5 ms·

Thanks. So it sounds like you're saying that, unless there is some radically different plant design in the future, that there won't be an economic advantage to

Thanks. So it sounds like you're saying that, unless there is some radically different plant design in the future, that there won't be an economic advantage to fusion over fission, at least in the near term.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Well fission energy would be much cheaper if most of our energy was produced that way. Economies of scale provide huge opportunities that are currently limited by political will. I don't see a reason fusion can't quickly become a large scale source of power, because unlike fission, there would be much less political backlash.
- sanxiyn 5y ago
  I am sad to report that in South Korea, which produces fission power very well and does excellent fusion research, the leading anti-nuclear activist (also a member of congress) is vocally against fusion and already proposed to cut 100% of fusion research budget in 2018. (People thought that's too extreme so she haven't repeated it so far, but I don't think her position changed in any way.)
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Being against wasting tax money is a principled stance. There is no possibility of current work leading to practical power on a time scale of less than multiple decades, and even then only if a mostly aneutronic form is achieved, which very few are working on.
    - anonymousDan 5y ago
      This is still not wasted money. We would all still be sitting around scratching our asses in caves with that attitude to scientific research.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Does fooling around with Tokamaks and stellarators count as scientific research? Certainly, containing fusing plasma magnetically requires developing a much better understanding than we now have of plasma fluid dynamics under conditions of high pressure and complicated, variable magnetic field geometry, but studying plasma fluid dynamics for itself does not need multi-billion dollar equipment. Nobody wants to give plasma physicists a dime just to learn about plasma, even though it would be fantastically cheaper than what is being done instead.
- duvenaud 5y ago
  Thanks. So it sounds like there isn't an economic advantage of fusion over fission, except indirectly through less political opposition.
  - mchusma 5y ago
    Fusion definitely has long term economic advantages over fission. The fuel is the most plentiful in the universe and the energy released from fusion is much higher than fission. The chart here shows the energy difference pretty well: https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/fission/nuclear-fission-vs-fusion/ https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/fission/nuclear-... More fuel + more energy from fuel = superior for most uses long term. If we pull it off.
    - duvenaud 5y ago
      Okay, but the other commenters are saying that fuel is around 6% of the cost of running a fission plant. Do you really think fuel availability will be a decisive factor in say, the next 60 years?
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        In a word, no. Fission is already not competitive, so a technology much more expensive to build and operate is even less so. In ten years, solar and wind will be even cheaper than today, and will be supplying most of our energy needs.
        MagnumOpus 5y ago
        Fission is non-competitive only because governments don't want it to be. France's nuclear fleet built in the 60s/70s with more primitive tech has capital/operating costs of 7c/kWh, which is fairly similar to commercial solar or wind in France - and is the cheapest option once you double the cost of the latter to account for extra storage/smart grids/other intermittency handling. (Not every place is Southern California where there are no clouds and the sun shines all year. Solar is cheap in some places, but not at high latitudes.)
aqme28 5y ago
“In the near term” doesn’t really make sense for fusion. It won’t be economical at all in the near term.

colinmhayes 5y ago

Well fission energy would be much cheaper if most of our energy was produced that way. Economies of scale provide huge opportunities that are currently limited by political will. I don't see a reason fusion can't quickly become a large scale source of power, because unlike fission, there would be much less political backlash.

sanxiyn 5y ago
I am sad to report that in South Korea, which produces fission power very well and does excellent fusion research, the leading anti-nuclear activist (also a member of congress) is vocally against fusion and already proposed to cut 100% of fusion research budget in 2018. (People thought that's too extreme so she haven't repeated it so far, but I don't think her position changed in any way.)
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Being against wasting tax money is a principled stance. There is no possibility of current work leading to practical power on a time scale of less than multiple decades, and even then only if a mostly aneutronic form is achieved, which very few are working on.
  - anonymousDan 5y ago
    This is still not wasted money. We would all still be sitting around scratching our asses in caves with that attitude to scientific research.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Does fooling around with Tokamaks and stellarators count as scientific research? Certainly, containing fusing plasma magnetically requires developing a much better understanding than we now have of plasma fluid dynamics under conditions of high pressure and complicated, variable magnetic field geometry, but studying plasma fluid dynamics for itself does not need multi-billion dollar equipment. Nobody wants to give plasma physicists a dime just to learn about plasma, even though it would be fantastically cheaper than what is being done instead.
duvenaud 5y ago
Thanks. So it sounds like there isn't an economic advantage of fusion over fission, except indirectly through less political opposition.
- mchusma 5y ago
  Fusion definitely has long term economic advantages over fission. The fuel is the most plentiful in the universe and the energy released from fusion is much higher than fission. The chart here shows the energy difference pretty well: https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/fission/nuclear-fission-vs-fusion/ https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/fission/nuclear-... More fuel + more energy from fuel = superior for most uses long term. If we pull it off.
  - duvenaud 5y ago
    Okay, but the other commenters are saying that fuel is around 6% of the cost of running a fission plant. Do you really think fuel availability will be a decisive factor in say, the next 60 years?
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      In a word, no. Fission is already not competitive, so a technology much more expensive to build and operate is even less so. In ten years, solar and wind will be even cheaper than today, and will be supplying most of our energy needs.
      - MagnumOpus 5y ago
        Fission is non-competitive only because governments don't want it to be. France's nuclear fleet built in the 60s/70s with more primitive tech has capital/operating costs of 7c/kWh, which is fairly similar to commercial solar or wind in France - and is the cheapest option once you double the cost of the latter to account for extra storage/smart grids/other intermittency handling. (Not every place is Southern California where there are no clouds and the sun shines all year. Solar is cheap in some places, but not at high latitudes.)

aqme28 5y ago

“In the near term” doesn’t really make sense for fusion. It won’t be economical at all in the near term.