Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

bbc.co.uk

61–70 of 222 posts

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#61
post #4

Great, but I don't see how these extremely expensive nuclear fusion projects will ever beat price/kW of coal without heavy subsidies. My bet is that dense plasma focus is the future of cheap, clean power. Only time will tell though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_plasma_focus

Lots of things beat coal on a price/kW basis once you account for the massive externalized costs of coal: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/tallying-coals-hid....

Coal isn't cheap, it just has the desirable property that more than half its costs can be easily externalized rather than being paid by the people who use the power.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#62
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the more plausible explanation is something like "Solar and wind power are proven to work, whereas fusion research is still trying to find something that even looks like it might work." Even after this "milestone," fusion still requires more energy from us than it gives back. Basically, the funding is going toward practical technologies, in the sense that you can actually put them into practice to…

Exactly. If one were to give a hundred billion to fusion research, how much faster would we get results? Would we be funding needs that are critical to help the science into its next phase, or just be funding the N next-best ideas that previously were set aside? For a community that has such high praise for bootstrapping businesses, there's a surprising love of throwing money at unproven scientific research avenues.…

If we have fusion in 30 years instead of 60 years, we have colonization of the solar system happening in our lifetimes. We'd have the economic rationale for removing all military engagement in the middle east. We have 30*380 billion on petro cost savings here in the U.S: http://www.fuelfreedom.org/the-real-foreign-oil-problem/oil-... God knows how much CO2 we remove from the atmosphere. 100 billion sounds cheap to me.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#63

I think Nuclear Fusion is the single most exciting up-and-coming technology. I can't believe we're not throwing a hundred billion dollars at it. Make fusion, not war.

Right, but what's its viral coefficient? How can we get it as a mobile app?

I giggled at this, but a serious question for those in the know: is computer simulation a significant factor in the development of fusion experiments, and can it be distributed (a la SETI@Home, Folding@Home, et al)?

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#64

I think Nuclear Fusion is the single most exciting up-and-coming technology. I can't believe we're not throwing a hundred billion dollars at it. Make fusion, not war.

Right, but what's its viral coefficient? How can we get it as a mobile app?

Obligatory Nikola Tesla pitching VCs video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngK13FMgXM&noredirect=1

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#65
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the more plausible explanation is something like "Solar and wind power are proven to work, whereas fusion research is still trying to find something that even looks like it might work." Even after this "milestone," fusion still requires more energy from us than it gives back. Basically, the funding is going toward practical technologies, in the sense that you can actually put them into practice to…

Exactly. If one were to give a hundred billion to fusion research, how much faster would we get results? Would we be funding needs that are critical to help the science into its next phase, or just be funding the N next-best ideas that previously were set aside? For a community that has such high praise for bootstrapping businesses, there's a surprising love of throwing money at unproven scientific research avenues.…

It comes down to energy. Fusion would dramatically decrease energy costs, which would in turn drive costs of almost everything else down and allow us to do things that had been only a dream before such as fusion propulsion. So run your cost/benefit analysis again with that in mind.

This is even before we get into ecology - most modern energy sources are highly pollutant (oil/coal). How much better off will planetary ecology will be if fusion comes online 10 years earlier?

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#66

I think Nuclear Fusion is the single most exciting up-and-coming technology. I can't believe we're not throwing a hundred billion dollars at it. Make fusion, not war.

Too bad shovel ready money wasn't spent on more long lasting impact projects like this. Where has all that money gone from the drawn down of the wars? Where is the investments going in alternative energy? Well that last is easy, groups who contribute politically, hence solar and wind. They receive far too much in ways of support whereas hard science projects like this with incredible payoffs are pushed off because th…

In situations of depressed aggregate demand, it really doesn't matter what you spend the money on -- you could even bury it in the ground like gold and "pay" people to dig it up. Whatever you fund is essentially a free lunch.

You don't want to wait months though, which is why "shovel-ready" matters and this sort of research loses out to other sorts of projects. That said, less guns and more fusion would be nice.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#67
post #47

It is an important milestone. But to have a commercially viable fusion reactor, you'll need a factor of 50-100 more energy out than in to make up for inefficiencies in electricity generation using this kind of scheme. The real story here is that this facility allows the US to do nuclear weapons research without violating the nuclear test ban treaty. If the goal was to develop a commercially viable fusion reactor, the…

Speculating about their "real" motives is just that; speculation.

I'm sorry your project was defunded, but that in itself is not evidence that the facility is actually a sham.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#68
post #48

A good place to start if you want to understand the purported rationale for the NIF (stockpile stewardship), I suggest reading and understanding this light introduction to modern nuclear weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon (the rhodes books, Making of the Atomic Bomb is required background reading, as is Dark Sun, if you want to get into the backstore). In particular: The NIH experiment recapit…

The NIF is probably more useful for coming up with new fusion bomb designs than for stockpile stewardship, as you say, but what makes you say hot fusion can never be economically viable? The sun is proof that nature can do this on a grand scale! It may be a long ways off, but "a long ways" becomes "never" without experimental work like the NIF. Yes, the U.S. is probably doing this primarily to create new weapons just as the space race was really about developing ICBM's. However, the fundamental science being done has huge long-term potential. It's a sad, but true fact that, sometimes, scientists have to use the megalomania of states to fuel research that has the potential to benefit all of humanity.

Fission power is a separate matter. The single most important thing that most people still do not understand is that power grids have almost zero capacity for storing energy. That means most alternative energy sources, such as wind or solar, can never exceed a certain percentage of the grid's production capacity or it will become unstable. On-demand energy generation is still needed, and there's absolutely no reason to fear nuclear power while we're still using coal power, which is far more deadly in every sense! It's not just the West that has this fear either. Look at Japan's recent nuclear shut-down[1] (from 30% of their grid to 0%, replaced with fossil fuels), and tell me that isn't going to influence China!

[1]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/14/us-japan-nuclear-s...

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#69
post #47

It is an important milestone. But to have a commercially viable fusion reactor, you'll need a factor of 50-100 more energy out than in to make up for inefficiencies in electricity generation using this kind of scheme. The real story here is that this facility allows the US to do nuclear weapons research without violating the nuclear test ban treaty. If the goal was to develop a commercially viable fusion reactor, the…

So sorry to hear that project got cut from spending.

It really seems like another extremely powerful nuclear bomb.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#70
post #47

It is an important milestone. But to have a commercially viable fusion reactor, you'll need a factor of 50-100 more energy out than in to make up for inefficiencies in electricity generation using this kind of scheme. The real story here is that this facility allows the US to do nuclear weapons research without violating the nuclear test ban treaty. If the goal was to develop a commercially viable fusion reactor, the…

Finally someone that's actually in the fusion field. Could you say whether or not the NIF research represents a practical path towards a fusion based power source? My understanding is that it would at least be capable of capturing some much needed high pressure empirical data necessary for validating theory.

On a side note concerning the NIF funding, the US gov will spend huge sums of money studying Nuclear weapons (including their disposal) regardless of the NIF project. If it is at all possible to combine that research with other fields then really it's a perk. I'm not justifying the expenditure, simply attempting to frame the situation in a different light.

Finally, as a fellow scientist with funding woes, I feel your pain.

Post reply on HN