4 ms·

Misleading title: Not a breakthrough. Nuclear power plants are just as far away as always. (indefinite)

adrianN 6y ago
We have a pretty solid roadmap to fusion power plants. ITER and DEMO don't have tremendous risks attached to them. But funding has been insufficient for fast progress. Funding is also insufficient for fast parallel exploration of non-tokamak designs. The real question is whether fusion will ever be economically competitive with renewables+storage.
- lambdatronics 6y ago
  There's still more risk than you'd be lead to believe. (1) There could always be unknown-unknowns related to stability or confinement with a self-heating plasma. ITER is still a science experiment. (2) The disruption problem hasn't be solved. There's an attitude of "it'll get solved because we need it to get solved." You hit the nail on the head with the economics issue, though.
- hannob 6y ago
  > We have a pretty solid roadmap to fusion power plants. ITER and DEMO don't have tremendous risks attached to them. The costs of ITER have grown to be more than 4x as much as what was planned (and it is still in early stages so that's probably not the end of the story). I would not call that "solid".
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Almost all large construction projects overshoot their costs. Things we built for the first time are even more likely to do so.
- chpill 6y ago
  > The real question is whether fusion will ever be economically competitive with renewables+storage. Could you elaborate on what storage you have in mind? The only effective way we have to store large amounts of electricity right now is [pumped-storage hydroelectricity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...), which is interesting but also very sensitive to the geography.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    I'm by no means an expert, but as far as I know a combination of batteries for fluctuations in the dozens-of-hours range and Power-to-{Methane,Hydrogen,Ammonia} for seasonal variations is what experts think feasible.
  - cygx 6y ago
    There are some technologies that might be improved to achieve the required efficiency (eg power-to-gas[1] or cryogenic storage). [1] https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-with-high-efficiency.php https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-wit...
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    Fusion also isn't possible right now of course.
- asplake 6y ago
  Do have we actually have a net positive energy generator yet?
- orwin 6y ago
  The real question is: Will renewable (without storage) can replace 4% of our energy (not just electricity) production each year from 2019 to 2050? I think 2019 (or was it 2018?)was the first year with more renewable installed than coal plants, if you look at max charge. Good news at least.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    2050 is probably too late (it probably is already too late!), but you're right of course. In any case fusion won't play a role before we decided our climatological fate.
andi999 6y ago
Not indefinite but always 40 years from the present.
- dtech 6y ago
  funding has been basically nonexistent and dwindling. Achieving nuclear fission required $23 billion (today dollars) and 0.1% of the US population to work on it (Manhattan project) Fusion funding is measured in tens of millions and does not have 350.000 people working on it.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    ITER alone "is expected to be in excess of €20 billion" says Wikipedia, so fusion has gotten more funding than those $23b.
    - kaliszad 6y ago
      It costs about the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project though, I would suspect, much of the cost of the Manhattan project was probably never accounted for, because much of the work was done by the military or other personnel paid for either way. You know, war time and such. But I haven't looked for any data on that, it could be it was all accounted for to the penny. ITER is an international, purely scientific, peaceful project that is already going on for many more years than the original Manhattan project. Also fusion doesn't just happen by itself, when you "put the right elements close together". The problem that ITER tries to solve, even considering the advances over last 80 years, is quite a bit harder than nuclear fission in my opinion. Both are very hard, don't get me wrong, but fusion is considered the harder problem of those two. It is good to ask, whether something is effective, efficient or at least has meaning. But with such endeavours, you can only really judge afterwards because it has never been done before. So the whole ITER project, with machinery that redefines the meaning of custom, costs about 4x as much, as the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport or 4x times as much as the current Lufthansa bailout. I wouldn't consider both to be very efficient spending of public money, but I am no expert. ITER is financed by most of the developed countries in some capacity, the compared projects are only financed by Germany.

We have a pretty solid roadmap to fusion power plants. ITER and DEMO don't have tremendous risks attached to them. But funding has been insufficient for fast progress. Funding is also insufficient for fast parallel exploration of non-tokamak designs. The real question is whether fusion will ever be economically competitive with renewables+storage.

lambdatronics 6y ago
There's still more risk than you'd be lead to believe. (1) There could always be unknown-unknowns related to stability or confinement with a self-heating plasma. ITER is still a science experiment. (2) The disruption problem hasn't be solved. There's an attitude of "it'll get solved because we need it to get solved." You hit the nail on the head with the economics issue, though.
hannob 6y ago
> We have a pretty solid roadmap to fusion power plants. ITER and DEMO don't have tremendous risks attached to them. The costs of ITER have grown to be more than 4x as much as what was planned (and it is still in early stages so that's probably not the end of the story). I would not call that "solid".
- adrianN 6y ago
  Almost all large construction projects overshoot their costs. Things we built for the first time are even more likely to do so.
chpill 6y ago
> The real question is whether fusion will ever be economically competitive with renewables+storage. Could you elaborate on what storage you have in mind? The only effective way we have to store large amounts of electricity right now is [pumped-storage hydroelectricity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...), which is interesting but also very sensitive to the geography.
- adrianN 6y ago
  I'm by no means an expert, but as far as I know a combination of batteries for fluctuations in the dozens-of-hours range and Power-to-{Methane,Hydrogen,Ammonia} for seasonal variations is what experts think feasible.
- cygx 6y ago
  There are some technologies that might be improved to achieve the required efficiency (eg power-to-gas[1] or cryogenic storage). [1] https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-with-high-efficiency.php https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-wit...
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Fusion also isn't possible right now of course.
asplake 6y ago
Do have we actually have a net positive energy generator yet?
orwin 6y ago
The real question is: Will renewable (without storage) can replace 4% of our energy (not just electricity) production each year from 2019 to 2050? I think 2019 (or was it 2018?)was the first year with more renewable installed than coal plants, if you look at max charge. Good news at least.
- adrianN 6y ago
  2050 is probably too late (it probably is already too late!), but you're right of course. In any case fusion won't play a role before we decided our climatological fate.

andi999 6y ago

Not indefinite but always 40 years from the present.

dtech 6y ago
funding has been basically nonexistent and dwindling. Achieving nuclear fission required $23 billion (today dollars) and 0.1% of the US population to work on it (Manhattan project) Fusion funding is measured in tens of millions and does not have 350.000 people working on it.
- Arnt 6y ago
  ITER alone "is expected to be in excess of €20 billion" says Wikipedia, so fusion has gotten more funding than those $23b.
  - kaliszad 6y ago
    It costs about the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project though, I would suspect, much of the cost of the Manhattan project was probably never accounted for, because much of the work was done by the military or other personnel paid for either way. You know, war time and such. But I haven't looked for any data on that, it could be it was all accounted for to the penny. ITER is an international, purely scientific, peaceful project that is already going on for many more years than the original Manhattan project. Also fusion doesn't just happen by itself, when you "put the right elements close together". The problem that ITER tries to solve, even considering the advances over last 80 years, is quite a bit harder than nuclear fission in my opinion. Both are very hard, don't get me wrong, but fusion is considered the harder problem of those two. It is good to ask, whether something is effective, efficient or at least has meaning. But with such endeavours, you can only really judge afterwards because it has never been done before. So the whole ITER project, with machinery that redefines the meaning of custom, costs about 4x as much, as the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport or 4x times as much as the current Lufthansa bailout. I wouldn't consider both to be very efficient spending of public money, but I am no expert. ITER is financed by most of the developed countries in some capacity, the compared projects are only financed by Germany.