4 ms·

Tangent, but assuming fusion energy generation will be a reality in the next 30 years, what do you believe the price/KWH will be? I am not knowledgeable enough

by sf_rob 7y ago

Tangent, but assuming fusion energy generation will be a reality in the next 30 years, what do you believe the price/KWH will be? I am not knowledgeable enough to parse the estimates I've seen and want to believe in the post-energy-scarcity future.

malux85 7y ago
I doubt we are even anywhere near close to being able to calculate that because there’s still too many unknowns with regards to materials required to build, their rate of depreciation, and other things we discover in the scaling/commercialisation phases, and also exactly how much net energy will be produced!
joshvm 7y ago
Price per kwh is not solely about generation efficiency, it's also about distribution and infrastructure. There will always be a cost associated with that which will rise with inflation. Even if we went totally renewable and all your electricity was "free" then you'd still have to account for on demand storage and infrastructure costs. The main benefit of nuclear is its relatively low carbon footprint and in theory less risk of spiking fuel costs because we run out of raw materials. That's the dream of fusion anyway. Nuclear power infra is not cheap and even fusion will have security and decommissioning costs. Forget cost as the main factor, grid power will never be free. That's a fantasy - even publicly owned utilities will/are funded by taxation. You're paying for price and power stability. Domestic fusion means you don't need to rely on foreign resources (eg Russia cutting off the gas). Putting renewable generators in your home has a high capital cost, but people forget that you're also cushioning yourself against grid outages. It's insurance more than anything else.
- DennisP 7y ago
  D-T fusion would have security and decommissioning costs, but neither would be an issue for aneutronic fusion.
- freeopinion 7y ago
  What's the fun of tech forecasting if you don't over-promise? A fusion reactor the size of a shipping container? Plop one down between my neighbor's house and my house. Right where our backup generators now sit. It's about the same footprint. No more distribution costs. Well, except for Amazon's fees to drop off the uranium now and then. :)
  - DennisP 7y ago
    Uranium is for fission, not fusion. Fuel for this fusion reactor would be some compound of hydrogen and the most common boron isotope. There's plenty of that in a regular box of Borax.

by sf_rob 7y ago

malux85 7y ago

I doubt we are even anywhere near close to being able to calculate that because there’s still too many unknowns with regards to materials required to build, their rate of depreciation, and other things we discover in the scaling/commercialisation phases, and also exactly how much net energy will be produced!

joshvm 7y ago

Price per kwh is not solely about generation efficiency, it's also about distribution and infrastructure. There will always be a cost associated with that which will rise with inflation. Even if we went totally renewable and all your electricity was "free" then you'd still have to account for on demand storage and infrastructure costs. The main benefit of nuclear is its relatively low carbon footprint and in theory less risk of spiking fuel costs because we run out of raw materials. That's the dream of fusion anyway. Nuclear power infra is not cheap and even fusion will have security and decommissioning costs. Forget cost as the main factor, grid power will never be free. That's a fantasy - even publicly owned utilities will/are funded by taxation. You're paying for price and power stability. Domestic fusion means you don't need to rely on foreign resources (eg Russia cutting off the gas). Putting renewable generators in your home has a high capital cost, but people forget that you're also cushioning yourself against grid outages. It's insurance more than anything else.

DennisP 7y ago
D-T fusion would have security and decommissioning costs, but neither would be an issue for aneutronic fusion.
freeopinion 7y ago
What's the fun of tech forecasting if you don't over-promise? A fusion reactor the size of a shipping container? Plop one down between my neighbor's house and my house. Right where our backup generators now sit. It's about the same footprint. No more distribution costs. Well, except for Amazon's fees to drop off the uranium now and then. :)
- DennisP 7y ago
  Uranium is for fission, not fusion. Fuel for this fusion reactor would be some compound of hydrogen and the most common boron isotope. There's plenty of that in a regular box of Borax.