4 ms·

Fusion's 20 years away. Just like it's always been since ZETA in the late 50s.

jfoutz 10y ago
I always thought that was a funding thing. It seems like there are a few small improvements every few years, because, I think people who work on that work pretty hard. It's that they want to build a multi billion dollar thing "to answer questions". Since there's no immediate payoff, it follows the superconducting supercollider path. Also, it's nuclear power, so that's another nail in the coffin.
- jlebrech 10y ago
  we don't need fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...
  - iSnow 10y ago
    In contrast to fusion (which is 20 years away and always has been), working Thorium reactors and safe disposal of nuclear wast is 50 years away. Since about 50 years.
  - baldfat 10y ago
    I don't see how a better Nuclear plant even touches fusion. Fusion is sort of like the perpetual motion machine, nearly free energy.
    - jlebrech 10y ago
      because Thorium is pretty much free too, as it's everywhere. and meltdowns just stop the reaction and you can recommission the system easily, or just stop the meltdown before it happens.
- iSnow 10y ago
  I don't really think it's funding. There has - over the last 50 years - been considerable funding from all industrialized countries. The physics of containing a large volume of plasma and injecting cryogenic fuel and turning the resulting energy into something usable (eg. steam) all next to each other is simply not trivial. Let's see how Wendelstein 7x or the announced micro-fusion devices turn out in operation - maybe they are finally the breakthrough. I am not holding my breath for ITER, though.
  - drjesusphd 10y ago
    Funding: http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg Wendelstein 7X is impressive, but it doesn't have the facilities for actual fusion. The best they can do is "theoretical breakeven", which has already been achieved with tokamaks (JT-60 in Japan). As for "micro-fusion" devices: if you're thinking of Lockheed, as far as I can tell they're full of shit. It's an approach that was tried 50 years ago and failed.
    - andrewflnr 10y ago
      You seem to imply that failure 50 years ago implies failure 10 years from now, which, with all the advances in supporting technologies, is nonsensical. Do you have any solid evidence that Lockheed is full of shit?
      - drjesusphd 10y ago
        No I don't, which is why it was a qualified statement. They've released very little information about their design, and it's up to them to convince the taxpaying public it's anything more than a mirror machine. How do they keep the plasma from squirting out of the sides? That'd be the real innovation, but they're silent on this point. Almost as if they're not worried about it. Oh, and now it's 10 years from now? I thought they said it'd be ready in five? Wait, three, because they said that two years ago.
        andrewflnr 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- drjesusphd 10y ago
  It's important to keep in mind that power plants are expensive, fullstop. Even a new coal plant costs several billion dollars, and that's century-old technology. The fact that the first generation of a revolutionary new power plant costs ~10X more than that should not surprise anyone.
r00fus 10y ago
It'll always be 20 years away until the petroleum economy gets too expensive.
- jp555 10y ago
  Or while PV continues to drop precipitously in cost.
drjesusphd 10y ago
So original.

I always thought that was a funding thing. It seems like there are a few small improvements every few years, because, I think people who work on that work pretty hard. It's that they want to build a multi billion dollar thing "to answer questions". Since there's no immediate payoff, it follows the superconducting supercollider path. Also, it's nuclear power, so that's another nail in the coffin.

jlebrech 10y ago
we don't need fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...
- iSnow 10y ago
  In contrast to fusion (which is 20 years away and always has been), working Thorium reactors and safe disposal of nuclear wast is 50 years away. Since about 50 years.
- baldfat 10y ago
  I don't see how a better Nuclear plant even touches fusion. Fusion is sort of like the perpetual motion machine, nearly free energy.
  - jlebrech 10y ago
    because Thorium is pretty much free too, as it's everywhere. and meltdowns just stop the reaction and you can recommission the system easily, or just stop the meltdown before it happens.
iSnow 10y ago
I don't really think it's funding. There has - over the last 50 years - been considerable funding from all industrialized countries. The physics of containing a large volume of plasma and injecting cryogenic fuel and turning the resulting energy into something usable (eg. steam) all next to each other is simply not trivial. Let's see how Wendelstein 7x or the announced micro-fusion devices turn out in operation - maybe they are finally the breakthrough. I am not holding my breath for ITER, though.
- drjesusphd 10y ago
  Funding: http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg Wendelstein 7X is impressive, but it doesn't have the facilities for actual fusion. The best they can do is "theoretical breakeven", which has already been achieved with tokamaks (JT-60 in Japan). As for "micro-fusion" devices: if you're thinking of Lockheed, as far as I can tell they're full of shit. It's an approach that was tried 50 years ago and failed.
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    You seem to imply that failure 50 years ago implies failure 10 years from now, which, with all the advances in supporting technologies, is nonsensical. Do you have any solid evidence that Lockheed is full of shit?
    - drjesusphd 10y ago
      No I don't, which is why it was a qualified statement. They've released very little information about their design, and it's up to them to convince the taxpaying public it's anything more than a mirror machine. How do they keep the plasma from squirting out of the sides? That'd be the real innovation, but they're silent on this point. Almost as if they're not worried about it. Oh, and now it's 10 years from now? I thought they said it'd be ready in five? Wait, three, because they said that two years ago.
      - andrewflnr 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
drjesusphd 10y ago
It's important to keep in mind that power plants are expensive, fullstop. Even a new coal plant costs several billion dollars, and that's century-old technology. The fact that the first generation of a revolutionary new power plant costs ~10X more than that should not surprise anyone.

r00fus 10y ago

It'll always be 20 years away until the petroleum economy gets too expensive.

jp555 10y ago
Or while PV continues to drop precipitously in cost.

drjesusphd 10y ago

So original.