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

71–80 of 833 posts

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#71

Post by e1g »

Good write-up to temper expectations at https://twitter.com/wilson_ricks/status/1602088153577246721

My TLDR (from a layman):

  * The output is greater than the energy *in the lasers*, but the lasers deliver 1% of the energy required to power them. Need 100x improvement to break even.
  * Converting the generated energy into electricity would cut the output in half. We need a further 2x improvement here, so it's ~200x to break even end-to-end.
  * The scientific equipment requires immense & expensive maintenance.
  * Plus the $3B facility around the equipment, that theoretically could deliver just 2.5 MW.
So we might be as close as 10-20 years away, as always!

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#72

Post by Matticus_Rex »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #57
coldpie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, energy storage is still an unsolved problem. Research on batteries may get us there soon, but today they aren't feasible. It's very much worth putting effort into both approaches. IMO the best outcome is a wide variety of clean energy sources and storage solutions, so the best solution can be chosen for a given geographical/political/etc situation.

Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Nuclear isn’t competing with renewables, it’s competing against batteries and almost free renewables that charge them. Nuclear is still possibly a great fit for niche locales where renewables aren’t feasible at all. Not a nuclear hater by any means (we need every innovation we can get), just show your math. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/…

"Places where sun availability makes solar inefficient" is still a niche so massive that "niche" seems like a bad descriptor.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#73

Post by rapsey »

BeefWellington wrote: post #63
rapsey wrote: post #51

Even if fusion ends up producing more power than consuming in the real world, it still has to compete on cost. People too enthusiastic about fusion tend to ignore that it might not actually be a cost effective source of power. Solar panels are cheap and batteries are easier to build and there are lots of ways of making them.

Solar panels are cheap and batteries are easier to build because they're already taking advantage of economies of scale and aren't in the R&D phase still. The viability of fusion has been centered for a long time around getting more power out than you put in and once that marker is met it's viewed as the last giant hurdle in the way. There's still plenty more R&D that needs to be done before it can easily / readily s…

> It's where nuclear was in the 60s basically.

Plants built in the 70s are still operating. It is nowhere near a decade away.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#74

Post by coldpie »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #57
coldpie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, energy storage is still an unsolved problem. Research on batteries may get us there soon, but today they aren't feasible. It's very much worth putting effort into both approaches. IMO the best outcome is a wide variety of clean energy sources and storage solutions, so the best solution can be chosen for a given geographical/political/etc situation.

Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Nuclear isn’t competing with renewables, it’s competing against batteries and almost free renewables that charge them. Nuclear is still possibly a great fit for niche locales where renewables aren’t feasible at all. Not a nuclear hater by any means (we need every innovation we can get), just show your math. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/…

Are solar + batteries feasible to heat every house in Minnesota with electricity when it's below -20F (-30C) for a week, we have > just show your math.

I admit I can't. It's mostly gut-feeling from various science news sources I keep up with (e.g. Ars Technica; Skeptic's Guide to the Universe).

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#75

Post by BeefWellington »

rapsey wrote: post #73
BeefWellington wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar panels are cheap and batteries are easier to build because they're already taking advantage of economies of scale and aren't in the R&D phase still. The viability of fusion has been centered for a long time around getting more power out than you put in and once that marker is met it's viewed as the last giant hurdle in the way. There's still plenty more R&D that needs to be done before it can easily / readily s…

> It's where nuclear was in the 60s basically. Plants built in the 70s are still operating. It is nowhere near a decade away.

Fair, my statement had an implied "if they cleared this hurdle" attached but I probably should have made it explicit.

I do think it'll be a decade or so to go from net gain -> commercial fusion reactors coming online.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#76

Post by bombcar »

IMTDb wrote: post #64
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #50

Well... if Nuclear Fusion becomes actually possible in a cost-effective manner, so much for the need to roll out solar and wind-based electricity, which looks very much like a 1st-generation modern green energy technology in retrospect. I'm not complaining. If we do crack the code on Nuclear Fusion, if I was the government, my next step would be to figure out how to build so many reactors that electricity costs go to…

> even the most diehard gas-car fans won't be able to resist They just won't have a choice; if we can provide a real alternative, we can just forbid gas car altogether. Just like we banned CFC to save the ozone when better alternatives were developed. The main issue is that our electricity grids and production facilities aren't ready yet to sustain a mass shift to electric, so we need to ease in the transition. But t…

You don't even have to ban it outright; you just ban making new ones (though even the CFC ban wasn't 1000% complete; there's been evidence that some companies were 'faking finding old supplies').

People who "really want to" will keep old ones working and most people will slowly start using the new ones.

After all you can still get a horse-drawn carriage if you want to, and you can drive a Model T, but few people bother.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#77

Post by eganist »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #49

After a few more major breakthroughs we'll be where fission was in 1942 after Fermi made the first man made neutron chain reaction. After that, we can see what a practical electricity producing plant looks like, and see how much people actually care about small amounts of tritium radiation. At the moment fuel costs in fission are like 5-10% of total costs for a fission fleet. In fusion it could be lower, but that wil…

It's still decades off but as I understand it, this was the hardest nut to crack. They got what, 2.5 megajoules out of 2.1 in?

I might be in the opposite camp as you but this is very much a "where were you when—" moment for me. I'm sure someone will pop in to disappoint me but I think the point is it's no longer a hypothetical exercise.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#78

Post by bombcar »

e1g wrote: post #71

Good write-up to temper expectations at https://twitter.com/wilson_ricks/status/1602088153577246721 My TLDR (from a layman): * The output is greater than the energy *in the lasers*, but the lasers deliver 1% of the energy required to power them. Need 100x improvement to break even. * Converting the generated energy into electricity would cut the output in half. We need a further 2x improvement here, so it's ~200x to…

The thing that would be surprising is if they discovered something new to do; but this seems like more refinement of what they already know how to do.

Continual refinement may finally get us where we need to be, but it's going to take a long time.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#79

Post by ragebol »

rapsey wrote: post #51

Even if fusion ends up producing more power than consuming in the real world, it still has to compete on cost. People too enthusiastic about fusion tend to ignore that it might not actually be a cost effective source of power. Solar panels are cheap and batteries are easier to build and there are lots of ways of making them.

Not everything is expressed in cost, externalities like the looks and intrusiveness of something do matter.

1 fusion plant has less NIMBYs to deal with than wind-on-land, for example.

But yes, could be that still it's too expensive by the time it becomes available. By then I hope we can make a fusion plant so small it fits on a space ship and power an Epstein drive :-)

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#80

Post by acidburnNSA »

eganist wrote: post #77
acidburnNSA wrote: post #49

After a few more major breakthroughs we'll be where fission was in 1942 after Fermi made the first man made neutron chain reaction. After that, we can see what a practical electricity producing plant looks like, and see how much people actually care about small amounts of tritium radiation. At the moment fuel costs in fission are like 5-10% of total costs for a fission fleet. In fusion it could be lower, but that wil…

It's still decades off but as I understand it, this was the hardest nut to crack. They got what, 2.5 megajoules out of 2.1 in? I might be in the opposite camp as you but this is very much a "where were you when—" moment for me. I'm sure someone will pop in to disappoint me but I think the point is it's no longer a hypothetical exercise.

> They got what, 2.5 megajoules out of 2.1 in?

Of laser energy into a tiny control volume that doesn't consider how much energy went into the laser systems. If you draw the control volume around the building and see that the lasers require vastly more energy than what came out, I think you'll be less excited, right?

We've been getting lots of energy out of fusion since the early 1950s with thermonuclear bombs. We know we can get energy out of a control volume. But is it a practical energy source is still the question imho.

Post reply on HN