5 ms·

> I wouldn't call it a "meh", even if it comes off as much more expensive than fission. It's not competing with fission, though. It's competing with renewab

by danans 5y ago

> I wouldn't call it a "meh", even if it comes off as much more expensive than fission. It's not competing with fission, though. It's competing with renewables + storage + load shifting + efficiency. Compared to those, it might indeed be "meh".

rnhmjoj 5y ago
Agreed, but grid and storage technology that will completely solve the renewable intermittence is probably as far in the future as commercial fusion reactors.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  This is a gross mischaracterization of the situation. There are a wide variety of energy storage schemes that promise to make renewables + storage cheaper than fission, which in turn is likely to be much cheaper than fusion. Simply dumping excess renewable power into a resistively heated thermal mass and using that to drive a power plant is likely to be cheaper than fusion.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  The only open question about large-scale energy storage is which of many viable alternatives will turn out cheapest, and when their price will bottom out. Battery storage that starts at 1/3 of lithium cost, before price begins to fall, is coming to market. Until prices do start to bottom out, investment in storage is wasteful, so dollars go to generating capacity of known utility. Each square meter of panel that goes online delays climate disaster by a precisely understood amount. Each panel made can go into service almost instantly. No matter how big the project, it can start delivering power anytime. There is no smallest-useful facility, right down to the residential rooftop. Every dollar diverted to Tokamak instead brings climate disaster nearer.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
UnFleshedOne 5y ago
In the grid this would take role of coal or gas plants for base load, no?
- danans 5y ago
  Storage at sufficient scale would supply some of what we refer to as baseload today, much as hydro provides baseload power in many places today.
r00fus 5y ago
For terrestrial operations, sure. But we need to either overcome shielding hurdles with fission or have relatively portable fusion if we're really going to explore our solar system or the stars. Renewables are key to having a sustainable energy economy. Fusion power is what will let us do the drastic things to recover from climate disaster that is already here.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
I am generally in support of solar and wind. But then, people underestimate the environmental destruction those can entail, depending on the site. Yesterday, I saw a hillside in a very rural part of Appalachia covered in solar panels. Nothing grew on the hill. Because, you know, plants would cover up the panels in no-time, so you have to vigorously keep all of it in check, with herbicides. Aside from the loss of potential carbon storage from allowing trees to grow on the hillside, which very well might offset any carbon-related gains from using solar, it's just bad for the ecology (which is exceedingly rich in the vicinity). Any farm typical for the area would be multiples of times better. This is not intended as a rant against solar (again, I'm an enthusiastic supporter), but I'd guess a landscape of fusion generators would take fewer square meters of land than the equivalent using solar. And that is nothing to scoff at.
- danans 5y ago
  > Aside from the loss of potential carbon storage from allowing trees to grow on the hillside, which very well might offset any carbon-related gains from using solar, It is incredibly unlikely to offset the carbon related gains of solar, because the carbon sequestration efficiency of plants and trees is very low to begin with, far lower than solar's capacity to displace carbon emitted from coal when area is held constant. Sure, it's better to put the solar where there is no existing tree cover, but it seems like most of Appalachia is covered in trees.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    which it should be. carbon is not the only environmental issue we face. appalachia is the main channel of animal migration. its incredible. we should do all we can to protect it's integrity.
    - danans 5y ago
      > which it should be. Solar power will never need to remove more than a tiny fraction of tree cover from Appalachia. What's a far bigger threat to the ecosystem, including animal migration, is mountaintop removal for coal mining: https://law.lclark.edu/live/blogs/134-de-regulation-of-mountain-top-removal-mining- https://law.lclark.edu/live/blogs/134-de-regulation-of-mount...

by danans 5y ago

rnhmjoj 5y ago

Agreed, but grid and storage technology that will completely solve the renewable intermittence is probably as far in the future as commercial fusion reactors.

pfdietz 5y ago
This is a gross mischaracterization of the situation. There are a wide variety of energy storage schemes that promise to make renewables + storage cheaper than fission, which in turn is likely to be much cheaper than fusion. Simply dumping excess renewable power into a resistively heated thermal mass and using that to drive a power plant is likely to be cheaper than fusion.
ncmncm 5y ago
The only open question about large-scale energy storage is which of many viable alternatives will turn out cheapest, and when their price will bottom out. Battery storage that starts at 1/3 of lithium cost, before price begins to fall, is coming to market. Until prices do start to bottom out, investment in storage is wasteful, so dollars go to generating capacity of known utility. Each square meter of panel that goes online delays climate disaster by a precisely understood amount. Each panel made can go into service almost instantly. No matter how big the project, it can start delivering power anytime. There is no smallest-useful facility, right down to the residential rooftop. Every dollar diverted to Tokamak instead brings climate disaster nearer.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

UnFleshedOne 5y ago

In the grid this would take role of coal or gas plants for base load, no?

danans 5y ago
Storage at sufficient scale would supply some of what we refer to as baseload today, much as hydro provides baseload power in many places today.

r00fus 5y ago

For terrestrial operations, sure. But we need to either overcome shielding hurdles with fission or have relatively portable fusion if we're really going to explore our solar system or the stars. Renewables are key to having a sustainable energy economy. Fusion power is what will let us do the drastic things to recover from climate disaster that is already here.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

I am generally in support of solar and wind. But then, people underestimate the environmental destruction those can entail, depending on the site. Yesterday, I saw a hillside in a very rural part of Appalachia covered in solar panels. Nothing grew on the hill. Because, you know, plants would cover up the panels in no-time, so you have to vigorously keep all of it in check, with herbicides. Aside from the loss of potential carbon storage from allowing trees to grow on the hillside, which very well might offset any carbon-related gains from using solar, it's just bad for the ecology (which is exceedingly rich in the vicinity). Any farm typical for the area would be multiples of times better. This is not intended as a rant against solar (again, I'm an enthusiastic supporter), but I'd guess a landscape of fusion generators would take fewer square meters of land than the equivalent using solar. And that is nothing to scoff at.

danans 5y ago
> Aside from the loss of potential carbon storage from allowing trees to grow on the hillside, which very well might offset any carbon-related gains from using solar, It is incredibly unlikely to offset the carbon related gains of solar, because the carbon sequestration efficiency of plants and trees is very low to begin with, far lower than solar's capacity to displace carbon emitted from coal when area is held constant. Sure, it's better to put the solar where there is no existing tree cover, but it seems like most of Appalachia is covered in trees.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  which it should be. carbon is not the only environmental issue we face. appalachia is the main channel of animal migration. its incredible. we should do all we can to protect it's integrity.
  - danans 5y ago
    > which it should be. Solar power will never need to remove more than a tiny fraction of tree cover from Appalachia. What's a far bigger threat to the ecosystem, including animal migration, is mountaintop removal for coal mining: https://law.lclark.edu/live/blogs/134-de-regulation-of-mountain-top-removal-mining- https://law.lclark.edu/live/blogs/134-de-regulation-of-mount...