5 ms·

I completely support fusion efforts from a science point of view, but let's be honest, an economic reactor for electricity generation is still decades away, it

I completely support fusion efforts from a science point of view, but let's be honest, an economic reactor for electricity generation is still decades away, it may not even be feasible, and it certainly won't be as 'clean' as is being sold, using D-T fusion. We should switch a good chunk of fussion funding towards 'clean' fission; travelling wave reactors, molten salt, small modular reactors, thorium, etc, etc. Some of these have a chance at being commercially viable and making a real impact this decade, not half a century or more hence.

DennisP 4y ago
We have dozens of fusion startups, and dozens of fission startups working on everything you suggested. The fusion startups build test reactors. The fission startups do paper reactors and license applications, and in the US at least, if it's not a water-cooled solid uranium reactor, they probably won't get any further. Fix the NRC, and we might get somewhere with fission.
- jacknews 4y ago
  I agree, but further, government should be helping with this early stage research, and putting more of it towards fission, not leaving it to startups.
bborud 4y ago
You can iterate the argument one step further and say that affordable nuclear is too far into the future, and that we should instead focus on more immediately realizable options such as wind, solar, geothermal etc. This is where much of the energy debate in Europe is at now. It is exactly the same argument being used against fission. Pick any technology that has come to fruition in the last decade. Video streaming as a substitute for cable and terrestrial TV. Mass adoption of Smart Phones. EVs becoming a viable option for broad populations of car owners. A space startup that came from nowhere and rapidly out-competed the incumbents. All of them. Remember the Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon shitting on private space companies on C-SPAN not that many years ago? Look at the time span between people dismissing these technologies as off in the distant future and when they arrived. People have a tendency to assume that tomorrow will be the same as today. Affordable nuclear is still some years away. I think the events in Europe actually shortened that distance into the future by a significant amount just in the last 6 months. But fission power is still "too slow". Fusion is even more years away into the future. If/When it comes to fruition people are going to be surprised, and none more so than the experts. Because the experts are almost always wrong for a good while after disruptive breakthroughs have already happened. It means we have to think ahead and make sufficient bets on technologies that exist at all time scales. And the more potential they have for delivering stable base load, the higher the payoff. Yes we have to invest in both fission and fusion. And we have to invest a lot more than we already do.
- jacknews 4y ago
  I don't think this is quite the same argument. I agree with funding the future. But in this case the 'experts' seem to be putting all the funding toward fusion, which is likely decades away, if at all, and almost not at all toward new fission, which could be viable this decade.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Except, it cannot. No new nuke design begun today could produce any power before 2035. The money spent building it, spent on renewables instead, would produce immediately, displace CO2 immediately, and produce more.
    - jacknews 4y ago
      Which currently-deployable renewables work at night, when there's no wind, and can produce enough for our base load needs? Small modular reactors could well be operating before the end of the decade, with government assistance, esp. regarding permitting. But that's beside the point, and your argument is exactly that criticized above - ie we should spend today on current tech rather than research for tomorrow. Renewables are now essentially 'baked', and from the government pov it's just a matter of tweaking regulations etc to encourage further commercial rollout. But we should also be researching for the future, and new nuclear needs help to actually develop the technology to commercial viability, along with say, deep geothermal. In comparison fusion is pie-in-the-sky, and doesn't warrant it's outsized funding - some funding (for the science), yes.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Anything that depends on converting heat will be more expensive than renewables + storage. So, nukes, howsoever clever, have no place. Please do not pretend not to have heard of storage. It fools no one, but makes you look foolish.
        jacknews 4y ago
concordDance 4y ago
Or just make more old style fission reactors and deregulate. Even an accident every decade would be well worth it if it got costs back down to what they were in the 70s (adjusted for inflation), in that the money saved could be invested into healthcare with far better returns than we're getting on nuclear safety.

DennisP 4y ago

We have dozens of fusion startups, and dozens of fission startups working on everything you suggested. The fusion startups build test reactors. The fission startups do paper reactors and license applications, and in the US at least, if it's not a water-cooled solid uranium reactor, they probably won't get any further. Fix the NRC, and we might get somewhere with fission.

jacknews 4y ago
I agree, but further, government should be helping with this early stage research, and putting more of it towards fission, not leaving it to startups.

bborud 4y ago

You can iterate the argument one step further and say that affordable nuclear is too far into the future, and that we should instead focus on more immediately realizable options such as wind, solar, geothermal etc. This is where much of the energy debate in Europe is at now. It is exactly the same argument being used against fission. Pick any technology that has come to fruition in the last decade. Video streaming as a substitute for cable and terrestrial TV. Mass adoption of Smart Phones. EVs becoming a viable option for broad populations of car owners. A space startup that came from nowhere and rapidly out-competed the incumbents. All of them. Remember the Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon shitting on private space companies on C-SPAN not that many years ago? Look at the time span between people dismissing these technologies as off in the distant future and when they arrived. People have a tendency to assume that tomorrow will be the same as today. Affordable nuclear is still some years away. I think the events in Europe actually shortened that distance into the future by a significant amount just in the last 6 months. But fission power is still "too slow". Fusion is even more years away into the future. If/When it comes to fruition people are going to be surprised, and none more so than the experts. Because the experts are almost always wrong for a good while after disruptive breakthroughs have already happened. It means we have to think ahead and make sufficient bets on technologies that exist at all time scales. And the more potential they have for delivering stable base load, the higher the payoff. Yes we have to invest in both fission and fusion. And we have to invest a lot more than we already do.

jacknews 4y ago
I don't think this is quite the same argument. I agree with funding the future. But in this case the 'experts' seem to be putting all the funding toward fusion, which is likely decades away, if at all, and almost not at all toward new fission, which could be viable this decade.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Except, it cannot. No new nuke design begun today could produce any power before 2035. The money spent building it, spent on renewables instead, would produce immediately, displace CO2 immediately, and produce more.
  - jacknews 4y ago
    Which currently-deployable renewables work at night, when there's no wind, and can produce enough for our base load needs? Small modular reactors could well be operating before the end of the decade, with government assistance, esp. regarding permitting. But that's beside the point, and your argument is exactly that criticized above - ie we should spend today on current tech rather than research for tomorrow. Renewables are now essentially 'baked', and from the government pov it's just a matter of tweaking regulations etc to encourage further commercial rollout. But we should also be researching for the future, and new nuclear needs help to actually develop the technology to commercial viability, along with say, deep geothermal. In comparison fusion is pie-in-the-sky, and doesn't warrant it's outsized funding - some funding (for the science), yes.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Anything that depends on converting heat will be more expensive than renewables + storage. So, nukes, howsoever clever, have no place. Please do not pretend not to have heard of storage. It fools no one, but makes you look foolish.
      - jacknews 4y ago

concordDance 4y ago

Or just make more old style fission reactors and deregulate. Even an accident every decade would be well worth it if it got costs back down to what they were in the 70s (adjusted for inflation), in that the money saved could be invested into healthcare with far better returns than we're getting on nuclear safety.