4 ms·

The taste of immense profit is in the air. In the minds of potential investors, fusion is no longer a "lol maybe in 50 years" technology. Advances in magnetic m

The taste of immense profit is in the air. In the minds of potential investors, fusion is no longer a "lol maybe in 50 years" technology. Advances in magnetic modeling and magnet technology have resulted in cheaper, easier-to-develop alternatives to the classic Tokamak. Timelines are now believably "this decade" for demonstration reactors. Energy production/harvesting is a foundational element of our civilization. Literally all of the comforts of modern society require the expenditure of some form of energy. Any entity that develops an unlimited, clean and cheap source of energy essentially has access to a money printer.

Invictus0 4y ago
If nuclear fusion were ever developed, I imagine the government would seek to seize its patent protection under the Invention Secrecy Act.
scaramanga 4y ago
The first part, the taste of immense profit, sure. But the idea that people are thinking of profits on the timescale of "this decade" is almost laughable, given the situation we are already in with climate change. A much more rational explanation would be "they are trying to grab as much cash as they can right now, for as long as people believe that this is a thing that we should be doing, and may be possible", regardless of whether it's a good idea (it isn't), or whether it would work (doesn't look like it). But sure, maybe they are completely sincere and really believe in it all, who knows? But the issue isn't just that "all of the comforts of modern society require the expenditure of some form of energy" it's also the case that "exponentially increasing energy expenditure is just accelerating the rate at which we are asset stripping and polluting the earth" and the latter continues to be true even if we stop emitting CO2. I think it should now be apparent to all that comfort-seeking and suicide are essentially the same process (ask any addict), at least for the definitions of "comfort" that our current political and economic system are organised around. Of course, quite a lot of people still do not experience a lot of "comfort" even with the practically limitless energy that we have from fossil fuels. Edit: sorry for the ramble, but to summarize, I think you give people too much credit to imagine they can design such a complex money printer with a 10 year plan, and if they could plan to that timescale, they are probably going to see that society so far in to collapse by then, that even with infinite energy, there will not be much value in the money that it prints.
credit_guy 4y ago
> In the minds of potential investors, fusion is no longer a "lol maybe in 50 years" technology. No. Potential investors are used to extremely skewed investments results for startups. Most startups fail, but some of those that succeed, succeed spectacularly. A successful fusion startup is almost guaranteed to have a spectacular success, something that would make Facebook or Uber or Tesla look like small potatoes. Given that, a VC is ok with investing in it even if they think the likelihood of success is only 1%. They would not if they think that likelihood is only 0.01%, because at that level estimates are not reliable (who's to say it's 0.01% and not 0.00001% ?). But if there's a reasonable argument that P(success) ~ 1%, then it's a no-brainer to invest, because even a mistake of 2 orders of magnitude would still result in a positive return. For the rest of us though, the "fusion is 50 years in the future" can simply be replaced with "there's a 99% chance fusion will not be done in the next 50 years". Or, what the heck, just leave it at "fusion is 50 years in the future" and you'll be much more right than wrong.
- rapsey 4y ago
  The cost effectiveness of fusion is completely up in the air. People speak about fusion as if it somehow is just going to produce infinite power at no cost.
tsimionescu 4y ago
> Any entity that develops an unlimited, clean and cheap source of energy essentially has access to a money printer. Well, one thing that should be clear to anyone watching the space is that fusion will be neither unlimited, clean nor cheap. At the very least, not with any approach being looked at today. First of all, being based on state-of-the-art science and tech, it's clear that it cannot be cheap for another 20-30 years even if it was working today. Secondly, fusion reactors will produce large quantities of radioactive waste, probably larger than fission reactors, because everything that comes in close proximity to the reactor will be bombarded by 30+ times as many neutrons than in a fission reactor (or 5x-20x as many for DD fusion), and much higher energy neutrons at that, making it brittle and radioactive. Most of the reactor components are expected to need changing every 2-4 years, by which time they will be radioactive waste. Not to mention, fusion plants will work with large amounts of tritium, which is notoriously hard to contain, making tritium leaks all but guaranteed. So, definitely not clean. Thirdly, fusion reactors require large amounts of tritium, which is virtually non-existent on Earth and must be created in fission power plants. The neutrons from the fusion reaction can theoretically also be used to recycle tritium (when hitting the lithium blanket), but you would have to recapture 100% of the tritium produced this way to recreate fuel, which is not possible. So, to run a fusion reactor you will be limited by tritium availability, and that will mean you also need a small fission reactor, and that in turn requires uranium - so, not really that unlimited. Not to mention, even Deuterium is not actually that easy to obtain, as you need to either get it from fossil fuels (the way it is mostly obtained today) or from water hydrolysis, which is another waste of your produced energy. Overall, fusion seems extremely unlikely to be an economically viable source of energy in the coming decades. Every new reactor will require massive investments, it will waste a good portion of its output to keep itself running (powering the superconducting magnets, pumping coolant, void pumping the reactors, water hydrolisis, lithium processing to extract the tritium etc). It will require highly trained engineers to design, build and maintain. It will have a high risk of catastrophic damage to the reactor itself, easily vaporizing much of the investment in an instant if the magnetic containment of the plasma fails, for example, or melting down spectacularly if the cooling system fails. Virtually all components of the reactor, including the high tech magnets, will require constant replacement as they become brittle from the neutron bombardment - and all the old parts will require expensive radioactive storage for at least a few decades to centuries.

Invictus0 4y ago

If nuclear fusion were ever developed, I imagine the government would seek to seize its patent protection under the Invention Secrecy Act.

scaramanga 4y ago

The first part, the taste of immense profit, sure. But the idea that people are thinking of profits on the timescale of "this decade" is almost laughable, given the situation we are already in with climate change. A much more rational explanation would be "they are trying to grab as much cash as they can right now, for as long as people believe that this is a thing that we should be doing, and may be possible", regardless of whether it's a good idea (it isn't), or whether it would work (doesn't look like it). But sure, maybe they are completely sincere and really believe in it all, who knows? But the issue isn't just that "all of the comforts of modern society require the expenditure of some form of energy" it's also the case that "exponentially increasing energy expenditure is just accelerating the rate at which we are asset stripping and polluting the earth" and the latter continues to be true even if we stop emitting CO2. I think it should now be apparent to all that comfort-seeking and suicide are essentially the same process (ask any addict), at least for the definitions of "comfort" that our current political and economic system are organised around. Of course, quite a lot of people still do not experience a lot of "comfort" even with the practically limitless energy that we have from fossil fuels. Edit: sorry for the ramble, but to summarize, I think you give people too much credit to imagine they can design such a complex money printer with a 10 year plan, and if they could plan to that timescale, they are probably going to see that society so far in to collapse by then, that even with infinite energy, there will not be much value in the money that it prints.

credit_guy 4y ago

> In the minds of potential investors, fusion is no longer a "lol maybe in 50 years" technology. No. Potential investors are used to extremely skewed investments results for startups. Most startups fail, but some of those that succeed, succeed spectacularly. A successful fusion startup is almost guaranteed to have a spectacular success, something that would make Facebook or Uber or Tesla look like small potatoes. Given that, a VC is ok with investing in it even if they think the likelihood of success is only 1%. They would not if they think that likelihood is only 0.01%, because at that level estimates are not reliable (who's to say it's 0.01% and not 0.00001% ?). But if there's a reasonable argument that P(success) ~ 1%, then it's a no-brainer to invest, because even a mistake of 2 orders of magnitude would still result in a positive return. For the rest of us though, the "fusion is 50 years in the future" can simply be replaced with "there's a 99% chance fusion will not be done in the next 50 years". Or, what the heck, just leave it at "fusion is 50 years in the future" and you'll be much more right than wrong.

rapsey 4y ago
The cost effectiveness of fusion is completely up in the air. People speak about fusion as if it somehow is just going to produce infinite power at no cost.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> Any entity that develops an unlimited, clean and cheap source of energy essentially has access to a money printer. Well, one thing that should be clear to anyone watching the space is that fusion will be neither unlimited, clean nor cheap. At the very least, not with any approach being looked at today. First of all, being based on state-of-the-art science and tech, it's clear that it cannot be cheap for another 20-30 years even if it was working today. Secondly, fusion reactors will produce large quantities of radioactive waste, probably larger than fission reactors, because everything that comes in close proximity to the reactor will be bombarded by 30+ times as many neutrons than in a fission reactor (or 5x-20x as many for DD fusion), and much higher energy neutrons at that, making it brittle and radioactive. Most of the reactor components are expected to need changing every 2-4 years, by which time they will be radioactive waste. Not to mention, fusion plants will work with large amounts of tritium, which is notoriously hard to contain, making tritium leaks all but guaranteed. So, definitely not clean. Thirdly, fusion reactors require large amounts of tritium, which is virtually non-existent on Earth and must be created in fission power plants. The neutrons from the fusion reaction can theoretically also be used to recycle tritium (when hitting the lithium blanket), but you would have to recapture 100% of the tritium produced this way to recreate fuel, which is not possible. So, to run a fusion reactor you will be limited by tritium availability, and that will mean you also need a small fission reactor, and that in turn requires uranium - so, not really that unlimited. Not to mention, even Deuterium is not actually that easy to obtain, as you need to either get it from fossil fuels (the way it is mostly obtained today) or from water hydrolysis, which is another waste of your produced energy. Overall, fusion seems extremely unlikely to be an economically viable source of energy in the coming decades. Every new reactor will require massive investments, it will waste a good portion of its output to keep itself running (powering the superconducting magnets, pumping coolant, void pumping the reactors, water hydrolisis, lithium processing to extract the tritium etc). It will require highly trained engineers to design, build and maintain. It will have a high risk of catastrophic damage to the reactor itself, easily vaporizing much of the investment in an instant if the magnetic containment of the plasma fails, for example, or melting down spectacularly if the cooling system fails. Virtually all components of the reactor, including the high tech magnets, will require constant replacement as they become brittle from the neutron bombardment - and all the old parts will require expensive radioactive storage for at least a few decades to centuries.