4 ms·

Investments in fusion is the most rational long term energy investment. * Fusion has the potential to increase the amount of energy we generate by several orde

by max76 8y ago

Investments in fusion is the most rational long term energy investment. * Fusion has the potential to increase the amount of energy we generate by several orders of magnitude. * Fusion has the potential to be much cheaper than $.03/kWh. * We have a near unlimited supply of deuterium is the seawater. All countries in the world can gain energy independence. * Countries cannot claim a nuclear weapons research program is really a nuclear fusion power research program, like they can with a nuclear fission power research program. * Fusion energy does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. As we produce more solar panels it becomes more expensive to produce more solar panels. As we place solar panels in the best location the next batch will have to use the second best location. These diseconomies of scale also apply towards the current generation batteries that solar panels relay on. * Some problems, including life or death problems like removing CO2 from the air or desalination of water can be solved much easier with an abundance of energy.

njarboe 8y ago
Wind and solar also don't work well for powering spacecraft, space stations, or anywhere else in the solar system further away from the sun than Earth. The surface of Mars or Ceres, for example.
- elihu 8y ago
  Nuclear actually doesn't work well for spacecraft either, because there's no convenient way to get rid of all that excess heat. It might work well on Mars or Ceres, but solar isn't all that bad; you'd just need more panels for an equivalent amount of energy as you'd need on Earth.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    For nuclear propulsion you just use the propellant to cool the reactor. You are still going to want to have a bunch of propellant with a fission or fusion reactor and, like a chemical engine, you can use it as a coolant when it enters the engine.
  - max76 8y ago
    Solar has a few problems for spacecraft, especially when talking about objects not in an earth-centric orbit. 1. The further the spacecraft is from the sun the less efficient solar panels are. 2. Solar panels are a pretty heavy thing to launch. 3. Solar panels have a tendency to degrade in performance over decades.
- russdill 8y ago
  RTG's are pretty damn good for spacecraft. But they are dangerous to launch. The nice thing about fusion is that a RUD doesn't matter from a nuclear perspective.
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    And we aren't making as much plutonium-238 as we did in the cold war
    - wlesieutre 8y ago
      I stand corrected https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25806535/plutonium-shortage/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25806535/plutonium-s...
  - njarboe 8y ago
    I'm talking about spacecraft for humans. Going fast is much more important for humans than robots and nuclear is the only way to go. (BTW RTG's are also nuclear, just really low power and don't allow for adjustable output)
Tharkun 8y ago
> * Countries cannot claim a nuclear weapons research program is really a nuclear fusion power research program, like they can with a nuclear fission power research program. Weapons are a physics problem, where you're trying to direct large amounts of energy at unwilling recipients. Nukes are so effective and so feared because they carry a huge amount of energy in a relatively small package. Being able to, as you put it, "generate several orders of magnitude" more energy will almost certainly result in new, better or more destructive weapon systems being devised.
- umvi 8y ago
  > Being able to, as you put it, "generate several orders of magnitude" more energy will almost certainly result in new, better or more destructive weapon systems being devised. We already use fusion technology in nukes. Hydrogen bombs work by using a fission reaction to start up an uncontrolled fusion reaction. The hard part is controlling the fusion. So, I disagree - learning how to control fusion will not result in better weapons (at least, from a destruction standpoint).
- max76 8y ago
  On the other hand, our current nuclear bombs initiate a fusion reaction with a fission reaction. The radiation comes from the fission. If fusion research finds a way to initiate nuclear fusion in a payload small enough to fit in a warhead that does not make use of heavy elements then we will not have to worry about radiation poisoning, one of the most horrific aspects of current generation nuclear bombs. This would result in a less deadly bomb while still having the current or higher levels of deterrence. It could be seen as a net positive.
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    Fallout looms large in the public imagination but it's the giant explosions and loss of infrastructure that would cause the vast majority of deaths in a nuclear war. A bomb offering "all the explosive power of fission-triggered fusion weapons, but clean enough to use routinely" would be a terrible technology for humans to invent.
elihu 8y ago
> Fusion energy does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. As we produce more solar panels it becomes more expensive to produce more solar panels. As we place solar panels in the best location the next batch will have to use the second best location. These diseconomies of scale also apply towards the current generation batteries that solar panels relay on. Is this true? Why would solar panel cost go up if you make more? Is there some rare-earth element that's a bottleneck resource? Also, we're nowhere near using up space for putting solar panels. They're less efficient in places with cloudy weather or in latitudes far from the equator, but otherwise any place to install a solar panel farm is as good as any other; choice of location is dominated mostly by convenience, cheapness of land, proximity to power lines, local politics, and so on. We've only used up a tiny percentage of all the "good spots" to put solar panels.
- max76 8y ago
  The current diseconomies of scale hitting solar panels is that we have a limit on the number of batteries we can produce, as we are expanding our battery production as fast as humanly possible. We can use solar cells to offset peak performance, but until the storage problem is solved we can't consider using them as a primary power generation at scale in markets demanding 24hr energy access.
  - elihu 8y ago
    I agree that storage is a problem if you get most of your energy from solar, but in most places we're still in the mode of "on a sunny day we just burn a less coal or natural gas". In the long run it may become a bigger problem. Pumped hydroelectric storage should work great in places where the geography is amenable, and regular battery technology is getting better.
pfdietz 8y ago
> As we produce more solar panels it becomes more expensive to produce more solar panels. This is the complete opposite of the truth. As we produce more solar panels it has become cheaper to make them. Solar has tracked down an experience curve where costs decline 20% (or more) per doubling of cumulative production.

by max76 8y ago

njarboe 8y ago

Wind and solar also don't work well for powering spacecraft, space stations, or anywhere else in the solar system further away from the sun than Earth. The surface of Mars or Ceres, for example.

elihu 8y ago
Nuclear actually doesn't work well for spacecraft either, because there's no convenient way to get rid of all that excess heat. It might work well on Mars or Ceres, but solar isn't all that bad; you'd just need more panels for an equivalent amount of energy as you'd need on Earth.
- njarboe 8y ago
  For nuclear propulsion you just use the propellant to cool the reactor. You are still going to want to have a bunch of propellant with a fission or fusion reactor and, like a chemical engine, you can use it as a coolant when it enters the engine.
- max76 8y ago
  Solar has a few problems for spacecraft, especially when talking about objects not in an earth-centric orbit. 1. The further the spacecraft is from the sun the less efficient solar panels are. 2. Solar panels are a pretty heavy thing to launch. 3. Solar panels have a tendency to degrade in performance over decades.
russdill 8y ago
RTG's are pretty damn good for spacecraft. But they are dangerous to launch. The nice thing about fusion is that a RUD doesn't matter from a nuclear perspective.
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  And we aren't making as much plutonium-238 as we did in the cold war
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    I stand corrected https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25806535/plutonium-shortage/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25806535/plutonium-s...
- njarboe 8y ago
  I'm talking about spacecraft for humans. Going fast is much more important for humans than robots and nuclear is the only way to go. (BTW RTG's are also nuclear, just really low power and don't allow for adjustable output)

Tharkun 8y ago

> * Countries cannot claim a nuclear weapons research program is really a nuclear fusion power research program, like they can with a nuclear fission power research program. Weapons are a physics problem, where you're trying to direct large amounts of energy at unwilling recipients. Nukes are so effective and so feared because they carry a huge amount of energy in a relatively small package. Being able to, as you put it, "generate several orders of magnitude" more energy will almost certainly result in new, better or more destructive weapon systems being devised.

umvi 8y ago
> Being able to, as you put it, "generate several orders of magnitude" more energy will almost certainly result in new, better or more destructive weapon systems being devised. We already use fusion technology in nukes. Hydrogen bombs work by using a fission reaction to start up an uncontrolled fusion reaction. The hard part is controlling the fusion. So, I disagree - learning how to control fusion will not result in better weapons (at least, from a destruction standpoint).
max76 8y ago
On the other hand, our current nuclear bombs initiate a fusion reaction with a fission reaction. The radiation comes from the fission. If fusion research finds a way to initiate nuclear fusion in a payload small enough to fit in a warhead that does not make use of heavy elements then we will not have to worry about radiation poisoning, one of the most horrific aspects of current generation nuclear bombs. This would result in a less deadly bomb while still having the current or higher levels of deterrence. It could be seen as a net positive.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  Fallout looms large in the public imagination but it's the giant explosions and loss of infrastructure that would cause the vast majority of deaths in a nuclear war. A bomb offering "all the explosive power of fission-triggered fusion weapons, but clean enough to use routinely" would be a terrible technology for humans to invent.

elihu 8y ago

> Fusion energy does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. As we produce more solar panels it becomes more expensive to produce more solar panels. As we place solar panels in the best location the next batch will have to use the second best location. These diseconomies of scale also apply towards the current generation batteries that solar panels relay on. Is this true? Why would solar panel cost go up if you make more? Is there some rare-earth element that's a bottleneck resource? Also, we're nowhere near using up space for putting solar panels. They're less efficient in places with cloudy weather or in latitudes far from the equator, but otherwise any place to install a solar panel farm is as good as any other; choice of location is dominated mostly by convenience, cheapness of land, proximity to power lines, local politics, and so on. We've only used up a tiny percentage of all the "good spots" to put solar panels.

max76 8y ago
The current diseconomies of scale hitting solar panels is that we have a limit on the number of batteries we can produce, as we are expanding our battery production as fast as humanly possible. We can use solar cells to offset peak performance, but until the storage problem is solved we can't consider using them as a primary power generation at scale in markets demanding 24hr energy access.
- elihu 8y ago
  I agree that storage is a problem if you get most of your energy from solar, but in most places we're still in the mode of "on a sunny day we just burn a less coal or natural gas". In the long run it may become a bigger problem. Pumped hydroelectric storage should work great in places where the geography is amenable, and regular battery technology is getting better.

pfdietz 8y ago

> As we produce more solar panels it becomes more expensive to produce more solar panels. This is the complete opposite of the truth. As we produce more solar panels it has become cheaper to make them. Solar has tracked down an experience curve where costs decline 20% (or more) per doubling of cumulative production.