6 ms·

[0] provides economic analysis for this type of power plant. They conclude it would not be unreasonable to get levelized cost of energy could get as low as $25/

by gene-h 4y ago

[0] provides economic analysis for this type of power plant. They conclude it would not be unreasonable to get levelized cost of energy could get as low as $25/MWh. For this one really needs a high gain of 1000, although gains of 400 are a bit more reasonable, and a gain of around 100 may be economically competitive in some cases. While the gain NIF achieved was about 1.5, there is good reason to expect it can be scaled up. Ignition is a runaway process, so small changes in the input can result in large changes in the output. Hydrogen bombs, which also use a burning plasma as was demonstrated here, also suggest that the gain and yield may be scaled up. [0]https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2020.0053 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2020.005...

panosfilianos 4y ago
Thanks a ton for that! $25/MWh is great but not the 10x economic impact I expected. Especially since [1] we see PV at $50/MWh currently. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
- devmor 4y ago
  The economic impact doesn't just come from the fuel to energy ratio. One of the biggest differences is also in the space required. Nuclear fusion reactors could eventually end up being very small - like smaller than an SUV. Imagine the cost savings in miniaturizing electrical grids.
  - panosfilianos 4y ago
    This seems interesting but not especially impactful. For me, the question here is: can we get our energy to cost 90% less than it did? Don't get me wrong, I recognise that this is still a huge win (especially environmentally) and that it can have huge runway effects (eg. much more effective decentralization etc.) but it's quite interesting on how we can get these billions of people out of poverty first (or during).
    - nebolo 4y ago
      While not 90%, transmission and distribution are around 40% of the cost of retail electricity, so lowering those substantially would go a long way.
  - DesiLurker 4y ago
    if they can be that small then they might find unexpected use in long range spacecrafts or lunar colonies. you'd still have to build and lift the reactor out of earths gravity well.
    - devmor 4y ago
      Here on earth we could see them used to power container ships as well, which are some of the biggest contributors to greenhouse emissions as far as vehicles go.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Yeah but are you beating fission, something like: https://www.moltexflex.com/flex-reactor/ https://www.moltexflex.com/flex-reactor/ A small fission reactor can do almost everything a fusion reactor can. Fusion fuel is higher density, but fission density is already not an issue. Fusion still needs to heat water, that's where much of the cost comes from.
    - devmor 4y ago
      A small fission reactor is also incredibly dangerous and will always require exotic material. A fusion reactor does not pose environmental risk and could eventually run on highly available basic elements for everything after the initial "startup" once the technology progresses.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        What exotic materials? Molten salts and steel is most of it. These reactors have essentially 0% chance to have airborn escape of radiation. An fusion reactors don't actually run on basic elements. The require a fuel that is specially breed. And when they operate they have radioactive materials that can go airborn.
cpleppert 4y ago
>> Ignition is a runaway process, so small changes in the input can result in large changes in the output. Hydrogen bombs, which also use a burning plasma as was demonstrated here, also suggest that the gain and yield may be scaled up. Hydrogen bombs are driven by indirect implosion by a nuclear primary. It isn't a runaway process; the yield of a secondary is limited by the implosion achieved by the primary. Most hypothetical designs for an inertial fusion power plant achieve similar energy gains.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
I think capital costs & construction times are going to be extremely important. I think the biggest reason nuclear energy stopped being built is it takes too long to get political wins. NuScale and other SMNRs might be able to help with that. However, the capital costs & construction time for Fusion Energy should theoretically be much lower than nuclear reactors. But are we too far away from it being a reality that anyone is predicting how much?
- gene-h 4y ago
  It will be quite difficult to make fusion cheaper than present day fission. Fusion reactors are new so significant research work will need to be done. There are difficult engineering challenges related to breeding fuel, which involves moving hot, radioactive, and water reactive molten lithium around. Fusion reactors need to be built to high tolerances and will need to be refurbished occasionally due to radiation/heat and in the case of NIF style fusion, explosion damage. And one still has to deal with many of the same radiation challenges fission plants must deal with. A large quantity or radioactive tritium must be kept on site and neutrons from the fusion reaction will make the reactor radioactive. In fact, fusion produces more neutrons than fission per unit energy. Even so called 'aneutronic' fusion would have side reactions which would produce quite a lot of neutrons. Fusion is a lot more complicated than using special rocks to boil water. The main advantage of fusion is a political one. It politically nigh impossible to build a fission reactor in a suburban industrial park, but Commonwealth Fusion Systems is doing exactly that with a fusion reactor[0]. And there is also the slim possibility this type of reactor could explode. Said reactor uses superconducting magnets which store a lot of energy and if something goes wrong, it would be possible for them to release that energy fast. But, the NRC hasn't made laws for regulating fusion power yet, so they are able to do this. [0]https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/commonwealth-fusion-systems-selects-47-acre-site-in https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/commonwealth-fusion-system...
  - afpx 4y ago
    50 years from now, are we going to be using fission or fusion?
iamgopal 4y ago
1000 time gains is double performance every 2 year, means in 20 year we would be able to achieve fusion with hydrogen from water at home scale min power plants.

by gene-h 4y ago

panosfilianos 4y ago

Thanks a ton for that! $25/MWh is great but not the 10x economic impact I expected. Especially since [1] we see PV at $50/MWh currently. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

devmor 4y ago
The economic impact doesn't just come from the fuel to energy ratio. One of the biggest differences is also in the space required. Nuclear fusion reactors could eventually end up being very small - like smaller than an SUV. Imagine the cost savings in miniaturizing electrical grids.
- panosfilianos 4y ago
  This seems interesting but not especially impactful. For me, the question here is: can we get our energy to cost 90% less than it did? Don't get me wrong, I recognise that this is still a huge win (especially environmentally) and that it can have huge runway effects (eg. much more effective decentralization etc.) but it's quite interesting on how we can get these billions of people out of poverty first (or during).
  - nebolo 4y ago
    While not 90%, transmission and distribution are around 40% of the cost of retail electricity, so lowering those substantially would go a long way.
- DesiLurker 4y ago
  if they can be that small then they might find unexpected use in long range spacecrafts or lunar colonies. you'd still have to build and lift the reactor out of earths gravity well.
  - devmor 4y ago
    Here on earth we could see them used to power container ships as well, which are some of the biggest contributors to greenhouse emissions as far as vehicles go.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Yeah but are you beating fission, something like: https://www.moltexflex.com/flex-reactor/ https://www.moltexflex.com/flex-reactor/ A small fission reactor can do almost everything a fusion reactor can. Fusion fuel is higher density, but fission density is already not an issue. Fusion still needs to heat water, that's where much of the cost comes from.
  - devmor 4y ago
    A small fission reactor is also incredibly dangerous and will always require exotic material. A fusion reactor does not pose environmental risk and could eventually run on highly available basic elements for everything after the initial "startup" once the technology progresses.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      What exotic materials? Molten salts and steel is most of it. These reactors have essentially 0% chance to have airborn escape of radiation. An fusion reactors don't actually run on basic elements. The require a fuel that is specially breed. And when they operate they have radioactive materials that can go airborn.

cpleppert 4y ago

>> Ignition is a runaway process, so small changes in the input can result in large changes in the output. Hydrogen bombs, which also use a burning plasma as was demonstrated here, also suggest that the gain and yield may be scaled up. Hydrogen bombs are driven by indirect implosion by a nuclear primary. It isn't a runaway process; the yield of a secondary is limited by the implosion achieved by the primary. Most hypothetical designs for an inertial fusion power plant achieve similar energy gains.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

I think capital costs & construction times are going to be extremely important. I think the biggest reason nuclear energy stopped being built is it takes too long to get political wins. NuScale and other SMNRs might be able to help with that. However, the capital costs & construction time for Fusion Energy should theoretically be much lower than nuclear reactors. But are we too far away from it being a reality that anyone is predicting how much?

gene-h 4y ago
It will be quite difficult to make fusion cheaper than present day fission. Fusion reactors are new so significant research work will need to be done. There are difficult engineering challenges related to breeding fuel, which involves moving hot, radioactive, and water reactive molten lithium around. Fusion reactors need to be built to high tolerances and will need to be refurbished occasionally due to radiation/heat and in the case of NIF style fusion, explosion damage. And one still has to deal with many of the same radiation challenges fission plants must deal with. A large quantity or radioactive tritium must be kept on site and neutrons from the fusion reaction will make the reactor radioactive. In fact, fusion produces more neutrons than fission per unit energy. Even so called 'aneutronic' fusion would have side reactions which would produce quite a lot of neutrons. Fusion is a lot more complicated than using special rocks to boil water. The main advantage of fusion is a political one. It politically nigh impossible to build a fission reactor in a suburban industrial park, but Commonwealth Fusion Systems is doing exactly that with a fusion reactor[0]. And there is also the slim possibility this type of reactor could explode. Said reactor uses superconducting magnets which store a lot of energy and if something goes wrong, it would be possible for them to release that energy fast. But, the NRC hasn't made laws for regulating fusion power yet, so they are able to do this. [0]https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/commonwealth-fusion-systems-selects-47-acre-site-in https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/commonwealth-fusion-system...
- afpx 4y ago
  50 years from now, are we going to be using fission or fusion?

iamgopal 4y ago

1000 time gains is double performance every 2 year, means in 20 year we would be able to achieve fusion with hydrogen from water at home scale min power plants.