3 ms·
> “We are convinced we can deliver hundreds of megawatts through Iter,” up to 10 times more energy than is put in, says David Campbell, the director of science
by gbrown_ 10y ago
> “We are convinced we can deliver hundreds of megawatts through Iter,” up to 10 times more energy than is put in, says David Campbell, the director of science and operations at Iter (which means “the way” in Latin).
That doesn't sound great to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...
I'm all for fusion but I think we're some way off it being a staple energy source.
- regularfry 10y agoITER isn't supposed to be a full-scale production plant. It's a reactor specifically to prove that power generation is feasible. DEMO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO) is the plan for making a practical power station after ITER is done.
- gbrown_ 10y agoYes sorry my comment was in response to the tone of "poised to deliver?".
- deelowe 10y agoWouldn't that put it on the same level as fission? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#/media/File:EROI_-_Ratio_of_Energy_Returned_on_Energy_Invested_-_USA.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...
- maxerickson 10y agoIt actually doesn't matter. It just has to be energy positive and cost competitive. Take the case of fully tracked wholesale cost of fusion power at $0.01 a kw-h. Would you buy more expensive power just because it had a better EROI?
- gbrown_ 10y ago> It actually doesn't matter. It just has to be energy positive and cost competitive. Very true.
- DubiousPusher 10y agoMaybe I'm missing something but since there's tons of government money going into this, you're not paying the full cost. There's an externality which makes doing the same thing somewhere else unlikely to happen. Edit: I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted. I'm asking a genuine question. It's not just about energy invested vs. energy harvested. If it costs $100 to build a power plant and you put $1 of energy in and get $2 worth of energy out over its lifetime, you didn't get $2 worth of energy for $1, you got $2 worth of energy for $101. You'd have to look at the opportunity cost of some other energy technology to know if it was a good investment or not. Am I looking at this wrong somehow?
- maxerickson 10y agoI don't know why you were downvoted, but my point was that if it costs less after accounting for the costs you mention, the EROI doesn't matter. That's what I meant by "fully tracked".
- wffurr 10y agoIf it costs less after accounting for construction and decommissioning costs, then the EROEI is in all likelihood quite good. Cost can often be used as a proxy for energy invested, since energy isn't free after all.
- DubiousPusher 10y agoYeah, sorry. That was my mistake. I misunderstood your point.
- a_c_s 10y agoI think the parent was referring to spending $1 in electricity to generate $2 worth vs. spending $10 in electricity to get $11 worth. Either way you have a net gain of $1 electricity. As you've illustrated cost of building the power plant certainly matters however it is orthogonal to the discussion being had.