5 ms·

Isn't fusion reactor basically infinite energy, I mean sure it makes total sense to no share it with other because you can sell your free energy for cash, but c

by hoffs 8y ago

Isn't fusion reactor basically infinite energy, I mean sure it makes total sense to no share it with other because you can sell your free energy for cash, but considering that a lot of global scientists work on it and most of the findings are published, don't think that such strategy would last long.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
> Isn't fusion reactor basically infinite energy It's probably not that easy; the reactors are extremely complicated and expensive to build, and I'm sure operating them isn't cheap either. And the one thing I haven't heard much about yet is the yield - how much energy can it generate vs how much will it cost to run. I don't think it'll be economically viable. I'll be happy to be proven wrong though.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  > I don't think it'll be economically viable. I'll be happy to be proven wrong though. I don't think current designs like the one discussed here will be. But I'm hoping it will lay the groundwork for much more useful reactors in the future.
mirekrusin 8y ago
Not really, it will wear out due to radiation so you need to change the body periodically, unless you use other fuel like helium-3, but it's got it's own problems - much higher fusion temperature and very rare on our planet (a lot of it on the surface of the moon though, it would be worth mining if we had working reactors).
jabl 8y ago
Just like previous predictions that the introduction of fission power plants would result in electricity 'too cheap to meter', I suspect the same will happen for fusion. Even if the fuel is nearly free, you still have to build and maintain the power plant, the grid etc., neither which is cheap. But yes, the first ones to 'crack' the problem will have a head start in the commercial fusion power plant market, but I don't think it will last very long. As you say, most of the research is being published, and even if somebody manages to initially keep that final 'dot on the i' secret, it wouldn't take other researches long to figure it out.
- Balero 8y ago
  From what i've read[0] it will remove about a third of the cost (probably less). About a third of energy cost goes on fuel (now almost 0), a third on the grid, and a third on the station (now probably more). Whilst a 20-30% reduction in energy cost would be great. The really important change is that it is much more scalable and easy to get. You don't need to dig up coal, or drill for oil. All of which can be limited. With a working fusion reactor a country like Singapore can be energy independent, in a way it never could with any other type. This independence would mean no more need to mess around in areas with these resources (think middle east) or have your countries energy rely on a third party you'd rather not rely on (think Germany and others and their reliance on Russian gas) [0] A Piece of the Sun: The Quest for Fusion Energy - throughly enjoyed this book.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    Even though the cost of energy is divided by thirds, fusion still generates so much more power that the sheer scale can overpower lots and lots of bottlenecks. For instance, it is chemically possible to combine water (either atmospheric or from a normal water source) with atmospheric CO2 to chemically synthesize hydrocarbons. It just takes energy. So you could have a single, absolutely massive fusion plant next to an atmospheric fuel refinery and use the hydrocarbons for fuel storage and distribution. You could do likewise with hydrogen and oxygen if you wanted to make fuel cells or rockets. And this would probably be cheaper than refining fossil fuels. You could actually run OPEC out of business this way, make the electric car obsolete, make airlines carbon-neutral, etc., etc. Climate change? Just extract the atmospheric CO2 using cheap fusion energy and turn it into an easily sequestrable form. Nitrogen fertilizers? You can make those from the air too. Drought? Use fusion power to run desalination plants. Arable land becomes a non-issue with fusion because vertical farming becomes easy. Every city could just grow whatever they needed in exactly the right climate conditions in a set of enclosed vertical farms, though they might not need to because energy will be so cheap that there's no problem shipping the stuff from Honduras anyway. Computation scales with power, too. More power, more computation, except computation produces heat, which you need even more power to chill.
arethuza 8y ago
Even if the fuel is pretty cheap the cost of fuel isn't a huge factor in the operation of traditional nuclear power plants - a fusion power plant will still have enormous capex and opex - so in no sense will the power be "free".

by hoffs 8y ago

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

> Isn't fusion reactor basically infinite energy It's probably not that easy; the reactors are extremely complicated and expensive to build, and I'm sure operating them isn't cheap either. And the one thing I haven't heard much about yet is the yield - how much energy can it generate vs how much will it cost to run. I don't think it'll be economically viable. I'll be happy to be proven wrong though.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> I don't think it'll be economically viable. I'll be happy to be proven wrong though. I don't think current designs like the one discussed here will be. But I'm hoping it will lay the groundwork for much more useful reactors in the future.

mirekrusin 8y ago

Not really, it will wear out due to radiation so you need to change the body periodically, unless you use other fuel like helium-3, but it's got it's own problems - much higher fusion temperature and very rare on our planet (a lot of it on the surface of the moon though, it would be worth mining if we had working reactors).

jabl 8y ago

Just like previous predictions that the introduction of fission power plants would result in electricity 'too cheap to meter', I suspect the same will happen for fusion. Even if the fuel is nearly free, you still have to build and maintain the power plant, the grid etc., neither which is cheap. But yes, the first ones to 'crack' the problem will have a head start in the commercial fusion power plant market, but I don't think it will last very long. As you say, most of the research is being published, and even if somebody manages to initially keep that final 'dot on the i' secret, it wouldn't take other researches long to figure it out.

Balero 8y ago
From what i've read[0] it will remove about a third of the cost (probably less). About a third of energy cost goes on fuel (now almost 0), a third on the grid, and a third on the station (now probably more). Whilst a 20-30% reduction in energy cost would be great. The really important change is that it is much more scalable and easy to get. You don't need to dig up coal, or drill for oil. All of which can be limited. With a working fusion reactor a country like Singapore can be energy independent, in a way it never could with any other type. This independence would mean no more need to mess around in areas with these resources (think middle east) or have your countries energy rely on a third party you'd rather not rely on (think Germany and others and their reliance on Russian gas) [0] A Piece of the Sun: The Quest for Fusion Energy - throughly enjoyed this book.
- philwelch 8y ago
  Even though the cost of energy is divided by thirds, fusion still generates so much more power that the sheer scale can overpower lots and lots of bottlenecks. For instance, it is chemically possible to combine water (either atmospheric or from a normal water source) with atmospheric CO2 to chemically synthesize hydrocarbons. It just takes energy. So you could have a single, absolutely massive fusion plant next to an atmospheric fuel refinery and use the hydrocarbons for fuel storage and distribution. You could do likewise with hydrogen and oxygen if you wanted to make fuel cells or rockets. And this would probably be cheaper than refining fossil fuels. You could actually run OPEC out of business this way, make the electric car obsolete, make airlines carbon-neutral, etc., etc. Climate change? Just extract the atmospheric CO2 using cheap fusion energy and turn it into an easily sequestrable form. Nitrogen fertilizers? You can make those from the air too. Drought? Use fusion power to run desalination plants. Arable land becomes a non-issue with fusion because vertical farming becomes easy. Every city could just grow whatever they needed in exactly the right climate conditions in a set of enclosed vertical farms, though they might not need to because energy will be so cheap that there's no problem shipping the stuff from Honduras anyway. Computation scales with power, too. More power, more computation, except computation produces heat, which you need even more power to chill.

arethuza 8y ago

Even if the fuel is pretty cheap the cost of fuel isn't a huge factor in the operation of traditional nuclear power plants - a fusion power plant will still have enormous capex and opex - so in no sense will the power be "free".