland pays 52c/kwh.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-price...

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#68

Post by JoeAltmaier »

AlbertCory wrote: post #56
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in war is a target

True, but a small target that disables all the electronics on the base would have to be considered "high value."

Like, say, the generator they use now.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#69

Post by AtlasBarfed »

hbossy wrote: post #36
wolverine876 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read that the US military has looked into small fission generators. They expect logistics to be very difficult near the front if there is a war with a 'near-peer' (China or maybe Russia) and hope to reduce fuel logistics. I've never heard of them looking into similar fusion reactors. Why would they? Nobody expects to build any kind of production fusion reactor for decades, much less one that could be operated by…

American military would love to squeeze nuclear reactor on every single ship. The conventional escort ships are much slower than aircraft carriers and need constant refueling, to the point they sometimes leave them behind and sail meet another fleet in destination port. It's not really feasible with fission but fusion would make it a lot safer.

So they should be researching LFTR like they did for the nuclear bomber.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#70

Post by AlbertCory »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #68
AlbertCory wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but a small target that disables all the electronics on the base would have to be considered "high value."

Like, say, the generator they use now.

No, not like that.

Generators are cheap and replaceable, and they can keep spares in the depot.

A fusion reactor sounds like big bucks to me.

Post reply on HN