4 ms·

Wouldn't a fusion reactor provide considerably more energy for considerably less (or at least more concentrated) effort? Managing the millions of turbines and

Wouldn't a fusion reactor provide considerably more energy for considerably less (or at least more concentrated) effort? Managing the millions of turbines and solar panels isn't a small task. I would love a world where the skyline wasn't dotted with wind turbines and solar panels.

mattkevan 7y ago
I love a skyline dotted with wind turbines and solar panels, especially when the current alternative is not being able to see the skyline due to the fumes and toxic particulates from fossil fuels.
- DennisP 7y ago
  Sure but what if the alternative were fusion? We could avoid the fumes and the dotted skyline.
  - markvdb 7y ago
    I guess it's a question of differences in taste. Anecdotal evidence: I actually like the sight of wind turbines at the horizon.
    - mattkevan 7y ago
      On the drive to Cornwall in the UK there’s a moment where as you approach a hill you can see the tips of turbine blades appearing and disappearing over the top. As you get higher you see more and more of the wind farm laid out across the valley. It’s a breathtaking sight, and the knowledge that it’s producing clean energy makes it all the better.
      - DennisP 7y ago
        What I would like to see is forest. My ideal future: fusion power, lab-grown meat, and lots of trees.
pfdietz 7y ago
Unfortunately no. "Effort" is indicated by cost, and fusion power plants promise to be exorbitantly exoensive.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  That depends entirely on how much power they generate. It can cost twice as much as a fission reactor if it generates ten times more electricity.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    They promise to be exorbitantly expensive per unit of energy production.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      We don't know what they'll cost per unit of energy production or otherwise until they actually exist. And using the cost of research reactors built by hand by research physicists in order to test theories is obviously not a good indication of what they would cost in mass production.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        We can judge what they will cost from general principles. Any DT reactor will be much larger than, and much more complex than, a fission reactor, and require replacement of major elements many times during the life of the reactor. The only hope is advanced fuels, but the most reactive of those (D-3He) is 50x less reactive than DT.
    - StillBored 7y ago
      Which by itself wouldn't really be a problem if they had any real advantages over fission, or some overwhelming lifecycle/weight/etc type advantage. But right now they pretty much loose on every metric that isn't measured in "gee-wiz". I as much as anyone would love a Mr Fusion from back to the future, even if it required hydrogen/etc rather than food waste, but the truth is none of the current designs have clear paths forward to grid scale production, or even small self contained units as used on subs or potentially space applications. I do think we should be funding the research, but I also think we should be spending equal amounts on engineering better fission processes. The former is basic research while the latter is targeted engineering.

mattkevan 7y ago

I love a skyline dotted with wind turbines and solar panels, especially when the current alternative is not being able to see the skyline due to the fumes and toxic particulates from fossil fuels.

DennisP 7y ago
Sure but what if the alternative were fusion? We could avoid the fumes and the dotted skyline.
- markvdb 7y ago
  I guess it's a question of differences in taste. Anecdotal evidence: I actually like the sight of wind turbines at the horizon.
  - mattkevan 7y ago
    On the drive to Cornwall in the UK there’s a moment where as you approach a hill you can see the tips of turbine blades appearing and disappearing over the top. As you get higher you see more and more of the wind farm laid out across the valley. It’s a breathtaking sight, and the knowledge that it’s producing clean energy makes it all the better.
    - DennisP 7y ago
      What I would like to see is forest. My ideal future: fusion power, lab-grown meat, and lots of trees.

pfdietz 7y ago

Unfortunately no. "Effort" is indicated by cost, and fusion power plants promise to be exorbitantly exoensive.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
That depends entirely on how much power they generate. It can cost twice as much as a fission reactor if it generates ten times more electricity.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  They promise to be exorbitantly expensive per unit of energy production.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    We don't know what they'll cost per unit of energy production or otherwise until they actually exist. And using the cost of research reactors built by hand by research physicists in order to test theories is obviously not a good indication of what they would cost in mass production.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      We can judge what they will cost from general principles. Any DT reactor will be much larger than, and much more complex than, a fission reactor, and require replacement of major elements many times during the life of the reactor. The only hope is advanced fuels, but the most reactive of those (D-3He) is 50x less reactive than DT.
  - StillBored 7y ago
    Which by itself wouldn't really be a problem if they had any real advantages over fission, or some overwhelming lifecycle/weight/etc type advantage. But right now they pretty much loose on every metric that isn't measured in "gee-wiz". I as much as anyone would love a Mr Fusion from back to the future, even if it required hydrogen/etc rather than food waste, but the truth is none of the current designs have clear paths forward to grid scale production, or even small self contained units as used on subs or potentially space applications. I do think we should be funding the research, but I also think we should be spending equal amounts on engineering better fission processes. The former is basic research while the latter is targeted engineering.