4 ms·
It seems very unlikely to me that there will ever be sufficient desire for fission based power in most countries, no matter how safe scientists say it is. I sti
by dan-robertson 6y ago
It seems very unlikely to me that there will ever be sufficient desire for fission based power in most countries, no matter how safe scientists say it is. I still think nuclear power will be important.
It seems plausible that governments will continue to fund research into fusion power but I am doubtful that much more money could be raised than was raised for ITER, especially as the results from ITER will not be particularly exciting. Therefore I don’t think fusion would be cost effective with ITER level technology (the way to make fusion generate power more efficiently without changing the underlying technology is to make it bigger which makes it much more expensive (I think cost scales roughly as the fourth power of the diameter)). Therefore improvements in technology would be required. A fundamental technology in this case is the quality of the superconductors (one aspect in particular is that some superconductors become less effective in high magnetic fields but the whole reason they are used is to generate very strong magnetic fields).
Perhaps if more funding had gone into fusion over time, it would have gone into the more fundamental research into things like new superconductors specific for fusion (ie focusing on things like achieving high field strength more than cost). Fortunately other funding has gone into superconductor research and cheaper superconductors mean fusion research may also become cheaper (and better superconductors mean smaller reactors which are much cheaper).
It still feels like more funding would be better: projects could complete faster and iterate more, but it doesn’t feel absolutely hopeless to me. If all our hopes rested on ITER, I think it would be time for despair.
Despite the slow progress on fusion it still feels more likely to me than the green new deal.
- joncrane 6y ago>the way to make fusion generate power more efficiently without changing the underlying technology is to make it bigger Actually there was a front page item on here a couple of weeks ago showing that there's a new superconductor that can generate a stronger magnetic field, which will allow new, much smaller fusion reactors. So according to the guy from MIT who gave the talk, ITER is already obsolete technology. Having said that, with fusion, it looks like every time they have a breakthrough, they find a new limiting factor when then takes billions to overcome, rinse and repeat. It's amazing in theory but we have yet to achieve a fusion reaction that is energy positive and the path to that is still fraught. In theory with these Lithium neutron blankets you can even create your own fuel (Assuming Deuterim-Tritium reaction) but the hurdles are still insanely high to get something that's actually practical. Also, I believe fission and fusion can be synergistic in that you can have a fission reactor that not only produces energy, but it produces some of the fuel for the fusion.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago>So according to the guy from MIT who gave the talk, ITER is already obsolete technology. >It's amazing in theory but we have yet to achieve a fusion reaction that is energy positive and the path to that is still fraught. He also said that fusion has a funding issue, not a science or engineering issue. Also- being able to make them smaller mostly solves the funding issue.
- joncrane 6y agoYes, it removes ONE funding obstacle because as the OP I replied to says cost increased with the 4th power of the size, but that just means you move to the next limiting factor: the neutron blanket, designing to be able to swap out the shielding, etc. We are still VERY far away from practical fusion. The fact that we know what the current limiting factors are doesn't mean that once we overcome those hurdles that we'll have a practical solution.
- jcims 6y agoI wonder if that General Fusion design has any benefit here? It’s basically a swirling sphere of molten lead that is injected with a bubble of hydrogen plasma and then a bunch of pistons pump the volume down to collapse the bubble to create fusion conditions. It seems that that the lead might provide neutron shielding and is also the carrier fluid for the excess heat. Who knows if it actually works but the simplicity of the design seems pretty elegant.
- pfdietz 6y agoI don't think GF has a realistic chance of making a workable reactor. They've already given up on the acoustic compression scheme, and the slow compression scheme they are now following has a metal post down the middle of the chamber, unshielded from average neutron fluxes that will, at the center, be orders of magnitude higher than in more conventional reactors.
- 6y ago
- willis936 6y agoFusion is great and important and if society can afford it they should continue to fund it. However, if the goal is slowing damage to the environment in the next 80 years then fusion shouldn’t be seriously considered. Fusion is the answer to what humanity does to make large amounts of electrical power not from fossil fuels when renewables stop scaling for baseline loads. Humanity will benefit from it, but the window for it to be the technology to keep the planet habitable has passed.