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

Fusion News Ignites Optimism

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–95 of 95 posts

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#91

Post by eru »

hutzlibu wrote: post #85
eru wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Where is for example the tritium coming from?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Production

Yeah, I know that. Mostly from nuclear fission reactors. So currently not really sustainable. Or is the plan, to keep the fission reactors running, to fuel the fusion reactors?

You could do that. Or you could probably breed them from excess neutrons in some fusion reactor.

Why do you think fission wouldn't be sustainable? Or do you mean, fusion alone wouldn't be sustainable? I guess that you'd always have some auxiliary industries.

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#92

Post by eru »

wnkrshm wrote: post #86
eru wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is very much an engine for social progress. See eg https://www.econlib.org/jim-crow-more-racist-than-the-railro... > Jim Crow laws established apartheid, that is, legally enforced segregation. Railroad companies provide an interesting historical example of business incentives. These private companies were often willing, against the political correctness of the times, to sell tickets to both blacks and whit…

But, didn't the market trade the same people as property? How is the market an engine for social progress there? Isn't that a bit cherry picked?

Well, basically the 'market' is just people trading. People react to incentives and have preferences.

Luckily, people are hypocrites, so they will say that we should 'buy American', but then happily engage in free trade. Or they say that we should segregate races, but then greed dictates that it's more profitable not to discriminate like that.

Yes, if people are bought and sold, that also happens on a market. Alas.

Apropos that topic, you might like https://pseudoerasmus.com/2014/09/05/antebellum_ussouth_cott...

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#93

Post by pas »

pfdietz wrote: post #38
xupybd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it will as it should be radically cheaper. It should come with an economic improvement.

Why should fusion be radically cheaper? It's very complex, has much lower power density than fission, and pushes materials and systems more strongly (power/area through surfaces, for example; neutron flux as well) than fission. If you claim either fuel cost or waste handling cost, neither of those is a major part of the cost of fission power. Capital cost is, and fusion moves that in the wrong direction.

Fusion is "cheap" if the externalities are priced in. (Of course that's currently a very big if.)

But even then, assuming a version of "fusion tech currently in R&D" realized today, we can probably build a lot of windmills and battery parks for the price of one fusion power plant.

Again, on the long term it seems ideal. (It can be made portable, abundant fuel in the universe, safer than fission, etc.)

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#94

Post by jeffparsons »

eru wrote: post #83
jeffparsons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of processes that were considered too wasteful suddenly become feasible. I worry about this, too, but couldn't there be some positive effects here, too? E.g. what if it made desalination a lot cheaper?

Why do you even worry?

Because the secondary effects of something becoming more efficient can be harmful, in counterintuitive ways.

E.g. if some process in steel manufacturing is improved to require less power, you might think, yay, there's less power needed so less CO2 released. Good for mitigating global warming. But what might actually happen instead is that it becomes feasible to make more things out of steel because it is cheaper than before, so more energy is used on steel production in total, even though per unit it is more efficient.

The same thing could happen with fusion energy, but in ways we can barely imagine now. What high-power workloads are not even considered now that would be cheap enough with fusion power?

Re: Fusion News Ignites Optimism

#95

Post by eru »

jeffparsons wrote: post #94
eru wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you even worry?

Because the secondary effects of something becoming more efficient can be harmful, in counterintuitive ways. E.g. if some process in steel manufacturing is improved to require less power, you might think, yay, there's less power needed so less CO2 released. Good for mitigating global warming. But what might actually happen instead is that it becomes feasible to make more things out of steel because it is cheaper than…

Yes, I understand that. But if you run your high-power workload with fusion, you won't be releasing any CO2.

Your explanation reminds of the common example that increased car safety leads to more speeding. And somehow arguing that increased safety is futile.

But people like having more steel and like being able to go faster at the same level of safety.

Post reply on HN