3 ms·

Working on nuclear fusion. Debatable whether that's ultimately the best way to tackle climate change given how well solar is doing these days, but hey...

pontifier 4y ago
Hehe, I'm working on fusion too!
tw98521358 4y ago
Like big picture does it actually make sense for power generation? It seems like even if you could get costs below fusion for the reactor it’s still not a good deal due to all the infrastructure costs of converting such high heat to electricity.
- JoeyBananas 4y ago
  No, not even close
- lambdatronics 4y ago
  Have a look at this study for a tokamak-based system: "The cost of the fusion-specific technologies accounts for approximately 75% of the total direct costs of constructing the plant" [0] They also conclude that "The model levelized cost of electricity was found in the amount of ∼160 $/MWh." Note that 57% of that cost is due to depreciation of the hardware, and another 23% is replacement costs for materials damaged by the neutron radiation. Another source says: "Setting the capital cost of the fusion-specific technology to zero results in a LCOE of 72 $/MWh, which borders current prices for renewables, but is clearly physically implausible."[1] [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544218305395 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421... [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05727 https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05727
FiatLuxDave 4y ago
Spent almost a decade working on fusion. While I think that fusion has great long-term potential, I don't currently see any quick wins that I personally can contribute towards. But I do believe that energy issues are among the most important problems in the world. So now I'm working on an evaporation engine which runs on the same process that powers hurricanes. It is indirect solar power, which can run at night. It's basically an engine that literally runs on global warming. I should probably be running turbine tests instead of posting on HN, but it's a Sunday morning and I'm feeling lazy. Maybe posting this will help motivate me.

pontifier 4y ago

Hehe, I'm working on fusion too!

tw98521358 4y ago

Like big picture does it actually make sense for power generation? It seems like even if you could get costs below fusion for the reactor it’s still not a good deal due to all the infrastructure costs of converting such high heat to electricity.

JoeyBananas 4y ago
No, not even close
lambdatronics 4y ago
Have a look at this study for a tokamak-based system: "The cost of the fusion-specific technologies accounts for approximately 75% of the total direct costs of constructing the plant" [0] They also conclude that "The model levelized cost of electricity was found in the amount of ∼160 $/MWh." Note that 57% of that cost is due to depreciation of the hardware, and another 23% is replacement costs for materials damaged by the neutron radiation. Another source says: "Setting the capital cost of the fusion-specific technology to zero results in a LCOE of 72 $/MWh, which borders current prices for renewables, but is clearly physically implausible."[1] [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544218305395 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421... [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05727 https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05727

FiatLuxDave 4y ago

Spent almost a decade working on fusion. While I think that fusion has great long-term potential, I don't currently see any quick wins that I personally can contribute towards. But I do believe that energy issues are among the most important problems in the world. So now I'm working on an evaporation engine which runs on the same process that powers hurricanes. It is indirect solar power, which can run at night. It's basically an engine that literally runs on global warming. I should probably be running turbine tests instead of posting on HN, but it's a Sunday morning and I'm feeling lazy. Maybe posting this will help motivate me.