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

821–830 of 833 posts

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#821

Post by gjm11 »

htag wrote: post #797
gjm11 wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People think of Fukushima as (1) one of the very worst nuclear incidents there has ever been, and also as (2) something that cost very few lives. Yes, something like 150k people were evacuated because of worries about radiation. What you don't mention is that the total number of people evacuated was 470k. Most of the people who had to leave their homes had to leave not because of anything nuclear but because the enor…

I think you're missing key elements to the Fukushima story. It wasn't a surprise natural disaster, it was a predictable eventuality. 1. People tried to ring alarm bells about the building codes (and the reactor specifically) not being able to handle earthquakes of a size Fukushima was likely to experience. They were on deaf ears. 2. Japanese government admitted guilt for poor oversight and regulation. 3. Three execut…

Oh, for sure, Fukushima's story is not one where everyone did the right thing. It's one where there was negligence and carelessness, as well as a huge (and, yes, in some sense predictable) natural disaster ... and despite all that, the actual reactor-related consequences were not so very bad.

If the question were, say, "how much should we trust the Japanese government?" then Fukushima is not very encouraging. But if it's "how worried should we be about nuclear power?" it seems pretty encouraging to me. Lots of errors and negligence, huge natural disaster, and even so scarcely any lives lost and most of the harm done would have been the same without the nuclear power plant.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#822

Post by 93po »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #522
93po wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't yet understand why this is better than Fission Realistically, today, it's only better because of decades of lobbying and propaganda for fear mongering around fission. There is no reason why nuclear energy couldn't be the vast majority producer of all electricity in the world while massively lowering environmental damage and loss of human life. Long term, fusion might be better because it can produce a lot m…

Yes there is reason: The high cost, the unsolved waste issue and the inherent strategic danger such a centralization of power production would pose. You'd only have to hit a few large power plants to take out the electricity of an entire country. When done right, attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown. Since you brought up lobbying, it's fascinating to me how many nuclear power…

The cost is not high if you consider the cost of pollution caused by other methods. And nuclear waste is absolutely a solved problem and is entirely unproblematic. These are thoroughly debunked talking points.

> attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown

This is not a feasible thing to do with modern reactor designs, and the same danger is present for infrastructure like dams or even just a big building.

> not informed by data and facts

Said by the person who's repeating misinformation

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#823

Post by panick21_ »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #812
panick21_ wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Britain would have simply built 20 Hinkley Point C starting a new one every year at first and then after a couple years multiple every year. The same people moving form project to project, on-boarding new people. Just as France did in 1980s. This would result in very cheap competently green grid for the next 100 years. Wind turbines have to be replaced 3x in that time and you don't have to deal with intermitt…

Remind me what the lifetime EAF of those 80s French nuclear plants is?

If you want to have an argument, then maybe just present your argument.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#824

Post by Schroedingersat »

panick21_ wrote: post #823
Schroedingersat wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me what the lifetime EAF of those 80s French nuclear plants is?

If you want to have an argument, then maybe just present your argument.

You said you don't have to deal with intermittency. That's a lie.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#825

Post by trompetenaccoun »

93po wrote: post #822
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is reason: The high cost, the unsolved waste issue and the inherent strategic danger such a centralization of power production would pose. You'd only have to hit a few large power plants to take out the electricity of an entire country. When done right, attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown. Since you brought up lobbying, it's fascinating to me how many nuclear power…

The cost is not high if you consider the cost of pollution caused by other methods. And nuclear waste is absolutely a solved problem and is entirely unproblematic. These are thoroughly debunked talking points. > attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown This is not a feasible thing to do with modern reactor designs, and the same danger is present for infrastructure like dams or eve…

It's not feasible but also it's the same danger as with dams? Which is it? In reality, both nuclear power plants and dams have been attacked many times over the past decades. More decentralized power production has other disadvantages but clearly it can't be targeted as easily. The attacker would take out a single wind turbine or someone's roof PV. The effects would be negligible on a national level.

The cost btw is even higher than most people think considering that energy companies aren't paying for most of it but tax payers do. Some not even born yet. But even without factoring in those future costs, as you suggested we do, nuclear power in its current form is among the most expensive forms of power production. Again, look at the data, not energy company propaganda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#826

Post by panick21_ »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #824
panick21_ wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to have an argument, then maybe just present your argument.

You said you don't have to deal with intermittency. That's a lie.

Look at real world data. Nuclear power has scheduled down time, something that is totally doable if you have a fleet of reactors.

You certainty don't have anything close to the intermittency of wind and solar. And this is clearly evident in the production graphs.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#827

Post by Schroedingersat »

panick21_ wrote: post #826
Schroedingersat wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said you don't have to deal with intermittency. That's a lie.

Look at real world data. Nuclear power has scheduled down time, something that is totally doable if you have a fleet of reactors. You certainty don't have anything close to the intermittency of wind and solar. And this is clearly evident in the production graphs.

Real world data says that unless you spend insane amounts on it and then pretend the reactors that shut down decades early due to issues or destroyed themseves don't exist, or are China then something goes wrong and forces a shut down or low output about 20% of the time.

In most regions you can get a lower forced downtime rate for a lower cost with renewables, and then you also get the curtailed energy to feed dispatchable loads. You need the electrolysers anyway for chemical feed, and you need storage to meet variable loads so it's just a matter of which can be deployed faster.

Additionally you get a very long forced downtime when you burn through your Uranium reserves in under a decade by trying to provide current final energy.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#828

Post by pfdietz »

simne wrote: post #819
pfdietz wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ITER is fundamentally unable to replicate the conditions that materials will be subjected to in an actual commercial fusion reactor. It cannot achieve the same cumulative neutrons dose that a real reactor can experience. It will not be able to answer the questions that need to be answered to prove out the materials for first walls or blankets, and it will not be able to establish reliability metrics for these structu…

> ITER is fundamentally unable to replicate the conditions that materials will be subjected to in an actual commercial fusion reactor Are You joking? Or You just don't know physics? What REALLY differ ITER (DEMO) from real commercial reactor?

No, I'm not joking.

ITER fails in at least two ways. First, the intensity of neutron radiation at the first wall is far too low for a viable commercial reactor. It cannot simulate the heat load a commercially viable breeding module would encounter. Second, ITER cannot operate for more than a few weeks, so it cannot simulate the integrated radiation load a commercial first wall would have to be able to withstand. It also cannot operate with enough blanket modules, for long enough, to move the designs down experience curves for reliability growth to occur so they are sufficiently robust for a commercial reactor (this is a huge looming problem, as they will be very difficult to repair.)

Abdou at UCLA has been beating the drum for a FNSF to actually address these issues. He's been beating this drum for DECADES.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#829

Post by simne »

pfdietz wrote: post #828
simne wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ITER is fundamentally unable to replicate the conditions that materials will be subjected to in an actual commercial fusion reactor Are You joking? Or You just don't know physics? What REALLY differ ITER (DEMO) from real commercial reactor?

No, I'm not joking. ITER fails in at least two ways. First, the intensity of neutron radiation at the first wall is far too low for a viable commercial reactor. It cannot simulate the heat load a commercially viable breeding module would encounter. Second, ITER cannot operate for more than a few weeks, so it cannot simulate the integrated radiation load a commercial first wall would have to be able to withstand. It a…

> the intensity of neutron radiation at the first wall is far too low for a viable commercial reactor

Source? Proofs? Sorry, for me this looking as just Your opinion.

> Second, ITER cannot operate for more than a few weeks

This is just not important at all now. That what I mean, said You don't understand physics.

- NOWHERE at Earth possible to recreate exact radiation environment of Jupiter orbit for YEARS, need to test radiation capable computer environment for space probes.

What really doing? After first probes measured parameters of environment, at Earth built test benches, consisting of few throttle-able sources, so they give approximate spectrum, very like near Jupiter, but could do year dose in few hours and could easy be switched off, to make manipulations with tested samples.

So now, I even know guys, who touched exposed chips and running real world software on them, and real computers in Jupiter/Mars missions, working much longer than need for mission (BTW, first samples tested at Earth, where not reliable).

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#830

Post by 93po »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #825
93po wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost is not high if you consider the cost of pollution caused by other methods. And nuclear waste is absolutely a solved problem and is entirely unproblematic. These are thoroughly debunked talking points. > attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown This is not a feasible thing to do with modern reactor designs, and the same danger is present for infrastructure like dams or eve…

It's not feasible but also it's the same danger as with dams? Which is it? In reality, both nuclear power plants and dams have been attacked many times over the past decades. More decentralized power production has other disadvantages but clearly it can't be targeted as easily. The attacker would take out a single wind turbine or someone's roof PV. The effects would be negligible on a national level. The cost btw is…

More than 8 million people die every year from breathing polluted air containing particles from fossil fuel emissions. What would you put the cost of that at? Until we factor that in as an a cost for carbon emitting power generation, we cannot make a fair comparison of the cost of nuclear.
Post reply on HN