MIT and newly formed company launch effort to build compact tokamak pilot plant • Hacker News Board

Re: MIT and newly formed company launch effort to build compact tokamak pilot plant

#71

Post by jfaucett » Sun, Mar 11, 2018, 3:27 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #28

jfaucett wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say the same thing. Anytime an energy discussion comes up, I try to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our problems, especially in the global context of rising energy needs. If you care about the enviroment and our future on this planet, it behooves you to look into nuclear research and get uptodate. I would love to see us solve the clean energy problem fully this century, and the…

> ... I try to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our problems, especially in the global context of rising energy needs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16473729 I can't see any comment from you on this story from 10 days ago that was titled: "After rising for 100 years, electricity demand is flat (vox.com)" Not everyone agrees that rising energy needs are a given, or even just a myth that…

Yes, I didn't mention fission for 2 reasons #1 anyone who looks into nuclear already knows this and #2 anyone else is usually just confused by it.

I don't spend every day on HN so I just missed that story and dont have time to look into it now, but almost every article I've ever read till now had ways the energy was displaced and not actually reduced or at a plateau. Also why would you not want more energy? You can do more things, better, faster, etc. The only reason not to want energy is because of externalities, which is reasonable but needs to be weighed in the context of what your giving up i.e. convience, efficiency, productivity, etc.

Re: MIT and newly formed company launch effort to build compact tokamak pilot plant

#72

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Mar 11, 2018, 8:32 PM UTC

According to the 2014 arxiv.org paper on the ARC reactor https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3540.pdf

the concept (which would produce 190MW(e)) uses 90 tonnes of beryllium.

According to the USGS, the current total world annual production of Be is 220 tonnes, and total global resource is estimated at 100,000 tonnes.

The world uses ~20 TW of primary energy, so roughly 100,000 ARC reactors would be needed to supply the world, using about 100x as much Be as the estimated amount available for mining.

Unless Be supplies can be drastically increased, this concept is at best a niche player.

Re: MIT and newly formed company launch effort to build compact tokamak pilot plant

#73

Post by Jedd » Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 11:43 AM UTC

jfaucett wrote: post #71

Jedd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... I try to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our problems, especially in the global context of rising energy needs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16473729 I can't see any comment from you on this story from 10 days ago that was titled: "After rising for 100 years, electricity demand is flat (vox.com)" Not everyone agrees that rising energy needs are a given, or even just a myth that…

Yes, I didn't mention fission for 2 reasons #1 anyone who looks into nuclear already knows this and #2 anyone else is usually just confused by it. I don't spend every day on HN so I just missed that story and dont have time to look into it now, but almost every article I've ever read till now had ways the energy was displaced and not actually reduced or at a plateau. Also why would you not want more energy? You can d…

Fair enough.

I always draw the distinction between fission and fusion when talking to people who do, or don't, know the difference - as the former benefits from the clarity, and the latter from the (new) understanding.

It's like using solar now to describe only photo-voltaic cells - solar thermal is likely to be a much more interesting technology for grid-supply, but few people that aren't interested in the area know about it (at least here in Australia, where we haven't dabbled much, and have an administration that's very pro-coal).

As to your question - you answered it yourself, I see. You wouldn't want more energy if it's going to ultimately cost you your civilisation -- that's the easy answer.

But also if you have any concept of restraint, moderation, efficiency improvements, etc. (Though mostly if it's going to cost you your civilisation.)

Re: MIT and newly formed company launch effort to build compact tokamak pilot plant

#74

Post by jfaucett » Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #73

jfaucett wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I didn't mention fission for 2 reasons #1 anyone who looks into nuclear already knows this and #2 anyone else is usually just confused by it. I don't spend every day on HN so I just missed that story and dont have time to look into it now, but almost every article I've ever read till now had ways the energy was displaced and not actually reduced or at a plateau. Also why would you not want more energy? You can d…

Fair enough. I always draw the distinction between fission and fusion when talking to people who do, or don't, know the difference - as the former benefits from the clarity, and the latter from the (new) understanding. It's like using solar now to describe only photo-voltaic cells - solar thermal is likely to be a much more interesting technology for grid-supply, but few people that aren't interested in the area know…

so... we pretty much completely agree :)