4 ms·

Isn't there a new generation of nuclear reactors that promise to work exceptionally well, without all the negative outcomes associated with the earlier generati

Isn't there a new generation of nuclear reactors that promise to work exceptionally well, without all the negative outcomes associated with the earlier generations? Bill Gates has been advocating this technology of late. From my limited reading it sounds like this does a pretty great job of solving energy and climate to a large extent. Why aren't more people excited about this? I feel like this can be a very politically viable solution that pleases most of the clout wielding sides of the political spectrum. What am I missing?

pfdietz 7y ago
Even if the nuclear island of a nuclear power plant cost $0 (it is currently about 1/3 the construction cost), nuclear power still wouldn't be competitive. https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-power-the-case-of-the-wrong-competitors/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-p...
- epistasis 7y ago
  As a non-expert who has, for years, been challenging idea of investing in heat sources on the ground of "cheapness," it's greatly satisfying to see somebody actually run the numbers and provide evidence. And this was five years ago! The numbers have only made the case stronger since then. Thanks for this excellent piece.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Also from five years ago (PV vs. another kind of thermal): https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/solar-thermal-is-really-really-dead https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/solar-thermal-i...
ttul 7y ago
Fusion power is in between the research stage and the commercial stage. It’s tough to find investors who are willing to put their capital up for something which has a good chance of _eventually_ succeeding, but where you have very little confidence in how long it will take to succeed. General Fusion - one of the first private fusion companies - has been going for 12 years without revenue and might need another ten. That’s a long time for venture capital.
- ttul 7y ago
  ... Anyhow, I think that the venture risk is mirrored in the political realm. Politicians don’t want to stake their reelection on something that won’t be ready for a decade or two (or three).
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Not at all! Such long term projects are great, because a politician can say he's funding the future and is never actually called on it if it turns out to be bullshit. And politicians love the pork spending (and campaign financing graft derived from that) this sort of thing can bring.
- chefkoch 7y ago
  >Fusion power is in between the research stage and the commercial stage. The commercial stage ist decades away, there isn't even energy surplus generated in research. No reactor can run longer than some miliseconds, i think you are overly optimistic. Fusion is 20 years away since 50 years.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Actually large tokamaks have discharges lasting much more than "some milliseconds" (unless "some" is taken to be some large number :)). But, even if we had solved plasma problems for continuous operation with Q >> 1, the economics of fusion look even worse than fission. The lesser scientific problems of reaching breakeven and ignition are concealing the greater problems of making it worth doing at all.
    - nmca 7y ago
      Could you elaborate on the economics? My internal model has always been "1 Joule -> Water -> Hydrogen -> Fusion Reactor -> (1 + epsilon) Joules" was a money printing machine for obvious reasons, but I can see that there are lots of hidden assumptions there.
      - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jhayward 7y ago
In short, no. They don't solve enough of the problems. The big one they claim to solve, cost, is an unproven assertion based on the assumption that nuclear power plant production can follow the "industrial learning curve" model of cost reduction. There is plenty of proof extant that this is a flawed assumption.

pfdietz 7y ago

Even if the nuclear island of a nuclear power plant cost $0 (it is currently about 1/3 the construction cost), nuclear power still wouldn't be competitive. https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-power-the-case-of-the-wrong-competitors/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-p...

epistasis 7y ago
As a non-expert who has, for years, been challenging idea of investing in heat sources on the ground of "cheapness," it's greatly satisfying to see somebody actually run the numbers and provide evidence. And this was five years ago! The numbers have only made the case stronger since then. Thanks for this excellent piece.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Also from five years ago (PV vs. another kind of thermal): https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/solar-thermal-is-really-really-dead https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/solar-thermal-i...

ttul 7y ago

Fusion power is in between the research stage and the commercial stage. It’s tough to find investors who are willing to put their capital up for something which has a good chance of _eventually_ succeeding, but where you have very little confidence in how long it will take to succeed. General Fusion - one of the first private fusion companies - has been going for 12 years without revenue and might need another ten. That’s a long time for venture capital.

ttul 7y ago
... Anyhow, I think that the venture risk is mirrored in the political realm. Politicians don’t want to stake their reelection on something that won’t be ready for a decade or two (or three).
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Not at all! Such long term projects are great, because a politician can say he's funding the future and is never actually called on it if it turns out to be bullshit. And politicians love the pork spending (and campaign financing graft derived from that) this sort of thing can bring.
chefkoch 7y ago
>Fusion power is in between the research stage and the commercial stage. The commercial stage ist decades away, there isn't even energy surplus generated in research. No reactor can run longer than some miliseconds, i think you are overly optimistic. Fusion is 20 years away since 50 years.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Actually large tokamaks have discharges lasting much more than "some milliseconds" (unless "some" is taken to be some large number :)). But, even if we had solved plasma problems for continuous operation with Q >> 1, the economics of fusion look even worse than fission. The lesser scientific problems of reaching breakeven and ignition are concealing the greater problems of making it worth doing at all.
  - nmca 7y ago
    Could you elaborate on the economics? My internal model has always been "1 Joule -> Water -> Hydrogen -> Fusion Reactor -> (1 + epsilon) Joules" was a money printing machine for obvious reasons, but I can see that there are lots of hidden assumptions there.
    - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jhayward 7y ago

In short, no. They don't solve enough of the problems. The big one they claim to solve, cost, is an unproven assertion based on the assumption that nuclear power plant production can follow the "industrial learning curve" model of cost reduction. There is plenty of proof extant that this is a flawed assumption.