4 ms·

Are you suggesting that fusion is a close-to-viable technology which has been held back because it hasn't had enough research resources spent on it?

ThomPete 6y ago
No,I am suggesting that its as close as the magic solutions to wind and solars intermittency issue we hear so much about and therefore the money would be better spent creating something as powerful as fusion than something to help a inferior and backwards looking type of energy that doesent even provide 1% of the worlds energy.
- ben_w 6y ago
  The low end estimate for the cost of completing ITER is $22 billion, and it’s a 500 MW (thermal) output reactor. The cost estimate for batteries was about $137/kWh last year. Therefore, ITER costs about as much as ~160 GWh of storage, which is enough for the entire UK for 4 hours 40 minutes… or the thermal output of ITER for 13 days, 9 hours. Which is enough to cover even the least productive production gaps in combined wind and solar output. Also, those batteries are rechargeable and last at least 1000 cycles, which would be a bit more than 36.5 years of drain (even with negligible recharge time), which is 16.5 years longer than the planned lifetime of ITER. And remember, the batteries are made at a profit, even including the cost of building the factories.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    wind and solar provides less than 1% of the worlds energy. That should provide you with a pretty good reason why your calculation is useless in this discussion.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      PV alone made 3% of global electricity in 2019. Wind was 5.3% of global electricity demand in the same year. PV has been growing at close to ~37% per year (compound) since 1992, and at current rates will be making almost all electricity by 2025 and all power (i.e. enough to electrify transport, heat, etc.) by 2030. And given wind and solar are currently the two cheapest form of power, it is very plausible the growth of these two will continue at least to the 50% point.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which literally can't provide enough heat for the majority of needs we have, can't scale, requires insane amounts of land, requires complex daisy chains of different solutions to work, isn't reliable, requires absurd amounts of resources, needs backup from oil, coal, gas or nuclear and won't be able to deliver anything even close to useful baseload and most importantly is so inadequate when it comes to thinking about any future civilisations energy needs both in scale and density. A forum like this people still clings to these Rube Goldberg constellations and think they are somehow supportiing progress. Especially since 3billion people still don't have proper access to energy. Oh well.
        ben_w 6y ago
        > Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I know. I made implicit reference to that with the 2025/2030 split. > I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which… Has it occurred to you that you might be… wrong? I mean, when I find myself disagreeing with a lot of smart people, I do ask myself that question. I could go thought all of your claims separately, but I’ve never found that to be successful at convincing anyone.
        ThomPete 6y ago
        what exactly would i be wrong about? I am open to a persuasive argument. Dropping calculations based on speculations not even factoring everything in isnt one of them.
        ben_w 6y ago
        > what exactly would i be wrong about? Everything. Literally everything. > wind and solar which literally can't provide enough heat for the majority of needs we have Almost all heat on Earth is solar in origin, including the majority that we don’t use. > can't scale Scales up to Kardashev III. > requires insane amounts of land Only looks like lots of land because there’s 7 billion people. 15TW all-source power use * 1kW/m^2 * 20% cell efficiency * 25% capacity factor = 300,000 square km = 1.7 years of lost rainforest = 38.9 m^2/person = a little more than half my apartment as land area per person. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15TW%20%2F%28%201kw%2Fm%5E2%20%2A%2020%25%20%2A%2025%25%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15TW%20%2F%28%201kw%2Fm... Again, that 38.9 m^2/person is for all power — heating and transport, domestic and industrial usage — if you only wanted to deal with electricity you can achieve that just by covering rooftops, while you can cover about 90% of car needs with PV on BEV cars (if you allow them to share, but that’s not difficult, heavy users need to charge just like they already do and light users would want to sell the excess, dismissing this as “complex” would be ridiculous given what cars are), meaning not much extra new land has to be dedicated to PV (or to wind if you want diversity). The only big things people even need to think about now is stuff like synthetic jet fuel, and even then we already know the chemical reactions, it’s just about commercialising them. > requires complex daisy chains of different solutions to work No more complex than anything else in the modern world, therefore calling it complex as a criticism is false. And further, they’re still incredibly valuable even without batteries. And they are the only existing long-term solution to our energy needs, given fossil fuels are finite and commercial fusion isn’t actually a thing yet. > isn't reliable Can be forecast reliably a week ahead in great detail, and seasonally in broad brushstrokes. We’re not going to be surprised that winter is dark, we can plan around this trivially in much the same way and for much the same reasons that supermarkets don’t get surprised by seasonal demand for ice-cream or raincoats. > requires absurd amounts of resources Less than the alternatives, again only looks big because there’s 7 billion people. > needs backup from oil, coal, gas or nuclear and won't be able to deliver anything even close to useful baseload Or, as demonstrated, batteries. You could also do it with a sufficiently large grid, because transmission losses between e.g. Berlin and the Sahara desert are less than the price difference between PV and coal or nuclear. > and most importantly is so inadequate when it comes to thinking about any future civilisations energy needs both in scale and density Literally Dyson swarms. > A forum like this people still clings to these Rube Goldberg constellations and think they are somehow supportiing progress. “PV + battery” is two items, calling that a Rube Goldberg machine is like dismissing the wheel because you get the most out of it by adding an axel. Plus I can literally buy USB batteries with PV pre-mounted to them at negligible cost compared to those without PV — the hard stuff has already been done, commercialised, commoditised, and made it to the high street. > Especially since 3billion people still don't have proper access to energy. Oh well. PV and wind are the cheapest power sources, so the most capable of improving that.

ThomPete 6y ago

No,I am suggesting that its as close as the magic solutions to wind and solars intermittency issue we hear so much about and therefore the money would be better spent creating something as powerful as fusion than something to help a inferior and backwards looking type of energy that doesent even provide 1% of the worlds energy.

ben_w 6y ago
The low end estimate for the cost of completing ITER is $22 billion, and it’s a 500 MW (thermal) output reactor. The cost estimate for batteries was about $137/kWh last year. Therefore, ITER costs about as much as ~160 GWh of storage, which is enough for the entire UK for 4 hours 40 minutes… or the thermal output of ITER for 13 days, 9 hours. Which is enough to cover even the least productive production gaps in combined wind and solar output. Also, those batteries are rechargeable and last at least 1000 cycles, which would be a bit more than 36.5 years of drain (even with negligible recharge time), which is 16.5 years longer than the planned lifetime of ITER. And remember, the batteries are made at a profit, even including the cost of building the factories.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  wind and solar provides less than 1% of the worlds energy. That should provide you with a pretty good reason why your calculation is useless in this discussion.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    PV alone made 3% of global electricity in 2019. Wind was 5.3% of global electricity demand in the same year. PV has been growing at close to ~37% per year (compound) since 1992, and at current rates will be making almost all electricity by 2025 and all power (i.e. enough to electrify transport, heat, etc.) by 2030. And given wind and solar are currently the two cheapest form of power, it is very plausible the growth of these two will continue at least to the 50% point.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which literally can't provide enough heat for the majority of needs we have, can't scale, requires insane amounts of land, requires complex daisy chains of different solutions to work, isn't reliable, requires absurd amounts of resources, needs backup from oil, coal, gas or nuclear and won't be able to deliver anything even close to useful baseload and most importantly is so inadequate when it comes to thinking about any future civilisations energy needs both in scale and density. A forum like this people still clings to these Rube Goldberg constellations and think they are somehow supportiing progress. Especially since 3billion people still don't have proper access to energy. Oh well.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        > Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I know. I made implicit reference to that with the 2025/2030 split. > I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which… Has it occurred to you that you might be… wrong? I mean, when I find myself disagreeing with a lot of smart people, I do ask myself that question. I could go thought all of your claims separately, but I’ve never found that to be successful at convincing anyone.
        ThomPete 6y ago
        what exactly would i be wrong about? I am open to a persuasive argument. Dropping calculations based on speculations not even factoring everything in isnt one of them.
        ben_w 6y ago
        > what exactly would i be wrong about? Everything. Literally everything. > wind and solar which literally can't provide enough heat for the majority of needs we have Almost all heat on Earth is solar in origin, including the majority that we don’t use. > can't scale Scales up to Kardashev III. > requires insane amounts of land Only looks like lots of land because there’s 7 billion people. 15TW all-source power use * 1kW/m^2 * 20% cell efficiency * 25% capacity factor = 300,000 square km = 1.7 years of lost rainforest = 38.9 m^2/person = a little more than half my apartment as land area per person. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15TW%20%2F%28%201kw%2Fm%5E2%20%2A%2020%25%20%2A%2025%25%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15TW%20%2F%28%201kw%2Fm... Again, that 38.9 m^2/person is for all power — heating and transport, domestic and industrial usage — if you only wanted to deal with electricity you can achieve that just by covering rooftops, while you can cover about 90% of car needs with PV on BEV cars (if you allow them to share, but that’s not difficult, heavy users need to charge just like they already do and light users would want to sell the excess, dismissing this as “complex” would be ridiculous given what cars are), meaning not much extra new land has to be dedicated to PV (or to wind if you want diversity). The only big things people even need to think about now is stuff like synthetic jet fuel, and even then we already know the chemical reactions, it’s just about commercialising them. > requires complex daisy chains of different solutions to work No more complex than anything else in the modern world, therefore calling it complex as a criticism is false. And further, they’re still incredibly valuable even without batteries. And they are the only existing long-term solution to our energy needs, given fossil fuels are finite and commercial fusion isn’t actually a thing yet. > isn't reliable Can be forecast reliably a week ahead in great detail, and seasonally in broad brushstrokes. We’re not going to be surprised that winter is dark, we can plan around this trivially in much the same way and for much the same reasons that supermarkets don’t get surprised by seasonal demand for ice-cream or raincoats. > requires absurd amounts of resources Less than the alternatives, again only looks big because there’s 7 billion people. > needs backup from oil, coal, gas or nuclear and won't be able to deliver anything even close to useful baseload Or, as demonstrated, batteries. You could also do it with a sufficiently large grid, because transmission losses between e.g. Berlin and the Sahara desert are less than the price difference between PV and coal or nuclear. > and most importantly is so inadequate when it comes to thinking about any future civilisations energy needs both in scale and density Literally Dyson swarms. > A forum like this people still clings to these Rube Goldberg constellations and think they are somehow supportiing progress. “PV + battery” is two items, calling that a Rube Goldberg machine is like dismissing the wheel because you get the most out of it by adding an axel. Plus I can literally buy USB batteries with PV pre-mounted to them at negligible cost compared to those without PV — the hard stuff has already been done, commercialised, commoditised, and made it to the high street. > Especially since 3billion people still don't have proper access to energy. Oh well. PV and wind are the cheapest power sources, so the most capable of improving that.