Could Fusion Energy Provide a Safer Alternative to Nuclear Power? (thebulletin.org) 239
"One way to help eliminate carbon emissions and thereby fight global warming may be to exploit fusion, the energy source of the sun and stars..." argues a new article in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (shared by Slashdot reader DanDrollette).
Though fusion energy would involve controllng a "plasma" gas of positively charged nuclei and negatively charged electrons heated to 150 million degrees Celsius, progress is being made — and the upside could be tremendous: One major advantage of using fusion as an energy source is that its underlying physics precludes either a fuel meltdown — such as what happened at Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daichi — or a runaway reaction, such as at Chernobyl. Furthermore, the amount of radioactive material that could be released in an accident in a fusion power plant system is much less than in a fission reactor. Consequently, a fusion system has much less capability to damage itself, and any damage would have much less dangerous consequences. As a result, current concepts for fusion systems may not necessitate an evacuation plan beyond the site boundary. Another advantage of fusion is that neither the fuel nor its products create the very long-lived radioactive waste that fission does, which means that fusion does not require long-term, geological storage...
When and how can fusion contribute to mitigating climate change? Private companies are in a hurry to develop fusion, and many say that they will be able to put commercial fusion power on the US electric grid in the early 2030s. The total private financing in this sector is impressive, at about $2 billion... After looking over the state of publicly and privately funded fusion research, the National Academies recommended that the United States embark upon a program to develop multiple preliminary designs for a fusion pilot plant by 2028, with the goal of putting a modest amount of net electricity on the U.S. electrical grid from a pilot plant starting sometime in the years between 2035 and 2040, use the pilot plant to study and develop technologies for fusion, and have a first-of-a-kind commercial fusion power plant operational by 2050. The United Kingdom has recently announced a plan to build a prototype fusion power plant by 2040. China has a plan to begin operation of a fusion engineering test reactor in the 2030s, while the European Union foresees operation of a demonstration fusion power plant in the 2050s...
We must look beyond the 2035 timeframe to see how fusion can make a major contribution, and how it can complement renewables... [P]roviding low-carbon electricity in the world market, including later in the century, is of great importance for holding climate change at bay.
Though fusion energy would involve controllng a "plasma" gas of positively charged nuclei and negatively charged electrons heated to 150 million degrees Celsius, progress is being made — and the upside could be tremendous: One major advantage of using fusion as an energy source is that its underlying physics precludes either a fuel meltdown — such as what happened at Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daichi — or a runaway reaction, such as at Chernobyl. Furthermore, the amount of radioactive material that could be released in an accident in a fusion power plant system is much less than in a fission reactor. Consequently, a fusion system has much less capability to damage itself, and any damage would have much less dangerous consequences. As a result, current concepts for fusion systems may not necessitate an evacuation plan beyond the site boundary. Another advantage of fusion is that neither the fuel nor its products create the very long-lived radioactive waste that fission does, which means that fusion does not require long-term, geological storage...
When and how can fusion contribute to mitigating climate change? Private companies are in a hurry to develop fusion, and many say that they will be able to put commercial fusion power on the US electric grid in the early 2030s. The total private financing in this sector is impressive, at about $2 billion... After looking over the state of publicly and privately funded fusion research, the National Academies recommended that the United States embark upon a program to develop multiple preliminary designs for a fusion pilot plant by 2028, with the goal of putting a modest amount of net electricity on the U.S. electrical grid from a pilot plant starting sometime in the years between 2035 and 2040, use the pilot plant to study and develop technologies for fusion, and have a first-of-a-kind commercial fusion power plant operational by 2050. The United Kingdom has recently announced a plan to build a prototype fusion power plant by 2040. China has a plan to begin operation of a fusion engineering test reactor in the 2030s, while the European Union foresees operation of a demonstration fusion power plant in the 2050s...
We must look beyond the 2035 timeframe to see how fusion can make a major contribution, and how it can complement renewables... [P]roviding low-carbon electricity in the world market, including later in the century, is of great importance for holding climate change at bay.
Yes and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Yes and? (Score:3)
Re: Yes and? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you wanted to solve fusion, you would need a Manhattan project sized commitment. The costs and the dedication are need to be extreme over a long time. The biggest obstacle is that there is no prototype net positive fusion reactor. So you could dedicate all that money and effort and time to get the bad answer to the question: is economical fusion possible? Until there is a necessity for it like there was with fission (war, beating the other guy), we likely will not find out.
This all assumes that it is possible to design and implement fusion power generation that can run continuously and has low parasitic power theft.
Comparing it to the Manhattan project has some differences. The biggest one is containment and parasite power. Creating containment can be done. Takes a lot of power. The only containment for fission boomies is delaying the final reaction for a few milliseconds as needed to allow full destructive power.
The fission nucs were designed to go boom. The goal of the fusion capsule is to survive to have more fusion take place.
And you don't really want to know the actual output versus input. Here's my favorite physicist Sabine Hossenfelder on the purposeful confusion in fusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Convenient omission of the parasitic power theft, which reduces the plasma efficiency to negligible numbers tells us something about what people on the project know, but don't want to lose funding. The breathless bloviating about the great breakthrough that puts fusion within our grasp is only a little better than what was accomplished many years ago. Yet some of this grift has been sold as commercial fusion power generation in 5 years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
I'm not holding my breath fo shizzle.
Re: Yes and? (Score:4, Interesting)
These kinds of arguments amount to, "Fusion is really hard."
In that sense, the arguments are similar to arguments against the airplane 150 years ago: flight is really hard. And yet, we know it is possible, it's just a matter of containment.
Re: Yes and? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, commercial and practical fusion is really hard. So is practical commercial flight.
Re: (Score:2)
So is practical commercial flight.
The difference is commercial flight was achievable within the first 50 years of the first flight. The first fusion reactions were as early as the 1930s. There still is no commercial fusion reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that relevant? Are you saying every technology takes the exact same amount of time to develop to commercialism?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that relevant? Are you saying every technology takes the exact same amount of time to develop to commercialism?
Of course not. But it also doesn't mean that solving one difficult problem means another is solvable in a reasonable timeframe.
Commercial fusion has been ~20 years away for over 60 years and doesn't appear to be getting any closer.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial fusion has been ~20 years away for over 60 years and doesn't appear to be getting any closer.
It's definitely getting closer. The technology has improved dramatically over the last 60 years. Your point seems to be an argument from ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
It's definitely getting closer. The technology has improved dramatically over the last 60 years. Your point seems to be an argument from ignorance.
It may be getting closer, but it's getting further away at the same time. There are two different points we're talking about. a) the point at which we actually achieve (total) break even fusion b) the point at which, looking from now, we guess that we will achieve it.
Obviously, as we work on the problem and solve technical difficulties, a) gets closer. Unfortunately we don't know if we are 50 years along a 1000 year journey or 50 years along a 70 year journey.
Unfortunately, our experience so far is that
Re: Yes and? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fusion should be funded, quite a bit more.
Re: (Score:3)
Commercial fusion has been ~20 years away for over 60 years and doesn't appear to be getting any closer.
It's definitely getting closer. The technology has improved dramatically over the last 60 years. Your point seems to be an argument from ignorance.
I like you and don't want to be gruff - but the record setting holder at the National Ignition Facility has a Qtotal of 0.1. That sort of efficiency is very telling, and frankly very disturbing.
You are demonstrating what the EU pointed out in 1989 was the misleading metric of Qplasma out to Qplasma in, which is currently a Q of .7. But that pales in comparison to the parasitic loading.
Now please please please, go learn some things about fusion power, and why you are being mislead, because yes, there is
Re: (Score:3)
It may be getting closer, but it's getting further away at the same time.
Yeah, next time you should think longer before posting this.
Okay - here we go. You speak with great authority, so you are challenged just like I would challenge anyone who makes extraordinary claims in a work situation.
Prove it. Show your work. Defend your thesis. Use the math - some of us will get it, and I'm always willing to be educated.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that relevant? Are you saying every technology takes the exact same amount of time to develop to commercialism?
Probably the same way that your claiming people saying something is hard means that they are wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, commercial and practical fusion is really hard. So is practical commercial flight.
I understand that cold fusion is pretty hard too! That doesn't make it plausible, just hard.
Remember, it isn't the difficulty that makes something practical - and let's face it. We simply can generate some electricity from fusion.
But it does not follow that we will inevitably make the process efficient enough to produce commercial power. Right now, the record setter has a Qtotal 0f .01 .
And that, makes even a Q of 1 look daunting, and by no means achievable.
Because certain processes have efficienc
Re: (Score:2)
There is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur.
Re: (Score:3)
There is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur.
But some people believe it is real. They will say we just haven't discovered the real physics yet.
The reason I bring this up is some efficiency issues. We surely can generate electricity via fusion.
But as in all things, there can be limitations of efficiency. Internal combustion engines don't use all of the energy in the fuel. and there are thermal limits to what they can extract. There have been proposals for ceramic engines that don't have any cooling that will be more efficient, but problems trying
Re: (Score:3)
“The reason I bring this up is some efficiency issues. We surely can generate electricity via fusion.”
Of course we can. Just park a solar panel in your garden.. Ok, the fusion happen millions of miles away, but still..
If you look at it another way, ALL electricity and, indeed, energy, on eartih indirectly fusion generated and involves a very long and inefficient storage process.
Re: (Score:2)
> In that sense, the arguments are similar to arguments against the airplane 150 years ago: flight is really hard
150 years ago there were birds and insects all around that demonstrated flight was possible. If I was walking around and everywhere I looked there were fusion powered bugs and fusion powered animals on earth, I might think to myself - hey that's possible, I just need to reverse engineer what nature had already perfected.
Re: (Score:2)
There were many smart people who didn't think that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These kinds of arguments amount to, "Fusion is really hard."
We know how to make fusion produce a net output of energy but the problem is making a reactor small enough that someone would attempt to build one.
And yet, we know it is possible, it's just a matter of containment.
Containment of fusion gets more difficult the smaller the reactor. At a certain point the forces exceed that of known matter. I've seen the math on fusion before in a talk about a US Navy fusion power project. Using those numbers I did a calculation on the size of a breakeven reactor, it would be so large that the containment vessel diameter would exceed the w
Re: (Score:2)
What people are trying to do is make the power consumption smaller than that found by the US Navy experimentation AND reduce the forces required for containment within something we could produce at a cost we'd be willing to spend.
Exactly. Do you have any reason to believe this is not possible?
Re: Yes and? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Do you have any reason to believe this is not possible?
I have many reasons. I see over 400 reasons why we won't see fusion provide a safer alternative to fission. Every civil fission reactor in operation today is a reason why we won't see fusion power replace it. Fusion is hard, fission is easy. We have safe and profitable fission power already, and once reality beats some sense into the anti-nuclear morons we will see another 400 fission reactors built, and then another 400, then another 400.
Even if we proved net positive energy fusion reactors viable tomorrow it would take decades to see fusion reactors provide any significant power to the grid. The first nuclear powered submarine was built in the 1950s. In the 1960s we started to see prototype civil nuclear fission power plants. By the 1970s we saw first generation nuclear power plants get built in large numbers. By the 1980s politics and economics brought civil nuclear power to a near stop. People expect fusion to compete with fission? It was the association with nuclear that killed fission power and people think these morons will know the difference between fission and fusion? If that hurdle of anything "nukular" is cleared then fission will have a path to new construction, and that will mean hundreds of new fission power plants. Why bother with fusion when it's going to get the same anti-"nukular" opposition on top of so many problems of finances and engineering?
I recall seeing the math on fusion power from one of the most well known fusion physicists and from that it was quite clear we are far from seeing fusion replace fission.
Re: (Score:2)
"One is always a long way from solving a problem until one actually has the answer.” — Stephen Hawking
Re: (Score:2)
These kinds of arguments amount to, "Fusion is really hard."
In that sense, the arguments are similar to arguments against the airplane 150 years ago: flight is really hard. And yet, we know it is possible, it's just a matter of containment.
More than containment. The thing has to put out more power than is used to operate it. Can we produce D-T fusion and create power from it? Probably. That science is not unsound.
But you're darned right it's hard. And noting that something is hard doesn't men that the person noting it is wrong.
If we look at what has been energizing the faithful, it is that the National ignition facility in 2021 got out of their reactor, 70 percent of the energy they put in, or 0.7Q. A new record.
As a point of reference,
Re: (Score:2)
Could you easily explain what parasitic power theft is? Google's just telling me about why somebody's Ford Fusion's battery is draining. Is it the same idea? Maybe explain it to me like I'm 7 years old.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Yes and? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Parasitic" losses are roughly divided into plasma containment and all other auxiliary systems. Since we don't have a functional fusion reactor yet, there are no solid numbers on what this external power requirement will be.
I've seen estimates that for ITER it will be something like 200-300MW of power input to keep it going. Obviously part of the goal is that this power will come from the fusion plant itself once it's operating, but to get there you'll need an auxiliary power source. 300MW isn't as much as it sounds; that's a single gas turbine generator, or a small fission reactor.
So it's less "convenient omission" and more like "not really that big a problem in the grand scheme of things."
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having worked in the field, I'm convinced several technologies (tokamak, stellerator) will demonstrate Q>1 this decade. It's a long leap from going from this to a working reliable low maintenance reactor, and I'm not convinced technology like a tokamak is ready for a "build and leave it alone" type tech required for commercial operation. We'll get there someday for sure, but it might take more time than these startups are suggesting -- it's a very hard problem. TAE, Helion, and Zap Energy all have techno
Re: (Score:3)
The big problem is that the successes we're seeing reported use fuels that generate most of their "energy output" as neutrons. While you might be generating more energy than you put in, most of that energy just goes into making stuff radioactive. Until you can get more *electricity* out than you put in, what you're doing is converting useful energy into useless energy, plus getting a little more useless energy.
So it's not just taking the *little bit* of excess energy you get and scaling up, there are enti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What we need to a Manhattan sized commitment to transitioning our grids to renewables.
Fusion is just too far away, no matter how much money gets thrown at it. By the time it works, commercial scale designs are proven and ready to start rolling out to the entire world it will be too late.
Re: (Score:3)
What we need to a Manhattan sized commitment to transitioning our grids to renewables.
No, we don't. Dr. David MacKay showed us with calculations based on real world experience that renewable energy sources cannot supply the energy we need. I've seen people object to this assessment since Dr. MacKay has been dead for a few years and so has not been around to defend his calculations. Dr. MacKay gave very optimistic estimates on the advancements of renewable energy while assuming nothing changed with nuclear fission. On top of that Dr. MacKay gave all the calculations he did so it is trivia
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The timeline for working, reliable, industrialized fusion is entirely unclear. The projects have not stalled in any way, they are making good progress. But this is a really long-term thing, which happens when you need to depend on specific progress in other areas. Hence the _minimum_ time to a commercial fusion reactor is probably about 50 years, the realistic timeline may well be 100 years or more. That does not make this research worthless. Quite the contrary. But it also does not make it a soluti
Re:Yes and? (Score:5, Interesting)
I strongly disagreed. Previously, fusion power proposals broke down into two main groups:
Magnetic confinement fusion (tokamaks, etc): Essentially everyone agrees that they work, but scales have to be huge, making timelines long and economics questionable
Everything else: Possibly smaller, cheaper devices, but big questions about getting them to work in a practical system (and in some cases, whether they're even possible within the laws of physics)
But in the former case (magnetic confinement), there has been an entire game changer that's emerged on the scene in recent years: the bulk commercial availability of HTS tapes.
* Over double the field strength, allowing for reactors a tiny fraction the size for the same Q / output (power density scales proportional to the field strength to the fourth power).
* Potential designs for "folding open" the core for far faster / easier maintenance and thus higher capacity factors
* Vastly faster design iteration, due to the above reasons
* No need for liquid helium-level cooling - only liquid hydrogen, liquid neon, or pressurized gaseous helium (much cheaper, easier, and more efficient)
And a ton of other benefits. It's a complete game changer for magnetic confinement fusion (not present in projects like ITER), and there are now projects underway to exploit it (like ARC [wikipedia.org]). HTS tapes let them shrink ITER's diameter from 19,4m to 3,3m for the same power output. No new physics - essentially the same thing, just a different magnet winding material.
HTS tapes have completely changed my view about the timeline for the commercial viability of fusion power.
Re: (Score:2)
** - strongly disagree
Re:Yes and? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly disagreed.
That is because you do not understand how these things work. No single new technology or small number of new technologies will change the timelines we are are facing here.
Re: (Score:3)
In practice HTS still requires liquid helium to get to the higher magnetic fields that drive the advantage. While some of these might be superconducting ~77K the critical current and field is quite low. Otherwise you're correct, power roughly scales with B^2 so size overall shrinks tremendously. There are additional challenges with this route, for example mechanical stress also goes up with B^2, and overall heat concentration as well (tough to design divertors and neutron capture blankets). These appear to
No: Betteridge Wins on a Technicality (Score:2)
So Betteridge's law is proven right again even if it is on a technicality since fusion definitely is safer than fission mainly because the fuel in the reactor can sustain the reaction for seconds rather than the years of fission reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
We're making progress, 60 years ago we said nuclear fusion in 30 years away, now we're saying nuclear fusion is 20 years away!
Re: (Score:2)
So in another 60 years it will only be 10 years away. Let the celebration begin!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, other than that big one over there.
If we'd put the money we've wasted trying to get fusion working into renewables, energy storage, and HVDC lines, we'd be done worrying about our power needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, other than that big one over there.
If we'd put the money we've wasted trying to get fusion working into renewables, energy storage, and HVDC lines, we'd be done worrying about our power needs.
Fusion reactor research has been valuable in understanding generally how it works. The problem is making fusion viable as the most stable form of fusion we know is the sun. As practical matter, we humans cannot gather hydrogen of the mass of the sun and wait several million years for the gravity to start a fusion reaction.
Yes, also (Score:3, Informative)
The tooth fairy is a great alternative to the care package my dentist provides.
Fusion someday in the meantime.. (Score:2)
Solar works well, lets try and get more efficency out of solar panels. Fission plants work well too and there are new technologies that make them safer than prior generations of plants built before most of us were born. [technologyreview.com]
Solar power IS fusion power. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The world's nuclear arsenals are very much fission, not fusion.
Re: Fusion someday in the meantime.. (Score:2)
Actually they are largely both. Hence âoethermonuclearâ.
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Fusion is being sold as nearly unlimited energy, clean and leaving no radioactive waste. All three are incorrect.
Unless it uses some sort of magick neutrons, which do degrade materials. Which do become intensely radioactive, and do need replaced with new materials. Rinse and repeat.
And then there is the massive parasitic energy costs. Which were not counted in the breathless reportage of recent months.
All of the breathless reporting and news is designed to raise money.
In reality, it is a sort of grift, allowing people to believe in faith based physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion is being sold as nearly unlimited energy, clean and leaving no radioactive waste. All three are incorrect.
I don't think this is accurate. Nobody is claiming there is no radioactive waste.
Fusion does effectively supply unlimited energy and it is clean energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion is being sold as nearly unlimited energy, clean and leaving no radioactive waste. All three are incorrect.
I don't think this is accurate. Nobody is claiming there is no radioactive waste. Fusion does effectively supply unlimited energy and it is clean energy.
They say it is, but define clean. I think making the containment structures intensely radioactive kinda stretches the definition. There has been talk of encasing the fusion capsule with a meter thick molten lithium sphere, but that has the potential to be really dirty. Lithium fires are nasty things.
Th real problem with the term "clean" is that in the public mind, clean equates to no radioactive waste. Even then, googling "Fusion power no radioactive waste shows a lot of waffling and outright claims that
Re: (Score:2)
My point through all of this is to ask the question of why is there a necessity for the half truths and really big stretch to not call things lies, and simple "allowing" people to believe stuff that really isn't true?
The same thing happens in climate research, in AI research, in cancer research.
Re: (Score:2)
They say it is, but define clean. I think making the containment structures intensely radioactive kinda stretches the definition.
Clean in the context of energy production means no air pollution.. CO2, SO2, NO..etc.
For comparison existing fission reactors are classified as clean even though volume of radioactive waste products are more difficult more voluminous and live 10000 times longer.
Th real problem with the term "clean" is that in the public mind, clean equates to no radioactive waste.
I have not seen evidence to this effect. Fission reactors generate waste yet are routinely classified as clean while simultaneously the public is acutely aware of radioactive waste production associated with fission reactors.
Another canard is that Fusion power cannot be used to produce weapons. https://www.iaea.org/topics/en [iaea.org]... sigh.. place some uranium in the capsule, and see what that constant neutron bombardment does.
This link is inartfully
Re: (Score:2)
"intensely radioactive" due to short half-lives is a good thing, because the radioisotopes burn out quickly. When it comes to fusion reactors, you control what the reactor is made out of, and thus what is getting neutron bombarded, and thus what the byproducts will be and how short their half-lives will be. Which is why you generally use low-Z materials (or careful selection with moderate-Z materials). As well as trying to have the vast majority of neutrons absorbed by a lithium-bearing material to breed
Technically Right, Effectively Wrong (Score:2)
Fusion is being sold as nearly unlimited energy, clean and leaving no radioactive waste. All three are incorrect.
Technically you are correct: fusion power is not unlimited and it does produce radioactive waste. However, effectively you are wrong. At current rates of energy usage the amount of fusion energy theoretically available is insanely larger than anything humanity has ever had before. Indeed, at this level of pedantry, renewable energy is neither renewable nor infinite because of the finite resources and limited lifespan of the sun. So, if you do not worry about so-called "renewable" energy running out then yo
It's only sold like that to uneducated people. (Score:2)
Ask any scientist about fusion power, they'll be quick to point out the issues to be resolved and even the things they don't know but expect to learn along the way. You know, gasoline was largely a waste product of early petroleum distillation until some guy named Otto found a use for it. We can make Helium from Hydrogen - that's alchemy! We really ought to keep looking at this.
Re: (Score:2)
Which do become intensely radioactive, and do need replaced with new materials. Rinse and repeat.
Neutrons aren't actually magic and can activate materials only in certain ways. We can study them and use materials that don't get activated into nasty isotopes (with high decay energy and long half-lives).
In fact, we already did just that for fission power plants!
Re: (Score:2)
The parasitic losses largely disappear with more advanced designs. Once ignition is achieved you can theoretically turn off RF and neutral beam heating and your return factor Q becomes infinity. For now no one really wants to push this area because (from my limited understanding) they are still trying to figure out the physics, and while boostrapped or ignition designs might seem great they inevitably mean less tunability and control. Once the physics is more understood we might very well have high bootstra
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly uninformed. There are boron-based aneutronic reactions, but thanks for playing.
Jeebuz man - tell us about how close that is to producing commercial power? You're so busy trying to prove me wrong that you use Boron fusion for your blunt instrument?
We're not even close to breaking even with the simplest D-T fusion, and you want something like Boron as your touchstone?
Because aneutronic fusion is quite hard when trying to contain it for power production. Would it be nice? Hell yeah. But it ain't what we are doing, because we're performing fusion that is much easier, and that does p
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly uninformed. There are boron-based aneutronic reactions, but thanks for playing
Both have valid points, though the latter is closer in the practical sense:
From Wikipedia: "The State of New Jersey has defined an aneutronic reaction as one in which neutrons carry no more than 1% of the total released energy,[3] although many papers on aneutronic fusion[4] include reactions that do not meet this criterion."
Even when the primary reaction doesn't emit any neutrons at all, and the materials used are utterl
I note... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, reactor lining is a current research topic. Of course, replacing that every few years is not viable. But this is exactly the reason why commercial fusion will not materialize anytime soon: There is a lot of related research that is needed, and that takes time. On the other hand, the research is being done, progress is being made, so eventually we will quite likely get there. But expect something like 50...200 years for that, assuming global warming does not make continuing this research impossible
Re: (Score:2)
With ARC, because they plan to use flexible HTS windings, they're designing it so that it's easy to swap out the entire vacuum vessel by folding the magnets open to create a large access port, rather than having to dismantle the entire reactor.
Is perfect superfood an alternative to food? (Score:2)
I feel like I just opened a tabloid site, not Slahsdot. Do better.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like I just opened a tabloid site
But one without a page three girl.
Safe *fission* power is already available (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Safe *fission* power is already available (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem your having is you expect people to be rational, when in reality they are rationalizing. NUKULAR is scary, we'll warp facts to fit.
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting to ask: if we power big carriers with nuclear reactors, why don't we also power the other big ships that the carrier needs to operate with? The answer is we tried that, nuclear cruisers worked great but they cost too much. Some of the vessels were decommissioned having run barely half their planned lifetime and were replaced with gas turbine cruisers that were just as good but cost 30% less to run.
That's the problem with the existing generation of civilian nuclear power plants; they cost
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting to ask: if we power big carriers with nuclear reactors, why don't we also power the other big ships that the carrier needs to operate with? The answer is we tried that, nuclear cruisers worked great but they cost too much. Some of the vessels were decommissioned having run barely half their planned lifetime and were replaced with gas turbine cruisers that were just as good but cost 30% less to run.
Right, but the cost of petroleum fuel is not constant and neither is the cost of operating a nuclear power plant.
For nuclear to work, we need more financially efficient designs.
To get more financially efficient designs we need to build full scale operational prototypes. If someone suggests we need to build a full scale fusion reactor to test the financial viability then people all nod in agreement, if there is a suggestion to build solar power plants to develop the technology then that will also get nods in agreement, but if there is a suggestion to build nuclear fissi
Re: (Score:2)
If you could have a nuke up and running in under three years from inking the deal, that'd be a game changer.
We used to be able to do that but today all those people that knew how to do that are dead or senile. We can do that again but we need to build that experience by building nuclear fission power plants, building them in sufficient quantity, and not stopping so we don't lose that experience again.
We will see more nuclear fission power plants get built because we are running out of options, and excuses.
facepalm (Score:5, Funny)
Could Fusion Energy Provide a Safer Alternative to Nuclear Power?
Could Water Provide a Safer Alternative to Dihydrogen Monoxide [dhmo.org]?
I already had concerns for the quality of basic education in the USA but this really confirmed my worst fears.
Re: facepalm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Dihydrogen monoxide exposure is the leading cause of accidental deaths among children. Why it hasn't been completely banned already is a mystery.
I suspect the Illuminati have something to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I already had concerns for the quality of basic education in the USA but this really confirmed my worst fears.
Yeah, this is on Slashdot, though.
TFA is actually a fairly decent 'state of affairs' piece (albeit far from 'news'). TFS and TFH just make it seem like ass.
Real soon now (Score:2)
Fusion could create enough energy to meet our power needs indefinitely. Making it work is the problem: it's been just around the corner as long as I can remember.
...laura
Sure! In 20 years... (Score:2)
Dark humor aside, right now we can see fusion happening in nature. It's the source of energy for (almost) all of Earth's life. Without it, we simply wouldn't be here. That said, like getting to space, fusion is hard. There's some doubt that anything less than the mass of a star can support much of a continuous reaction. Even the massive and sophisticated ITER project won't be able to produce much more energy that goes in to it. Then there is also the small problem of turning
20 years away... (Score:2)
...like it has been for the last 50 years...
It does look like they're actually making some forward progress at least...
If we keep waiting for future tech, we're screwed (Score:2)
Solar panels work. Wind turbines work. Use what already works.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they aren't reliable. They are intermittent sources, and modern humans like power being available when they flick on a switch. Hence you need some sort of backup (capable of 100% of load generation, if needed) to support your use of solar and wind. And thus - the solar and wind is a cost adder to the entire power generation system. Go nuclear and be done with it.
Interesting to also note that in the entire world, just five countries [electricitymap.org] countries are actually always green: Costa Rica (hydro), Iceland
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear does not work now. It's an environmental disaster in other ways than CO2, it's perpetually dependent on government subsidies, it can't follow variable load, and it takes too long to scale (you can't build enough reactors in time). Use what works now. Nuclear's place is in deep space exploration. On this planet it's usually a thinly veiled excuse for nuclear armament.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear does not work now. It's an environmental disaster in other ways than CO2,
Solar power will become an environmental disaster if we try to scale up production of solar power to a level required to replace all the nuclear power plants in current operation. Where do people think the silicon comes from in those solar panels? That silicon comes from mining, and mining some very high grade silicon that can only come from specific deposits of rock. This mining has an impact on the environment. That impact will increase as production increases. It's not like nuclear fission power has
Alternative? A Very Loud YES (Score:2)
Alternative meaning of safer has been put on the board, for discussion, gents
We already have these benefits (Score:5, Interesting)
One major advantage of using fusion as an energy source is that its underlying physics precludes either a fuel meltdown â" such as what happened at Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daichi â" or a runaway reaction, such as at Chernobyl.
Modern nuclear reactors make both scenarios basically impossible.
Over the years, safety and waste management for nuclear power has become very, very good - to the point where there are less deaths from nuclear power than from solar and wind. And that is just for humans...
The world is building more and more nuclear reactors now in a mad scramble since they have realized an obvious truth - solar and wind power are extremely unreliable.
Same bulletin.org published this fusion critique? (Score:2)
https://thebulletin.org/2017/0... [thebulletin.org]
Earlier, the same people published this comprehensive and thought provoking article on the practical problems which must still be surmounted before fusion reactors produce usable electricity.
In 20 Years(perpetually) (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be the case for safe fission plants too. Lots of pundits say there is safe designs, but yet the bad designs persist all around us. The more there are, the worse the risks become.
Re:In 20 Years(perpetually) (Score:4, Informative)
The mess from Fukushima would not have happened if they didn't have anti-nuclear morons in charge. They planned to build new reactors to replace those that melted down a long time ago but that was delayed because they considered nuclear power unsafe. So they kept running old reactors that were known to melt down if power was lost. How did that help?
We can't improve the safety of nuclear fission unless or until we build more of them. We can't replace nuclear fission with renewable energy because of how much land, materials, and labor they require.
We are running out of excuses to not build more nuclear power plants. We will see more nuclear power plants built, and from that we will see nuclear power's already incredible safety record get even better.
Why wait for viable fusion power (Score:2)
When you can wait even longer for zero-point energy? I assure you that ZP is even cleaner than fusion and more powerful and more portable than fusion power.
1974 Called And They Want Their Article Back (Score:2)
News for Nerds. This article would have been news for nerds, decades ago. That means it isn't news. This is news for the scientifically disabled.
Fusion is the climate crisis Hail Mary shot (Score:2)
https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]
No, fusion will not be an alternative to fission. (Score:3)
We've seen the math on fusion power and it will not be an alternative to nuclear fission. Renewable energy is also not a viable option, we will need nuclear fission.
Here's my sources on how renewable energy will fail us:
http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Do you know what physicians call "alternative medicine" that works? They call it "medicine". Calling something "alternative energy" is admission that it does not work. If alternative energy works then we'd just call it energy. If we look back into history of Earth Day we find people demanding alternative energy over and over again. Back then these people were demanding use of nuclear fission and natural gas because back then they were not economically viable. When nuclear power proved to be economically viable years later they had to make nuclear power the villain of the story. Once natural gas started to replace gasoline and diesel then that too became the villain and funding for converting municipal buses dried up.
What we've seen for decades is people demanding perfect solutions which means when better solutions show up they get torn to pieces for not being perfect. Nuclear fission was a perfect solution so long as it was a theory on paper, but when it became real then the problems started to show and nobody wanted it any more. Nuclear fission is not perfect but it is the best option we have.
Alternative energy will not serve us because by definition alternative energy cannot serve us. If solar power ever did prove economically viable then it is no longer alternative energy. We need to look to the best of what we have outside of "alternatives", and that is nuclear fission. We have the numbers on renewable energy and we know they will forever remain alternatives. We need nuclear fission. We will get nuclear fission because at some point the arguments against nuclear fission fall apart. We can't keep waiting for something better to come along because that is waiting for a train that may never come to the station. Until something better comes along we will need to build nuclear fission power plants. The alternative to nuclear fission is scarcity, poverty, and starvation.
If someone wants to prove to the powers that be that we don't need nuclear fission then they can start by providing sources in a reply to this post. I expect nobody will provide links to sources because that has been the result to many prior requests I posted to Slashdot. Nobody can provide data because the data does not exist.
Re: Nuclear Power? (Score:2)
It is understood they meant fission, also we want to avoid associating with the N-word because so much negativity, a lot of which is not even applicable to neither fusion nor fission, has been falsely associate with it. Due to the inapplicability of what the N-word represents in the public eye, it is wrong to call fusion nuclear power. The meanings conveyed by the word nuclear power is incorrect. Itâ(TM)s like derogatory, defamation at this point. Worse than calling someone a fatty. I mean, they might
Re: (Score:2)
Spaghetti Bolognese both exists AND does provide a safer alternative to nuclear power.
It's just that it's wildly immoral to feed people Spaghetti Bolognese and force them to turn a crank on a generator.
Re: (Score:3)
If the fucktons of money and thought being spent on fusion were directed to solar, wind, and other renewables, as well as fission, the world as a whole would be better positioned to hold the line on climate change.
We already dumped fucktons of money into solar power and we proved quite definitively that solar power is not viable for power on the electrical grid. Off the grid the calculations on solar power is different and can be viable so I expect solar power isn't going away. Renewable power is dependent on favorable climate and geography which not every nation has. Because renewable energy is further reliant on favorable weather it is inherently unreliable. Germany saw renewable energy output drop considerably