3 ms·

Thanks for actually answering my question! I guess no one wants to be a downer, but I'm pretty shocked that no one else in this thread, or that I've talked to

Thanks for actually answering my question! I guess no one wants to be a downer, but I'm pretty shocked that no one else in this thread, or that I've talked to about this issue, or anything I've read about fusion, has mentioned that current designs aren't on track to be remotely cost effective, which is what you seem to be saying.

ncmncm 5y ago
Most people think the fusion idea is cool enough to be enthused over, and assume all the deep technical difficulties, beyond actual fusing itself, will evaporate, because that would be cool too. Consider that the majority of startup companies with apparently good ideas never get to market. People like to think the hardest problem they know of right now is all that matters, but often it is a boring problem that sinks the company. Maybe it is technically solvable, but costs enough to destroy the value proposition. So long as solar and wind costs are still falling fast, any prediction about the viability of competing tech is at best provisional. Solar and wind benefit from the opposite effect: there are known problems, but they have lots of known viable solutions that are just competing for which ones (plural) will end up cheapest, or have the most side benefits, or are easiest to deploy. It used to be that poor round-trip efficiency would sink a storage technology, but generation has become so cheap that losses matter less than other considerations. 50% loss? Build out more panels! Hydrogen still has awful efficiency, electrolysers and fuel cells need platinum-group metals, and liquid hydrogen needs really rigorous handling, but H2 is so useful that those don't matter. Efficiency and cost will only improve. Ammonia synthesis is similar: super-useful, but maybe easier to make starting with water. (There will be a lot of waste oxygen soon.) Iron-air batteries likewise have poor efficiency, and low discharge rate, but the material basis is very, very cheap. You can gang up thousands in parallel to get the rate you need, and stick lithium or lead cells on the front to handle load spikes. Useless for cars, fine for utilities. Liquifying air is very mature tech, so as the basis for a storage medium it's a safe bet. Storage capacity grows with cheap tankage. And, excess LN2 is valuable, so when your tanks are full you still have revenue. It turns out there are myriad elevated basins that would be perfect for pumped hydro storage, another very mature technology. Unlike hydro generation, you don't need a whole watershed and river valley, just hills with a dip. Even if fusion fizzles for utilities, the mostly-aneutronic sort might be perfect for outer solar system propulsion, where a completely different set of constraints apply. And, military deployments will often not be able to lay out much solar where they land. So, even though fission is, relative to solar, super-expensive, places can be found where nothing else will do.
- skywal_l 5y ago
  You make an interesting point and I am myself absolutely not knowledgeable in that field but there are some obvious points that you elude in your response. Fission (will?) have the advantage of being able to produce energy whenever we need it. Solar or wind need storage. And as far as I know, there are no viable storage solution as of today. > It turns out there are myriad elevated basins that would be perfect for pumped hydro storage, another very mature technology. Unlike hydro generation, you don't need a whole watershed and river valley, just hills with a dip. In some countries, all possible places of hydro generation have already been used. What would be the potential for new hydro solutions in Europe for example, where hydro has been exploited for decades? Again, not an expert, but I don't think that there is an obvious path in countries where population density is pretty high and without large swathe of lands, to build hydro storage to be able to produce enough energy on a sufficient long period of time. Curious to know what you think. Using any sort of battery, based on a chemical process, will also probably have high impact on the environment. Current battery relies on rare earth material or industrial processes that are very impactful. Creating enough batteries to ensure safe power distribution for billions of people will probably be terrible for the environment. My point is that there is no silver bullet as of now so putting all you eggs in the same basket does not seem to be a sane strategy. Investigating fusion is worth a shot I think. And if we worry about money, there's plenty of money to go around. We are talking about the survival of civilization here. 16 billions were poured into the a company providing ways to share pictures of your baby to your high school friends ten years ago (yes Facebook). I am sure we can find the money to finance Fusion AND research on energy storage. It's a question of political will. In the end, we'll get what we deserve...
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    It seems you did not even read the parts you quoted. Try reading what I already wrote, and you will have your answers.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Regarding storage, have you seen https://www.mbrenewables.com/en/water-battery-concept/ https://www.mbrenewables.com/en/water-battery-concept/ ?

ncmncm 5y ago

Most people think the fusion idea is cool enough to be enthused over, and assume all the deep technical difficulties, beyond actual fusing itself, will evaporate, because that would be cool too. Consider that the majority of startup companies with apparently good ideas never get to market. People like to think the hardest problem they know of right now is all that matters, but often it is a boring problem that sinks the company. Maybe it is technically solvable, but costs enough to destroy the value proposition. So long as solar and wind costs are still falling fast, any prediction about the viability of competing tech is at best provisional. Solar and wind benefit from the opposite effect: there are known problems, but they have lots of known viable solutions that are just competing for which ones (plural) will end up cheapest, or have the most side benefits, or are easiest to deploy. It used to be that poor round-trip efficiency would sink a storage technology, but generation has become so cheap that losses matter less than other considerations. 50% loss? Build out more panels! Hydrogen still has awful efficiency, electrolysers and fuel cells need platinum-group metals, and liquid hydrogen needs really rigorous handling, but H2 is so useful that those don't matter. Efficiency and cost will only improve. Ammonia synthesis is similar: super-useful, but maybe easier to make starting with water. (There will be a lot of waste oxygen soon.) Iron-air batteries likewise have poor efficiency, and low discharge rate, but the material basis is very, very cheap. You can gang up thousands in parallel to get the rate you need, and stick lithium or lead cells on the front to handle load spikes. Useless for cars, fine for utilities. Liquifying air is very mature tech, so as the basis for a storage medium it's a safe bet. Storage capacity grows with cheap tankage. And, excess LN2 is valuable, so when your tanks are full you still have revenue. It turns out there are myriad elevated basins that would be perfect for pumped hydro storage, another very mature technology. Unlike hydro generation, you don't need a whole watershed and river valley, just hills with a dip. Even if fusion fizzles for utilities, the mostly-aneutronic sort might be perfect for outer solar system propulsion, where a completely different set of constraints apply. And, military deployments will often not be able to lay out much solar where they land. So, even though fission is, relative to solar, super-expensive, places can be found where nothing else will do.

skywal_l 5y ago
You make an interesting point and I am myself absolutely not knowledgeable in that field but there are some obvious points that you elude in your response. Fission (will?) have the advantage of being able to produce energy whenever we need it. Solar or wind need storage. And as far as I know, there are no viable storage solution as of today. > It turns out there are myriad elevated basins that would be perfect for pumped hydro storage, another very mature technology. Unlike hydro generation, you don't need a whole watershed and river valley, just hills with a dip. In some countries, all possible places of hydro generation have already been used. What would be the potential for new hydro solutions in Europe for example, where hydro has been exploited for decades? Again, not an expert, but I don't think that there is an obvious path in countries where population density is pretty high and without large swathe of lands, to build hydro storage to be able to produce enough energy on a sufficient long period of time. Curious to know what you think. Using any sort of battery, based on a chemical process, will also probably have high impact on the environment. Current battery relies on rare earth material or industrial processes that are very impactful. Creating enough batteries to ensure safe power distribution for billions of people will probably be terrible for the environment. My point is that there is no silver bullet as of now so putting all you eggs in the same basket does not seem to be a sane strategy. Investigating fusion is worth a shot I think. And if we worry about money, there's plenty of money to go around. We are talking about the survival of civilization here. 16 billions were poured into the a company providing ways to share pictures of your baby to your high school friends ten years ago (yes Facebook). I am sure we can find the money to finance Fusion AND research on energy storage. It's a question of political will. In the end, we'll get what we deserve...
- ncmncm 5y ago
  It seems you did not even read the parts you quoted. Try reading what I already wrote, and you will have your answers.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Regarding storage, have you seen https://www.mbrenewables.com/en/water-battery-concept/ https://www.mbrenewables.com/en/water-battery-concept/ ?