6 ms·

Fusion is probably 50-100 years away at best. It’s just to difficult

anovikov 4y ago
It's also not necessary and is probably already outdated and won't be funded if was achieved today. See fusion this way: it's like a coal power plant with infinite free coal (because the rest of it is the same - turbines, water treatment, condensers, generators, power transformation and transmission - and thermonuclear reactor will for sure never be cheaper than a coal-fired steam boiler). Which means, electricity cost will be same as of a coal plant minus the price of coal. Which will already be above cost of most renewable sources and, once electrolyzers for green hydrogen will start coming online, remembering that barely 15% of renewable electricity will need to be passed through them (rest can simply be balanced by different renewables), will still be sort of competitive. And we don't have fusion yet, while renewables will keep getting cheaper.
- eightysixfour 4y ago
  There are non-turbine fusion options, like Helion.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    And such options are, IMO, likely to be necessary if fusion is to be competitive.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Coal plants are comprehensively more expensive than solar/wind, as are current design nuclear plants, perhaps that's because of coal prices. The other aspects of fusion get swept under the rug: high speed neutrons from sustained fusion energy production will degrade the equipment, so you build this HUGE EXPENSIVE facility and it will have a shelf life, and be somewhat radioactive, in ... well, I don't know the timeline, but I'll assume decades. Even without that, fusion costs even with "free" fuel (I mean, it will probably be deuterium and separation will cost some money) will probably be quite high for operation, maintenance, to say nothing of the massive installation cost. I think it is still worth the current investment in research though, it's not like I want the book closed on fusion power. But I wouldn't count on it getting us out of the global warming hole we are in.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Coal is more expensive than solar even if the price of coal at the mine is 0.
    - anovikov 4y ago
      That was exactly my point. And fusion can't probably be cheaper than "coal plant on free coal" for the reasons i have explained. So nah, it's not going to happen. Too late.
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        Yup. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32368661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32368661 was the best comment in the entire discussion. Just trying to pound it through.

It's also not necessary and is probably already outdated and won't be funded if was achieved today. See fusion this way: it's like a coal power plant with infinite free coal (because the rest of it is the same - turbines, water treatment, condensers, generators, power transformation and transmission - and thermonuclear reactor will for sure never be cheaper than a coal-fired steam boiler). Which means, electricity cost will be same as of a coal plant minus the price of coal. Which will already be above cost of most renewable sources and, once electrolyzers for green hydrogen will start coming online, remembering that barely 15% of renewable electricity will need to be passed through them (rest can simply be balanced by different renewables), will still be sort of competitive. And we don't have fusion yet, while renewables will keep getting cheaper.

eightysixfour 4y ago
There are non-turbine fusion options, like Helion.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  And such options are, IMO, likely to be necessary if fusion is to be competitive.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Coal plants are comprehensively more expensive than solar/wind, as are current design nuclear plants, perhaps that's because of coal prices. The other aspects of fusion get swept under the rug: high speed neutrons from sustained fusion energy production will degrade the equipment, so you build this HUGE EXPENSIVE facility and it will have a shelf life, and be somewhat radioactive, in ... well, I don't know the timeline, but I'll assume decades. Even without that, fusion costs even with "free" fuel (I mean, it will probably be deuterium and separation will cost some money) will probably be quite high for operation, maintenance, to say nothing of the massive installation cost. I think it is still worth the current investment in research though, it's not like I want the book closed on fusion power. But I wouldn't count on it getting us out of the global warming hole we are in.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Coal is more expensive than solar even if the price of coal at the mine is 0.
  - anovikov 4y ago
    That was exactly my point. And fusion can't probably be cheaper than "coal plant on free coal" for the reasons i have explained. So nah, it's not going to happen. Too late.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      Yup. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32368661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32368661 was the best comment in the entire discussion. Just trying to pound it through.