4 ms·

I can understand that from an enginneering perspective ITER is terrible, but fusion in general? There are all sorts of approaches to fusion, and things such as

I can understand that from an enginneering perspective ITER is terrible, but fusion in general? There are all sorts of approaches to fusion, and things such as type 2 superconductors were undiscovered 30 ago and uneconomic/unpractical 10 years ago. Timing control systems for magnetised target fusion were impossible but now are doable. Our understanding of plasma has been advancing a lot, simulations are good now, we can control plasmas much better. Chirped pulsed laser amplification is a thing now and really good at making high amplitude pulsed lasers for inertial approaches... I could go on and on. This isn't the 90s anymore, and our technology is still rapidly advancing. What happens if we find more efficient/cheap/high power density thermocouples, or find a direct energy electrostatic power capture method? Fusion's economic realities today may be overcome soon, we really do not know what we can do in even 20 years from now. The fundamental truth is that there is vast amounts of energy available in hydrogen, and all it takes is 100MK to ignite it.

pfdietz 5y ago
DT fusion looks bad even if you totally ignore anything related to plasma physics or magnetic fields. Simply handling the heat flow and neutrons from the reactor looks to make the reactor too big to compete, compared to fission reactors. And then you have the problem of having to stick sophisticated stuff in the hot zone where hands-on maintenance is impossible (compared to a fission reactor, where just the fuel and relatively simple hardware is in that zone.)
- gfodor 5y ago
  Fusion doesn’t have the stigma of fission, or a lot of the risks, and so if we can get to a point where we are actually building new fusion reactors, we should assume the technology will improve rapidly.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    It's a common error to think that fission power plants aren't being built because of "stigma". The actual problem is failed economics. Fusion promises to be even more expensive, for the reasons I explained. It's not clear why one should expect fusion to have good experience effects. Fission didn't, and the non-nuclear parts of fusion power plants will be mature technologies.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Your argument is that the stigma of nuclear meltdowns hasn’t impeded the deployment of nuclear energy?
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        If reactors were ten times safer but no cheaper, they still wouldn't be being built. If reactors were ten times cheaper but no safer, we'd be building them like hotcakes.
        lwouis 5y ago
        I think Japan disabling their fission plants after Fukushima, and Germany following that path are clear manifestation of the opposite: that people fear nuclear and democratic governments act on this fear, against development of the technology.
        nickik 5y ago
        While this is true, its a fact that the regulatory and governmental outlook on fission has prevented these changes from happening. The western world has made development of new fission plants practically impossible. Requiring 100s of millions in development before you might get a hint if the government would actually allow you to build a plant. Thankfully this has finally started to change. Mostly in Canada and that's where we will likely see next generation fission first.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        Regulation is the scapegoat for nuclear's failure, but it's equally the case that regulation is vital to nuclear (and to nuclear getting liability caps.) If the risk of nuclear were not socialized no one would build it (or insure it). What has also prevented changes from happening is that nuclear scales down poorly, so the cost of iterating designs is so large. Making a new kind of PV cell or module, or wind turbine, is comparatively much cheaper, because these are individually much smaller and cheaper. The replicated nature of these sources is an advantage in so many ways.

pfdietz 5y ago

DT fusion looks bad even if you totally ignore anything related to plasma physics or magnetic fields. Simply handling the heat flow and neutrons from the reactor looks to make the reactor too big to compete, compared to fission reactors. And then you have the problem of having to stick sophisticated stuff in the hot zone where hands-on maintenance is impossible (compared to a fission reactor, where just the fuel and relatively simple hardware is in that zone.)

gfodor 5y ago
Fusion doesn’t have the stigma of fission, or a lot of the risks, and so if we can get to a point where we are actually building new fusion reactors, we should assume the technology will improve rapidly.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  It's a common error to think that fission power plants aren't being built because of "stigma". The actual problem is failed economics. Fusion promises to be even more expensive, for the reasons I explained. It's not clear why one should expect fusion to have good experience effects. Fission didn't, and the non-nuclear parts of fusion power plants will be mature technologies.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Your argument is that the stigma of nuclear meltdowns hasn’t impeded the deployment of nuclear energy?
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      If reactors were ten times safer but no cheaper, they still wouldn't be being built. If reactors were ten times cheaper but no safer, we'd be building them like hotcakes.
      - lwouis 5y ago
        I think Japan disabling their fission plants after Fukushima, and Germany following that path are clear manifestation of the opposite: that people fear nuclear and democratic governments act on this fear, against development of the technology.
      - nickik 5y ago
        While this is true, its a fact that the regulatory and governmental outlook on fission has prevented these changes from happening. The western world has made development of new fission plants practically impossible. Requiring 100s of millions in development before you might get a hint if the government would actually allow you to build a plant. Thankfully this has finally started to change. Mostly in Canada and that's where we will likely see next generation fission first.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        Regulation is the scapegoat for nuclear's failure, but it's equally the case that regulation is vital to nuclear (and to nuclear getting liability caps.) If the risk of nuclear were not socialized no one would build it (or insure it). What has also prevented changes from happening is that nuclear scales down poorly, so the cost of iterating designs is so large. Making a new kind of PV cell or module, or wind turbine, is comparatively much cheaper, because these are individually much smaller and cheaper. The replicated nature of these sources is an advantage in so many ways.