4 ms·

WE already did that. Its called nuclear power. Fission energy can do almost everything fusion can do. The difference in energy density between fission and fusio

by nickik 5y ago

WE already did that. Its called nuclear power. Fission energy can do almost everything fusion can do. The difference in energy density between fission and fusion is not that large compared to the energy sources we have. With all the investment in solar and wind we could easily have built a fission based economy. The French proved that in the 70/80s and had a green grid ever since. Had we done that collectively global warming would be a far lesser issue. It would also help us understand neutronics and material science so we can eventually switch to fusion. The same basic technology could also be used for space travel in the solar system and would have advanced space travel by a lot. But of course for idiotic reasons society went away from that.

arcanon 5y ago
I think there is one more step change theoretically possible in terms of energy output which is based on anti-quark collisions. We need to understand QCD better. Its hard to know when breakthroughs will happen. Maybe its already happened and we just havent heard about it yet! We also dont know how to model quantum gravity still. That seems pretty fundamental. Im optimistic there will be physicists who find something new and whacky that no one could predict.
- nickik 5y ago
  Yes, fine, lets research that. However here is the thing. We figured out that fission thing in the 50s and still fail to use it.
Nitramp 5y ago
FWIW, fissible material that's used with current technology is actually running out, with a similar timeline to oil. Fission is not an infinite energy source, despite appearances to the contrary. It's also not an cheap as one might hope.
- bbojan 5y ago
  But the current technology can be improved at least 100x (fast fission) to 10000x (breeders).
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Those numbers are for once-through fuel cycle used by US, which only burns 3% of U235. Fuel reprocessing employed by France uses all of U235 + generates and burns plutonium. Fast reactors, which exist in small numbers in Russia, etc, take it up by another two orders of magnitude
- nickik 5y ago
  This is complete nonsense. Fear mongering about Peak-this or Peak that is has proven wrong in pretty much every single case for 250 years. If fuel were serious concern for cost, real searching for it would find much more. And even with current technologies and reactors there are many ways to extend this, if you are willing to mix in some more highly enriched materials. Eating up the absurd amount of nukes the US still has for example would be helpful. And of course no society that actually bet on nuclear would still be using that fuel cycle in any serious way. This is just the typical fear mongering that people use for all technologies they don't like, "Not enough lithium for EV".
ncmncm 5y ago
Idiotic reasons such as that nuke always turned out, on examination, to cost much more than alternatives. Much of that high cost is often wholly-legal corruption that attaches to almost any large, centralized, hard-to-account public-money expenditure. Knowing this does not help. Thus far, solar and wind projects have mostly avoided the corruption tax by their simple accounting framework: N generating units x $C per unit = $CxN; and by their clear value proposition: $CxN is lately, and still increasingly, much less than alternatives whether those are figured with corruption tax included or not. At this time it is cheaper to build out a new solar-and-wind farm and operate it than to continue just to operate a comparable nuke, wholly neglecting construction and decommissioning cost. We finally got the ramshackle Diablo Canyon and Indian Point contraptions shut down, but it will still cost a $billion to take them apart; or, likely, more, according to the degree of corruption tolerated.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "to cost much more than alternatives." That's why France has cheapest electricity in Europe? Furthemore, once you take into account damage from climate change for fossil fuels or cost of backup for renewables, their cost triples. For example Scotland generated 100% of it's energy needs cumulatively in a year from renewables, but in reality the renewables only covered ~30% of demand because it was generating loads when none was needed, and generation little when loads was needed.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    France’s reactors are all government owned, and the subsidy level is apparently hard to determine (or was in 2009, Al Gore paraphrased citation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France). But this graph indicates that, unlike in 2009, nuclear is in general much more expensive than PV or wind: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_C... From the cost estimates I’ve seen, PV with battery backups are cost competitive with oil and better than coal, even with pessimistic battery cycle-lifetimes. And we are building battery factories essentially as fast as we can, and batteries are still getting cheaper.

by nickik 5y ago

arcanon 5y ago

I think there is one more step change theoretically possible in terms of energy output which is based on anti-quark collisions. We need to understand QCD better. Its hard to know when breakthroughs will happen. Maybe its already happened and we just havent heard about it yet! We also dont know how to model quantum gravity still. That seems pretty fundamental. Im optimistic there will be physicists who find something new and whacky that no one could predict.

nickik 5y ago
Yes, fine, lets research that. However here is the thing. We figured out that fission thing in the 50s and still fail to use it.

Nitramp 5y ago

FWIW, fissible material that's used with current technology is actually running out, with a similar timeline to oil. Fission is not an infinite energy source, despite appearances to the contrary. It's also not an cheap as one might hope.

bbojan 5y ago
But the current technology can be improved at least 100x (fast fission) to 10000x (breeders).
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Those numbers are for once-through fuel cycle used by US, which only burns 3% of U235. Fuel reprocessing employed by France uses all of U235 + generates and burns plutonium. Fast reactors, which exist in small numbers in Russia, etc, take it up by another two orders of magnitude
nickik 5y ago
This is complete nonsense. Fear mongering about Peak-this or Peak that is has proven wrong in pretty much every single case for 250 years. If fuel were serious concern for cost, real searching for it would find much more. And even with current technologies and reactors there are many ways to extend this, if you are willing to mix in some more highly enriched materials. Eating up the absurd amount of nukes the US still has for example would be helpful. And of course no society that actually bet on nuclear would still be using that fuel cycle in any serious way. This is just the typical fear mongering that people use for all technologies they don't like, "Not enough lithium for EV".

ncmncm 5y ago

Idiotic reasons such as that nuke always turned out, on examination, to cost much more than alternatives. Much of that high cost is often wholly-legal corruption that attaches to almost any large, centralized, hard-to-account public-money expenditure. Knowing this does not help. Thus far, solar and wind projects have mostly avoided the corruption tax by their simple accounting framework: N generating units x $C per unit = $CxN; and by their clear value proposition: $CxN is lately, and still increasingly, much less than alternatives whether those are figured with corruption tax included or not. At this time it is cheaper to build out a new solar-and-wind farm and operate it than to continue just to operate a comparable nuke, wholly neglecting construction and decommissioning cost. We finally got the ramshackle Diablo Canyon and Indian Point contraptions shut down, but it will still cost a $billion to take them apart; or, likely, more, according to the degree of corruption tolerated.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"to cost much more than alternatives." That's why France has cheapest electricity in Europe? Furthemore, once you take into account damage from climate change for fossil fuels or cost of backup for renewables, their cost triples. For example Scotland generated 100% of it's energy needs cumulatively in a year from renewables, but in reality the renewables only covered ~30% of demand because it was generating loads when none was needed, and generation little when loads was needed.
- ben_w 5y ago
  France’s reactors are all government owned, and the subsidy level is apparently hard to determine (or was in 2009, Al Gore paraphrased citation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France). But this graph indicates that, unlike in 2009, nuclear is in general much more expensive than PV or wind: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_C... From the cost estimates I’ve seen, PV with battery backups are cost competitive with oil and better than coal, even with pessimistic battery cycle-lifetimes. And we are building battery factories essentially as fast as we can, and batteries are still getting cheaper.