5 ms·

Can someone help me understand the engineering and economics of distributing energy from a fusion plan? Let's assume that in 2035 ITER reaches its goal and can

Can someone help me understand the engineering and economics of distributing energy from a fusion plan? Let's assume that in 2035 ITER reaches its goal and can sustain fusion at a cost of ~$25B per plant w/ $1B in yearly operational costs. Now what? Do we then build a nuclear-plant-style pressurized water turbine? How many turbines can we place around a fusion plant? How far can we distribute this power? According to this[1] paper, fusion power becomes profitable at $175/Mwh. Nearly every other type of energy source, including wind and PV is cheaper[2] [1] https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544218305395 https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

dylan604 7y ago
I thought that one of the main benefits is that it is closer to zero emissions. Wind isn't always blowing, and the sun isn't always shining. Solar/wind take up a lot of surface area.
loblollyboy 7y ago
space travel
- adrianN 7y ago
  No. Huge power plants are not really suited for lifting them into space.
  - de_watcher 7y ago
    They are suited for powering orbital rings though.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      Solar in space would be so much more practical.
      - petschge 7y ago
        That is only true out till (a litle past) Mars orbit. For deep space mission solars performance in terms of Watts per weight quickly becomes pretty bad. The 1/r^2 drop in solar flux eats your lunch there.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        Fission is fine out there. And DT fusion has no advantage over fission anywhere in space. But I tell you what: let's let space programs pay for fusion, if that's going to be where it gets used. They all seem to have much more immediate tech development needs closer in.
ekimekim 7y ago
I don't think the intent for ITER is to be an economically viable nuclear power plant, but rather to be a prototype, a proof-of-concept that will enable the next generation of smaller, more widespread, and above all cheaper energy-producing fusion reactors.
de_watcher 7y ago
ITER will be the thing that shows the physical principle for the first time. Then there is a reasonable hope that we can widen the margins - the second is the DEMO reactor project.
zaarn 7y ago
Fusion has advantages over Wind and PV; it works like a nuclear power plant. That means you can build a large plant where the power is needed and then provide it continously without stopping. Wind and PV can't do that unless you add buffer technology, but even that has limits. Fusion can easily provide 100% of our baseline power needs and because it's powered by the most common elements in the solar system, it can easily be harvested (even from solar wind, which should deliver more than enough to power humanity with fairly little effort). Fusion is essentially the key to unlocking unlimited power (insert emperor palpatine here). With only 100'000 tonnes of water, filtered for deuterium, the US could cover it's annual electricity needs entirely. The Mississipi provides this much water over 6 seconds. 60 seconds are enough to cover the entire world's annual energy needs.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Fusion has the disadvantages of nuclear. It will be very expensive. Nuclear is not competitive even if the nuclear island is FREE; the non-nuclear thermal power plant part is too expensive. Since fusion reactors themselves are unlikely to cost negative dollars, fusion power plants won't be competitive either.
  - zaarn 7y ago
    I don't think that is true for baseline power provision, only for the peak demands during the day alternatives are viable. For baseline, Fusion doesn't compete with PV and Wind, it competes with Batteries powered by PV and Wind, which is a whole different price calculation. That plus the fuel is common and cheap to obtain, unlike Uranium or some of the rare earth metals for PV.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      On a levelized basis, nuclear is grossly uncompetitive. This means that when the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining, nuclear cannot sell for close to what it needs to make ends meet. Cheap batteries are just going to be the final nail in the coffin. At the current rate of decline of battery prices I expect most operating nuclear reactors to shut down within a decade. Oh, and please don't repeat the "PV needs rare earth metals" lie. They don't use rare earths, or for that matter need any rare elements at all. The only somewhat rare element silicon PV uses is silver for front contact wires, but that can be substituted for with copper (with a migration barrier layer to prevent reaction with silicon) if silver gets too expensive.

dylan604 7y ago

I thought that one of the main benefits is that it is closer to zero emissions. Wind isn't always blowing, and the sun isn't always shining. Solar/wind take up a lot of surface area.

loblollyboy 7y ago

space travel

adrianN 7y ago
No. Huge power plants are not really suited for lifting them into space.
- de_watcher 7y ago
  They are suited for powering orbital rings though.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Solar in space would be so much more practical.
    - petschge 7y ago
      That is only true out till (a litle past) Mars orbit. For deep space mission solars performance in terms of Watts per weight quickly becomes pretty bad. The 1/r^2 drop in solar flux eats your lunch there.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        Fission is fine out there. And DT fusion has no advantage over fission anywhere in space. But I tell you what: let's let space programs pay for fusion, if that's going to be where it gets used. They all seem to have much more immediate tech development needs closer in.

ekimekim 7y ago

I don't think the intent for ITER is to be an economically viable nuclear power plant, but rather to be a prototype, a proof-of-concept that will enable the next generation of smaller, more widespread, and above all cheaper energy-producing fusion reactors.

de_watcher 7y ago

ITER will be the thing that shows the physical principle for the first time. Then there is a reasonable hope that we can widen the margins - the second is the DEMO reactor project.

zaarn 7y ago

Fusion has advantages over Wind and PV; it works like a nuclear power plant. That means you can build a large plant where the power is needed and then provide it continously without stopping. Wind and PV can't do that unless you add buffer technology, but even that has limits. Fusion can easily provide 100% of our baseline power needs and because it's powered by the most common elements in the solar system, it can easily be harvested (even from solar wind, which should deliver more than enough to power humanity with fairly little effort). Fusion is essentially the key to unlocking unlimited power (insert emperor palpatine here). With only 100'000 tonnes of water, filtered for deuterium, the US could cover it's annual electricity needs entirely. The Mississipi provides this much water over 6 seconds. 60 seconds are enough to cover the entire world's annual energy needs.

pfdietz 7y ago
Fusion has the disadvantages of nuclear. It will be very expensive. Nuclear is not competitive even if the nuclear island is FREE; the non-nuclear thermal power plant part is too expensive. Since fusion reactors themselves are unlikely to cost negative dollars, fusion power plants won't be competitive either.
- zaarn 7y ago
  I don't think that is true for baseline power provision, only for the peak demands during the day alternatives are viable. For baseline, Fusion doesn't compete with PV and Wind, it competes with Batteries powered by PV and Wind, which is a whole different price calculation. That plus the fuel is common and cheap to obtain, unlike Uranium or some of the rare earth metals for PV.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    On a levelized basis, nuclear is grossly uncompetitive. This means that when the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining, nuclear cannot sell for close to what it needs to make ends meet. Cheap batteries are just going to be the final nail in the coffin. At the current rate of decline of battery prices I expect most operating nuclear reactors to shut down within a decade. Oh, and please don't repeat the "PV needs rare earth metals" lie. They don't use rare earths, or for that matter need any rare elements at all. The only somewhat rare element silicon PV uses is silver for front contact wires, but that can be substituted for with copper (with a migration barrier layer to prevent reaction with silicon) if silver gets too expensive.