5 ms·

Right. It's not physics (though arguably plasma isn't that well understood but let's ignore that) it's just incredibly difficult engineering and needing to sol

by YZF 4y ago

Right. It's not physics (though arguably plasma isn't that well understood but let's ignore that) it's just incredibly difficult engineering and needing to solve multiple extremely difficult engineering problems. In that same sense reversing climate change is just an engineering problem, populating Mars is just an engineering problem, a space elevator to orbit is just an engineering problem, quantum computers etc. etc. ;)

pfdietz 4y ago
Engineering issues are perfectly capable of ruining the prospects for a technology, even if they are "lower class" than physics issues.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Case in point. Hydrogen energy storage. It's so very nearly amazing in several different formats and applications. Net result is it's kinda okayish in a couple of niches.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Those niches look very important, though, especially for reaching a 100% renewable energy system.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      There are other competitors in those niches. Some of which are just indirect ways of storing hydrogen depending how you use it. Ammonia, methane, dimethyl ether, methanol, and longer chain hydrocarbons. All have positive and negative tradeoffs Similarly there are other competitors for fusion. The difference here is they are orders of magnitude better in most ways. Fission and chemical reactions have much higher power density and vastly lower cost (and fission is already cost prohibitive), renewables are vastly cheaper even with battery or chemical fuel storage. There's not really a good niche for D-T fusion even if we had it today rather than in 50 years.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        All the alternatives have serious efficiency penalties. All the alternatives that have carbon atoms in them require either atmospheric CO2 capture (expensive) or capture and storage of CO2 from combustion (and now we're back to storage of a gas, and also we've just increased the per-output-power cost of the system, which is very bad.) Hydrogen is unique in requiring none of that and allowing cheap underground storage.

by YZF 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

Engineering issues are perfectly capable of ruining the prospects for a technology, even if they are "lower class" than physics issues.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Case in point. Hydrogen energy storage. It's so very nearly amazing in several different formats and applications. Net result is it's kinda okayish in a couple of niches.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Those niches look very important, though, especially for reaching a 100% renewable energy system.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    There are other competitors in those niches. Some of which are just indirect ways of storing hydrogen depending how you use it. Ammonia, methane, dimethyl ether, methanol, and longer chain hydrocarbons. All have positive and negative tradeoffs Similarly there are other competitors for fusion. The difference here is they are orders of magnitude better in most ways. Fission and chemical reactions have much higher power density and vastly lower cost (and fission is already cost prohibitive), renewables are vastly cheaper even with battery or chemical fuel storage. There's not really a good niche for D-T fusion even if we had it today rather than in 50 years.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      All the alternatives have serious efficiency penalties. All the alternatives that have carbon atoms in them require either atmospheric CO2 capture (expensive) or capture and storage of CO2 from combustion (and now we're back to storage of a gas, and also we've just increased the per-output-power cost of the system, which is very bad.) Hydrogen is unique in requiring none of that and allowing cheap underground storage.