[HN Gopher] Korean nuclear fusion reactor achieves 100MdegC for ... ___________________________________________________________________ Korean nuclear fusion reactor achieves 100MdegC for 30 seconds Author : yreg Score : 263 points Date : 2022-09-07 19:58 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.shiningscience.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.shiningscience.com) | gerdesj wrote: | When I was at school in Abingdon, Oxfordshire (UK) around 1988 my | physics class (A level aged 17) was somewhat enlivened by a visit | by a bunch of clever chaps from JET at the Culham labs from up | the road. | | This was the first time I heard the "nuclear fusion is 25 years | away" joke and it was told as such. We were also shown a graph of | how many orders of magnitude away from ignition (for want of the | correct word) by date. It had an initial steep decline but then | turned right quite sharply and had annoying looking tendency to | avoid the magic value. | | Now, once you have ignition, you have to sustain it and extract | power from it. That's quite tricky too! | cygx wrote: | _We were also shown a graph of how many orders of magnitude | away from ignition (for want of the correct word) by date_ | | See p.4-5 of [1] for more recent plots. It includes earlier | runs of both KSTAR (the experiment under discussion) and EAST | (the Chinese one mentioned in another comment), but not their | most recent ones. | | [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10954 | zamadatix wrote: | For those wanting a quick in browser glance: | https://i.imgur.com/z7MRk5X.png | elihu wrote: | > "This team is finding that the density confinement is actually | a bit lower than traditional operating modes, which is not | necessarily a bad thing, because it's compensated for by higher | temperatures in the core," he says. "It's definitely exciting, | but there's a big uncertainty about how well our understanding of | the physics scales to larger devices. So something like ITER is | going to be much bigger than KSTAR". | | This made me wonder when ITER was going to actually be up and | running. From wikipedia: | | > "The reactor was expected to take 10 years to build and ITER | had planned to test its first plasma in 2020 and achieve full | fusion by 2023, however the schedule is now to test first plasma | in 2025 and full fusion in 2035." | | So, it sounds like it'll start doing something within a few | years, but it'll probably be a long time before it produces | significant scientific results. | | By the time ITER is running, maybe some other group will beat | them to it (like the MIT ARC or SPARC reactors, which use more | recent, better superconductors and don't need to be anywhere near | as big). | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER | scifibestfi wrote: | Let's say they manage to scale this up. What effect would it have | on humanity? Climate change is solved. What else? | [deleted] | sien wrote: | With the knowledge that comes out of building fusion power | plants the next thing to build is fusion rockets. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus | MichaelCollins wrote: | Little effect I think. Fusion power can do little that fission | power can't do already, which is provide "free" power after you | look past the cost to build and maintain the plant. The best | advantage of fusion power is the public perception is presently | better. | ithkuil wrote: | Is the safety profile any better? Or is it just public | perception? | cygx wrote: | There are major differences. For one, in case of | catastrophic failure, the plasma will dissipate, its | temperature will drop and the fusion reaction will stop. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | This. The hard part is keeping it going, not getting it | to stop. | | Also, if I understand correctly, the waste products are a | lot less nasty. | wizofaus wrote: | > The hard part is keeping it going, not getting it to | stop. | | I'm rather glad that doesn't apply to the fusion reactor | in the sky that we'll be fully dependent on for a while | yet. | MichaelCollins wrote: | It's a lot easier to build passively safe fission power | plants than _any_ sort of fusion power plant. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety | u320 wrote: | The safety profile is better with fusion, but I think you | underestimate how good the safety profile of nuclear is | these days. We haven't had any significant incidents since | Fukushima, but we upgraded the safety mechanisms of our | nuclear plants a lot based on that experience. Nuclear is | on a path similar to flight, were we started off with very | risky airline travel and got to a point where you are more | likely to suffer an accident on the taxi on your way to the | airport. | coffeeblack wrote: | Fission power is already the second safest form of energy | production, after hydro. | 93po wrote: | At least one source saying hydro causes more deaths than | fission: | | https://www.businessinsider.com/dam-safety-statistics- | risk-o... | ok_dad wrote: | The lack of major radioactive waste is a plus, only the | pipes and stuff inside the core of the reactor will have | radioactive elements due to neutron activation. The only | waste from it otherwise is helium (and tritium, which is | re-used in the reaction later). | rosywoozlechan wrote: | isn't helium valuable? seems like a good "waste" to | produce | OJFord wrote: | Yeah that's GP's point by the 'only'. It's 'waste' as in | a byproduct. | | It's part of the reason fusion's so sought after - it | doesn't result in anything bad or that has to be | carefully sequestered. | | (Apart from extraordinary heat I suppose. Perhaps there's | an argument the actual reactor would always be a pretty | risky place. But any incident isolated at least, worst | case a remote industrial building burns down beyond | economical repair.) | Apocryphon wrote: | Safe airships for all! | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Doesn't matter. | | Public perception > reality. | | Look at hydroelectric. Terrible for ecosystems, decent | number of deadly failures over the years, way better | perception and less pushback from the public than fission. | z3rgl1ng wrote: | Jevon's paradox implies we'd have a brief respite, | chronologically speaking, before having to tackle something | like heat shedding. | hinkley wrote: | Climate change not solved. This is another in our long series | of silver bullets. | | Greenhouse gases retain heat. Sea level temperature is a | function of ambient heat due to sunlight and other heat | sources, minus the rate at which it dissipates into outer | space, mediated by the insulation effect of the atmosphere. | | Projects that try to reduce the carbon intensity of energy are | focused on changing the denominator in the equation. The | current aim of these projects is to produce a cheap and | plentiful energy source, via a heat engine. What they are | actually chasing, whether they admit it to themselves or not, | is a cheap and plentiful heat source. If they succeed they | change both the numerator and the denominator, which ends up | partially cancelling each other. | | Wind and solar are different because they tap into an existing | heat engine, instead of trying to build a new one. | | What we as a people need is a fusion plant that costs less per | KWH than a fossil fuel power plant with tariffs to account for | the cost of the carbon dioxide, but still about as expensive as | a fossil fuel plant where the carbon is free. If we actually | got a fusion plant that was 10x more cost efficient then we'll | just introduce the concept of heat pollution to the | conversation, swapping out the villain in the story but keeping | the same outcome. | robertlagrant wrote: | Adding some invented constraints on to the problem of nuclear | fusion is the most bikesheddy thing I've ever read. | hinkley wrote: | What invented constraints? We've been chasing nuclear | fusion since long before we really cared about greenhouse | gas emissions. We want 'cheap and plentiful power'. | Greenhouse gas intensity is a recent addition to the set of | goals. It doesn't replace the existing motives, and to | claim otherwise is greenwashing. | 93po wrote: | Are you saying the heat output of a fusion generator would be | so great that it would impact climate change? | hinkley wrote: | If you give people a generator that produces "cheap and | plentiful energy"? Absolutely. Total world power | dissipation increases as fast as they can build the plants. | If we never produce another molecule of CO2 again we might | be okay in that situation, but things like that don't | change overnight. | | edit: conclusion | | edit again: I'm extrapolating from | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox but didn't | remember what it was called | coffeeblack wrote: | Question is, how much will the kWh cost, all costs considered. | And how much time does it take to build. | quonn wrote: | Long term, yes. But much of the climate change problem is | decided in the next 25 years. Even if this reactor would work | right now, building enough of them in that time frame | everywhere, switching all industry and factories to electric, | switching all transportation and cars and heating systems in | all the houses to electric is very tough. | | So it's still very challenging. | notfish wrote: | Exactly. I'd also add that climate change is a just a symptom | of us reaching the natural carrying capacity of Earth for | humans, so adding new ways of generating power doesn't | completely eliminate the issue. | vanviegen wrote: | Very true. Though an abundance of cheap energy may prove | helpful in brute force engineering some other problems out | of existence. I'm thinking of recycling and geo-engineering | in particular. | u320 wrote: | Can you explain what you mean by "the natural carrying | capacity of Earth for humans". You framed this like it's | something that exists outside of technology. | elf25 wrote: | Schroedingersat wrote: | Peak everything is happening over the next little while. | | Direct thermal climate foring is a couple of orders of | magnitude out from current energy use. | | Classical computing is almost finished. | | Many minerals are at the point where extraction takes a | rapidly increasing amount of energy per tonne. | | Land used for grazing and agriculture is over half of | habitable land. | | Fishing is wiping out entire ecosystems. | | It's time to think about moving earth to a steady state | economy. | Schroedingersat wrote: | > What effect would it have on humanity? Climate change is | solved. | | Not really. It'll just be another tool for the fossil fuel | lobby to use to misdirect attention from what will make them | irrelevant forever (reduction and sunlight). | | Even if the reactor part is free and 100% reliable. Getting | heat out of a 100 million degree chamber that is spewing | neutrons everywhere and turning it into electricity is much | much harder and more expensive than collecting some photons and | building a train. | alas44 wrote: | Climate change has inertia so probably not solved by the time | we have industrial scale fusion + would not solve the two other | main anthropic activity related problems: biodiversity loss and | depletion of natural resources | wizofaus wrote: | Would depletion of natural resources be so much of an issue | if we could use fusion to recreate them? (after all, they | didn't come into existence by magic...) Biodiversity is a | bigger problem given the sheer levels of complexity and our | relatively poor understanding of exactly how we depend on the | exact make-up of the biosphere. Most likely humanity could | survive without it, but it would be a poor sort of existence | - our bodies and brains evolved in tandem with the huge | diversity of life around us and is optimised to thrive in | that context. | blibble wrote: | with unlimited cheap energy you can pull CO2 out of the | atmosphere, produce hydrocarbons and pump them back into the | wells | macksd wrote: | I don't know what the math looks like here, but there is | waste heat in this, right? We could lower CO2, but | "unlimited cheap energy" at the scale required to make a | dent in climate change surely gives off a pretty phenomenal | amount of heat. I wonder what the equation looks like for | the overall effect on the planet. | blibble wrote: | my understanding of chemistry is poor, but presumably if | energy is liberated from combustion, reversing that | reaction requires energy | | (with some input to kick it off possibly) | | regardless, the earth receives 173,000 TW of solar | radiation from the sun | | we have a way to go yet | ben_w wrote: | One could, but this is unlikely to actually be done unless | there is an economic incentive, which is basically why | everyone put the CO2 into the air in the first place | despite knowing the consequences. | blibble wrote: | carbon credits and carbon trading were invented, what, | twenty years ago? | ben_w wrote: | Indeed, and look how effective they've been. | blibble wrote: | extremely effective indeed? | | (where implemented) | | with unlimited clean energy you'd be able to print carbon | credits as a result of direct hydrocarbon sequestration | anon291 wrote: | better yet... you can kep current hydrocarbon economy | factories, vehicles, etc in operation by simply producing | fuels from air. Wil be cheap enough. Hydrocarbons are a | great, usable source of dense energy. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | I really don't think all we need is cheap energy, it's | still an economically unproductive thing to do, so you need | a govt to tax people and use the $ to perform | sequestration. | | You need to build out the sequestration plants, maintain | and run them, only one of those inputs is cheap energy. You | need to move the carbon to a safe storage facility etc. | | It's still a huge undertaking, but would be way simpler if | we had cheap electricity (which it seems like we will get | via solar anyways, carbon sequestration could probably be | turned on and off as needed for grid conditions) | blibble wrote: | > You need to move the carbon to a safe storage facility | etc. | | fortunately we already have millions of holes we drilled | in the ground to get the stuff we burnt originally | ahmedk92 wrote: | My layman understanding tells me depletion of natural | resources will be worse if we manage to find a sustainable | source of energy. | mihaifm wrote: | Cheap energy means lower costs of manufacturing therefore lower | prices for consumer goods, thus increasing quality of life. | u320 wrote: | There is no reason a priori to assume fusion power will be | cheap. On the contrary, everything we know about it now | suggests the opposite. | haliskerbas wrote: | At least in North America, things tend to maximize corporate | profits rather than maximize quality of life. | robertlagrant wrote: | They are aligned, at least for those things where consumers | are the purchaser. | mmahemoff wrote: | Terraforming, space exploration. On the compute side, running | extremely fine grained simulations. | lake_vincent wrote: | "While the duration and temperature alone aren't records, the | simultaneous achievement of heat and stability brings us a step | closer to a viable fusion reactor - as long as the technique used | can be scaled up." | | Half of the engineers on HN right now: | | [...as long as the technique used can be scaled | up...](PTSD_Chihuahua.jpg) | rr888 wrote: | There was a positive fusion article in the WP a few weeks back. | https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/26/nuclear.... | Looks like things are finally happening. | rjzzleep wrote: | It's interesting to see that South Korea has such strong nuclear | research facilities. Taiwan lost a lot of nuclear researchers in | the past decades. Some of it due to US lobby work and some of it | due to stupid governmental policies in the recent past. Japan | which is also quite strong in nuclear seems to be trying to sell | part of their nuclear industry, a move which turned out | disastrously for the french. | cyclingfarther wrote: | What do South Korea, Taiwan and Japan have in common? Hint: it | starts with C. | | Which is why all three have/had such strong nuclear expertise. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency | jimhi wrote: | Can you spell that out? | | They are near / wary of China? That is why they have nuclear | expertise? | yongjik wrote: | South Korea also wasted recent years trying to shut down | nuclear reactors and painting the nuclear industry as evil | anti-environmental cabals. It's infuriating that Korea's | politics is governed by either conservatives (who think | environmental regulations should bend over for industries) or | liberals (who think it's "eco-friendly" to shut down nuclear, | when 44% of the electricity is coming from freaking coal). | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | > a move which turned out disastrously for the french. | | Any more to add? | | IIUC, France has one of the highest percentages of nuclear | energy of any country in the world. | | Is this supposed to be bad? | rjzzleep wrote: | More than half of their reactors are currently out of | commission. And Macron was one of the people responsible for | signing off on the deal that sold off their turbine | development to GE due to pressure of the DOJ. They were | talking about buying "it" back. Although I don't know what | the scope or timeline of the buyback is. I also remember that | contrary to previous promises GE started dismantling one of | those factories. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | IIUC, turbines are not really the bottleneck for nuclear | power plants. | | Sure, they are necessary. | | But if France's existence depended on it - I imagine this | is a problem they could solve relatively easily. | | On the flip side, Germany is not going to magically | generate 80% of their electricity from Nuclear Energy | anytime soon. Nor the US or Japan or South Korea for that | matter... | tomohawk wrote: | Undergoing maintenance and scheduled to be back online in | the next couple of months. | Miraste wrote: | It does seem like there's a deeper problem if over half | the reactors are shut down for maintenance at the same | time. | fmajid wrote: | French reactors are all the same design (derived from one | licensed from Westinghouse). That's how they got the | economies of scale and were able to ramp up so quickly. | Unfortunately, that also means a flaw is reproduced in | all of them. To compound this, the replacements were not | started quickly enough so the current reactors are | reaching the end of their design life, and because there | was not a program to continuously build bew reactirsm the | industrial skills base atrophied as qualified workers | like welders retired. And the trifecta is France is | experiencing its worst drought in recorded history, so | some of the plants that get cooling from river water had | to shut down due to low water levels. Even the mighty | Rhine is a mere rivulet at the moment. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | IIUC - the reason so many are down is because of heat and | low rivers. | | This won't be a problem in the Winter when they're most | needed. | u320 wrote: | This is a bit of a myth. The heat wave and water levels | was a problem, but most of it was maintenance issues | unrelated to that. It was more a problem of | mismanagement, and the fact that Macron went into office | promising to shut down the fleet, making operators start | to cut down on maintenance. He has now reversed course | after realising that depending on Russian gas is bad. All | wind/solar in Europe works by balancing it against | natural gas or hydro, but the amount of hydro is fixed so | expanding the wind/solar fleet increases the demand for | gas. Hence why the renewable poster child Germany is in | so deep shit right now. | airstrike wrote: | > > a move which turned out disastrously for the french. | | > Any more to add? | | The Battle of Waterloo? | [deleted] | [deleted] | boringg wrote: | Full steam ahead! | stevage wrote: | Steam behind. Fusion ahead. | DubiousPusher wrote: | Was this a successful ignition? | enviclash wrote: | Are there game-changing implications for this result? | tinco wrote: | Nope, it's just the expected gradual progression to the game- | changing result that fusion eventually is going to be. | Kukumber wrote: | China managed to reach 120 millions degC for 1000 seconds last | year already | | https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-31/China-s-artificial-sun... | motokamaks wrote: | They managed to do it all separately in separate experiments. | This is the first time both stability & temperature were | achieved simultaneously. | Kukumber wrote: | Oh you are right, important detail indeed | djyaz1200 wrote: | What if the stars in the galaxy are the remnants of civilizations | fusion reactor gone wrong ;p | Aaronstotle wrote: | What if stars are sentient beings? | gajus wrote: | What is the significance of this? | groby_b wrote: | Second sentence from The Fine Article: "While the duration and | temperature alone aren't records, the simultaneous achievement | of heat and stability brings us a step closer to a viable | fusion reactor - as long as the technique used can be scaled | up." | zxcvbn4038 wrote: | What? No reactor in every home? Those house of the future | films lied to me in every way. | stevage wrote: | That's what solar plus battery is for. | uwuemu wrote: | Good luck trying to "scale up" (at least in the near future). | Tokamaks are only getting to be "scaled up" now, after pretty | much decades, and basically only thanks to ITER (factor of | ten plasma volume compared to the second largest tokamak). | And ITER is a megaproject comparable (both in budget and | time) with the SLS program. Maybe even more expensive | (depending on if you believe the official number, 22bn EUR, | or the unofficial estimate, 40bn EUR) and DEFINITELY more | complex with far more cutting edge science (plasma physics, | material science...), technology, and engineering required. | | If ITER succeeds (proves that fusion in a magnetic | confinement device can be used to produce net electricity and | it's "just" a matter of scaling things up that is holding | fusion back), then sure, investors are going to line up, even | for alternative designs. Fusion will be all the rage. But | until then, I doubt anyone is scaling anything fusion-related | up. Well and if ITER fails, then we are all fucked, and we | can turn the fusion "are we there yet" clock back 50 years. | klabb3 wrote: | Isn't total cost per reactor more constraining than cost | per Wh for these mega projects? Say you spend $10B on a | reactor that produces essentially free energy. You're still | limited by plant lifetime, maintenance and crucially | transportation of that energy - just breaking even would be | a challenge in many locations. Thus, we have to have many | plants distributed, similar to today's fission, at | somewhere in the 500MW range per reactor (give or take an | OOM). | | In short, we have diminishing returns for giant reactors, | and instead need to have plants that can be mass produced, | fast. | samhain wrote: | Have you taken a look at MITs SPARC reactor? I'm always | skeptical of comments that only reference ITER, since it's | very old news at this point, and there have been a plethora | of innovation beyond ITER in just the last few years. The | REBCO tape, and being able to get 10x magnetic field | strength compared to ITER in a 3x smaller diameter seems | like fairly significant progress to me. | terrorOf wrote: | AFAIK, China has record for temperature and duration however | it is known as China heated up electron rather than heating | up ion which is more proper. | tinco wrote: | I hadn't realized that was a different kind of record (150M | degrees for over 1000 seconds). I suppose the ions have | more mass than the electrons so that temperature is harder | to maintain, but I have no idea about the physics of having | them not heat up at the same rate. | | BTW I had to vouch for your comment to reply because you | have a history of making short and sometimes brusque | comments and HN has punished you for it. If you would make | slightly longer comments in the future more people will | engage with you and it will be more fun for you. | npunt wrote: | It's just the new hotness | random314 wrote: | Alright, take the upvote! | mikeInAlaska wrote: | "An error occurred during a connection to www.shiningscience.com" | | Was it hosted at the facility? | Rackedup wrote: | "as long as the technique used can be scaled up." | teaearlgraycold wrote: | OOF | j15e wrote: | As a newbie in nuclear fusion, this explanation is the most | interesting part: | | > Lee Margetts at the University of Manchester, UK, says that the | physics of fusion reactors is becoming well understood, but that | there are technical hurdles to overcome before a working power | plant can be built. Part of that will be developing methods to | withdraw heat from the reactor and use it to generate electrical | current. | | > "It's not physics, it's engineering," he says. "If you just | think about this from the point of view of a gas-fired or a coal- | fired power station, if you didn't have anything to take the heat | away, then the people operating it would say 'we have to switch | it off because it gets too hot and it will melt the power | station', and that's exactly the situation here." | baby wrote: | Similar to how energy is extracted from fission reactors | currently: the heat is used to boil water which makes large | turbines spin and produce energy. It's dumb engineering. (I | don't mean that in a bad way.) | Gwypaas wrote: | Could be interesting if they couple it with a Closed Cycle | Gas Turbine [1] and a tiny steam plant, like the gas CCGT | plants of today. Then the heat engine part should see | similar, or even higher, efficiencies compared to gas based | CCGT plants. | | Boiling water using the Rankine cycle [2] and it will be as | dead in the water as nuclear and coal is today. | | A thing to keep in mind though is that it is very hard to | compete with the engineering of an axle straight into a | generator like wind turbines or a solid state system like | solar PV. Working fluids, cooling loops and what not are | awful to build and maintain. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-cycle_gas_turbine | | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle | spoils19 wrote: | Coal is very much alive in prospering countries, and I | stand with other conservatives in that we don't need new | fancy energy production. | mlazos wrote: | I suppose I'll bite here. We don't need "fancy" energy | production as Southern California and the Midwest becomes | uninhabitable, you serious? Coal power should be dead in | the water if it isn't. It's bad for workers, bad for the | air we breathe, water we drink, bad for the people who | live around plants. That has been well established. It | actually kills more people than nuclear, solar and wind | combined. There's no redeeming quality to it other than | being plentiful and cheap. It shouldn't be cheap based on | the externality of the destruction it causes here and | around the world. | u320 wrote: | If you think nuclear is dead in the water you haven't | really been following where the energy debate is heading | these days. Especially in Europe, where we no longer have | the luxury of plugging the holes left by renewables with | gas. | pdpi wrote: | I always find it slightly amusing how there's remarkably few | forms of power generation that don't eventually boil down to | "use water/air/steam to make a turbine spin". | cm2187 wrote: | Turbines and piston engines also rely on the mechanical | power of gas expanding. | gridspy wrote: | It is amusing. But it's just because that is the most | efficient way we know to turn heat into electricity at | scale. | [deleted] | christophilus wrote: | > boil down | | I see what you did there. I feel the same way, though. It | feels primitive. But it's what we've got! | JohnFen wrote: | Yes, or as I like to think of it -- we're more of a steam- | powered society now than we were during the "steam age". | z3rgl1ng wrote: | bryanlarsen wrote: | It's also very expensive engineering. That's how a coal plant | works, and the last coal plant that the US built cost $2B for | a 600MW plant. Given how much cheaper solar & wind are, | fusion will be dead in the water if it doesn't come up with a | cheaper way of extracting energy from the reaction. | tomatotomato37 wrote: | Speaking of solar it would be nice if we could just plate | the inside of a reactor with photoelectrics instead of | blowing all the budget on a clusterfuck of a steam system. | Too bad silicon doesn't like 100M degrees... | | Actually thinking about it figuring that out would make | fission a lot more tenable too | flavius29663 wrote: | solar and wind can be free, if the sun does not shine and | wind is not blowing 100% of the time... | nemo44x wrote: | Solar and wind are not serious solutions to the energy | needs of the planet today or in the future. As billions | more people become part of a global middle class our energy | requirements will expand dramatically from today. | ceejayoz wrote: | > As billions more people become part of a global middle | class our energy requirements will expand dramatically | from today. | | https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35097.pdf | | "In the United States, cities and residences cover about | 140 million acres of land. We could supply every | kilowatt-hour of our nation's current electricity | requirements simply by applying PV to 7% of this area--on | roofs, on parking lots, along highway walls, on the sides | of buildings, and in other dual-use scenarios." | | "We would need only 10 million acres of land--or only | 0.4% of the area of the United States--to supply all of | our nation's electricity using PV." | didericis wrote: | 0.4% of the entire country is a massive amount of land. | | That's 10 million acres of wires, maintenance, habitat | and all kinds of mischievous creatures, not least of | which are humans. And it only works when the weather is | good. And not all countries have the grid or engineering | and maintenance capacity of the United States. | | It's not a realistic solution. | | By all means, lets put solar panels everywhere we already | have buildings and roofs and power hookups and make a | dent. Maybe at some point it'll be possible to use solar | alone, and we can keep up the maintenance. | | Going all in on solar right now would be suicide. It'd be | worse than the effects of anthropogenic warming. People | are going to freeze to death this winter in Germany | because they bought into the promise of renewables before | it delivered and didn't diversify their energy supply. | | You should only phase something out when you can meet | demands without it. Nuclear is a way to do that. Natural | gas is a way to do that. Renewables are a way to do that. | But you have to actually _exceed demand_ and have a solid | diversified base before you panic switch because of | climate change. Otherwise you kill and impoverish more | people than climate change. | robertlagrant wrote: | I really wish this sort of thing would either be better | thought through or better articulated. 10 million acres | is enormous. And is it continuous supply (if so, how?) Or | just supply when it's sunny? | sdenton4 wrote: | It's easy enough to solve... point an energy-collecting | device at the giant pre-built fusion reactor in the sky. | gridspy wrote: | Yes, but most of the time that fusion reactor is behind a | giant hunk of iron covered in various other matter. Even | when in the sky, the sky itself is an effective insulator | that only allows 1/4 of the energy through. | | That's why we are considering placing a converter above | the sky to more efficiently pierce the sky with energy. | markdown wrote: | Towing the converter _outside_ the environment is | something I can get behind. | gridspy wrote: | I always liked how NASA realised in 1970 that the moon is | a sandpit of fusion-converter material. It's such an | awesome reason to build houses above the sky. | gridspy wrote: | I support moving all the smoking buildings outside the | environment also. Then many of them can use the fusion | reactor directly, with the aid of mirrors and lenses. | u320 wrote: | You cannot build a grid out of solar and wind alone. | bryanlarsen wrote: | A 100% renewable power grid is possible and inexpensive. | Here's how to do it: | https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262545044/ | idiotsecant wrote: | This is absolutely not true. My day job is designing | control systems for renewable generation so I certainly | don't have a bias against renewables - the opposite in | fact. | | The fact remains that the physics of a grid powered only | by distributed non-dispatchable wind and solar resources | simply does.not.work. full stop without massive | investments in storage and transmission upgrades. The | physics isn't even debatable - it's simple. You only have | to look at the very limited transmission infrastructure | that currently exists and understand the simple fact that | the power grid is a zero sum game. Power in = Power out | or very bad things happen that lead to power out = 0. | Zero sum generation + aging transmission = not enough | power where you need it, when you need it if you get rid | of traditional baseload sources. | | It's good to champion renewable generation, storage, and | transmission upgrades. It's necessary infrastructure for | the economic and actual health of our nation. It is _not_ | going to be inexpensive by any definition of the term. It | 's going to be monumentally expensive even if it's | completely necessary. | zardo wrote: | You also need transformers and batteries and power lines. | salty_biscuits wrote: | Then don't do it. Grids are expensive. Microgrids and | storage seem like a winning plan. | u320 wrote: | Microgrids and storage cost way more than any method of | generating power we are currently using. Please stop | using buzzwords and look at the actual numbers. | ben_w wrote: | At grid scale, batteries were about the same cost as a | functionally equivalent fission reactor last time I | looked (a few years ago). Despite which, batteries are | one of the more expensive ways to store energy at scale. | u320 wrote: | I don't know where you looked then because batteries are | not anywhere near low cost enough to be deployed at grid | scale at the amounts required to run a grid of wind and | solar. Even in a sunny climate with reliable solar | output, if you assume that there is a 10% chance that in | any year you will have a 10 day period of cloud cover and | 50% lower solar output and your entire grid cost goes up | by 5x! The math for storage is BRUTAL. | ben_w wrote: | Only 50%? That's a small enough reduction that the | cheapest solution is double the PV. | ben_w wrote: | You _can_. It probably isn't a great idea due to global | geopolitics, but the physics is sound and the price isn't | unreasonable. | u320 wrote: | Nobody has done it. Nobody has put forth a credible | theoretical model on how to do it. If you believe | otherwise please show how it can be done. With details. | Things like frequency regulation, reactive power and all | that stuff that makes the grid work. And include the | economic calculations. The burden of proof is on you. | ben_w wrote: | > Nobody has done it | | So? | | > Nobody has put forth a credible theoretical model on | how to do it. | | HVDC global grid, mentioned loads of times on this forum. | 60% antipodal loss with existing components that were | optimised for much shorter connections, but even that | loss is fine given how cheap optimally placed PV is. Cost | about a trillion USD (ok) and a few decades of current | global aluminium and copper production (meh), but that's | still absolutely in the realm of the "we could afford it, | shame about the politics". | compumike wrote: | I'm not sure where your numbers are from, but just because | $2B sounds like a big number, it isn't inherently a | dealbreaker. | | If that's 600 MWe, running at 80% capacity factor, | amortized over 30 years, then the $2B becomes: 2e9/(600 * | 1000 * 0.8 * 24 * 365 * 30) = $0.0158 / kWh -- the $2B | capital cost amortizes to 1.6 cents per kWh of electricity | sold. Not zero, but 1.6 cents is far less than the current | market price of a kWh. | | If you're going to compare to utility-scale solar or wind, | be sure to include their much lower capacity factor: https: | //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#/media/File:US... | | (Admittedly: we don't yet know the capital cost of a | working fusion heat source, or its capacity factor. Both | will determine whether this is economically competitive.) | lake_vincent wrote: | Yes, exactly! There are two problems here: | | 1. What's the most efficient way to boil water? | | 2. How do we generate electricity on a population scale | without having to boil water? | | Question 1 is, apparently, much more tractable. We are still | pretty much building the world's most sophisticated tea | kettle. | mrec wrote: | As a Brit, I wholeheartedly approve. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >1. What's the most efficient way to boil water? | | Doesn't need to be the most efficient. Just more efficient | per energy transferred to the water than all the other | options. | robbomacrae wrote: | I don't follow. What you said seems to me the definition | of the most efficient. Or at least.. it is what I assumed | they meant. | heavyset_go wrote: | Most efficient can mean theoretically optimal efficiency | or more efficient than other options. I think the OP was | using the first definition. | dbetteridge wrote: | Local maximum vs global maximum | | Most efficient conpared to what we have already, but | there may still be more efficient ways | TaylorAlexander wrote: | I think there is a zeroth problem here, which is how to get | the heat from the plasma to the water. You have a fusion | reactor making hot plasma that also needs to have water | circulating in the right way. From what I gleaned from some | fusion presentations the solution to this is itself an | engineering challenge. | Symmetry wrote: | Fusion plants also need to absorb the neutrons coming out | of the reactor and secure themselves a supply of tritium | for their reaction. The most common solution is to do all | three with a blanket of molten lithium that can absorb | neutrons and heat from the reaction, transmute into | tritium, and go through a heat exchanger with water to | heat it up. | compumike wrote: | "Fusion Reactor First Wall Cooling" | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJyoqDO0zw talks about | the steady-state heat transfer out of a proposed tokamak | design. Around 1:09:23 they show "1.5 GW" deposited as | "0.3 GW from radiative photons -> surface heating" plus | "1.2 GW from 14.1 MeV neutrons -> volumetric heating". | | Designing the first wall and the volumetric blanket are, | indeed, engineering challenges. | sien wrote: | There are fusion companies that are trying to make | aneutronic fusion work. This form of fusion doesn't involve | boiling water. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion | | Helion Energy is the best known. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_Energy | | HB11 is another one | | https://hb11.energy/ | ok_dad wrote: | It's a fusion reactor, so how do you get the water into the | part with the hot stuff? That's all inside a magnetic field, | I think. Also, you have to consider the neutron radiation's | effect on the pipes that carry the water into the core, it's | going to activate several metals in there, and cause | weakening of the pipe wall, which will necessitate | inspections and replacements. | | It's a way harder engineering problem than you're letting on. | Your comment is like a software user saying "How hard could | it be just to add feature X?". | johnbcoughlin wrote: | The heat transfer is not (will not be) directly from the | plasma to the water. The fusion neutrons will impact a | "blanket", which is water-cooled, and kept at a temperature | of around 600-800 C. Weakening of the pipes and all other | structural components will primarily be from neutron | irradiation. Not to say that any of it's easy, just not for | the reasons you suppose. :) | ok_dad wrote: | Ah, cool! I wasn't sure how it would work, but it seems | the hard part is the stuff leading to and including the | "blanket? Thanks for clarification. | Twirrim wrote: | I was talking about this with the my kids (10, 7) the other | day. Blew their minds a little that pretty much every power | source comes back to the same central thing: moving magnets. | | Then I pointed out that our electric car does it in both | directions too. | gridspy wrote: | Well, it's just another of our favorite converters - | kinetic <-> electric energy. | | electric <-> kinetic - spinning magnets | | kinetic <-> pressure - turbine / pump | | pressure <- heat - boiler | | heat <- chemical potential - furnace | tremon wrote: | It's not my area, but I suspect that the heat extraction rate | for a fusion reactor must be several orders higher than | current fission reactors if we are to run them continuously. | Fission reactions can be actively controlled by using | reaction moderating material (control rods), which means we | can tune the reactor activity to match the amount of heat | extraction available. | | Fusion plasma must be sustained at a few million Kelvin or it | shuts down again, and I'm not sure how finely we can control | the operating temperature without either overheating the | reactor or shutting down the plasma. I think it will take a | lot more than dumb engineering to accomplish this. | johnbcoughlin wrote: | The heat flux management from the plasma is certainly not | dumb engineering, true. However, the actual heat transfer | technology is, I think it's fair to say, "dumb" compared to | all of the plasma physics that has to enable the reactor in | the first place. It's more or less just running cold water | through the lithium blanket, which they hope to keep under | around 1000 Celsius or so. | [deleted] | johndhi wrote: | What % chance do we feel that we will have fusion power within | the next 50 years? | sien wrote: | On Metaculus : | | Most likely - fusion ignition in the 2030s. Fusion supplying | 10% of global electricity in the 2050s. | | https://www.metaculus.com/questions/?order_by=-rank&main-fee... | zardo wrote: | Those two predictions don't seem to fit together. | weberer wrote: | Construction of the DEMO plant is currently set to begin in | 2040. It is made to follow ITER, so any delay in ITER will | propagate to DEMO. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant#Time... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER | anigbrowl wrote: | 73% ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-07 23:00 UTC)