24 ms·

I feel like commercial fusion is such a lost cause at this point. For electrical generation, it’s going to have high fixed costs which will likely make it uneco

I feel like commercial fusion is such a lost cause at this point. For electrical generation, it’s going to have high fixed costs which will likely make it uneconomical for the same reasons fission struggles. The cost of fuel already very low for traditional fission and renewables. I don’t see what advantages it would have over wind, solar, fission, etc.

lanternfish 4y ago
Fission is theoretically amazing in many cases, but is hampered by branding problems. If fusion can be marketed as "clean", it gets a comparative advantage.
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  As I understand it, fusion's radioactive contamination and waste is a lot shorter-lived than fission reactors', and there's no chance of a runaway meltdown reaction (not that there's any chance of that with a modern fission reactor either... and fission reactors generate a tiny bit of waste in exchange for free unlimited energy...)
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  Cleansion.
trebligdivad 4y ago
That's one of the points of the spherical tokamaks - they're MUCH smaller than the standard tokamaks (I can't remember the numbers but it's vastly smaller). That brings the cost way way down. The modern HTS magnets are also more powerful, even in the Tokamak systems (like CFSs) which again get the size way down - I think it's something like cubed size reduction for doubling magnet strength (?). You'd be right for something of the silly size of ITER.
hnlmorg 4y ago
That’s because commercial fusion doesn’t exist yet. All new technology isn’t commercially viable when only viewed from the perspective of early prototypes. This is as equally true for consumer hardware as it is for massive scientific endeavours.
- crispinb 4y ago
  Many (most?) novel technologies never become commercially viable. I think what @charlieao is saying is that they suspect fusion will be one of the failures. That's a different claim from the one you're countering. Of course predicting the future of new tech is always a kind of bet. I don't know enough about the details to make a judgement either way. Fairly obviously it just isn't going to be ready in time for the thing it's most often touted for - ie. the decarbonisation exigency. That's just the usual research funding opportunism. But assuming we do make it over the next few decades (very unlikely in my view), cheap limitless energy is inevitably going to be transformational.
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    Usually those novel technologies that don’t become viable is because it’s either a technology we don’t want (like a sentient toaster) or there is another technology that can solve the same problem but cheaper. In the case of fusion, it’s something we do want (fission and burning fuels aren’t sustainable indefinitely) and as our energy needs increase year on year, the cost for energy will also increase if we don’t find a way to supply that demand. This makes a mass producer of clean energy more viable. Renewable energy is great but it’s not exactly cheap to scale either. In fact the only reason it has gotten so cheap is precisely because the need for it has lead to plenty of advancements that have also driven down the cost. So fusion in this form of reactor might prove to be a dead end but at some point humanity will end up with some form of fusion. Even if it’s not in our life time. And assuming we haven’t had an extinction event first…
    - crispinb 4y ago
      > Usually those novel technologies that don’t become viable is because it’s either a technology we don’t want (like a sentient toaster) or there is another technology that can solve the same problem but cheaper. I'm sure there must be academic studies looking into reasons for tech not getting to production. I don't know them, so I can only hazard a guess that this isn't quite right. I think many technologies just don't prove feasible outside the lab. One cause of infeasability is of course price (no route found to a true industrial scale learning curve). But sometimes it's safety or inherent limitations that weren't understood before trying to scale, or any number of other causes not predictable from basic science. You can't know 'till you know, and for fusion, we don't know yet. It's a bet (which to be fair is the same with nearly any new tech). A good one, perhaps.
saiya-jin 4y ago
It doesnt have to be cheaper, the bar is set somewhere around 'lets not fuck up this planet more than we need' level, price is secondary. A lot of renewables require massive amount of energy, raw materials and pollution to get done, and then last decade or two at best. I have yet to see a bigger wind turbines fields who are all fully working at given time, usually mote than half doesnt move even in stronger winds due to ie maintenance
jabradoodle 4y ago
The cost of materials may be low for fission but convincing people to have a nuclear powerplant near there homes and engineering it to be safe are not. Fusion on the other hand has no chance of a run away meltdown and the materials that are used are much easier to dispose of.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  We can make fission reactors now that have no chance of run away meltdown. Good luck convincing the public to live next to one anyway. I don't expect Average Joe is going to be willing to differentiate between fission and fusion in that regard.

lanternfish 4y ago

Fission is theoretically amazing in many cases, but is hampered by branding problems. If fusion can be marketed as "clean", it gets a comparative advantage.

Firmwarrior 4y ago
As I understand it, fusion's radioactive contamination and waste is a lot shorter-lived than fission reactors', and there's no chance of a runaway meltdown reaction (not that there's any chance of that with a modern fission reactor either... and fission reactors generate a tiny bit of waste in exchange for free unlimited energy...)
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
Cleansion.

trebligdivad 4y ago

That's one of the points of the spherical tokamaks - they're MUCH smaller than the standard tokamaks (I can't remember the numbers but it's vastly smaller). That brings the cost way way down. The modern HTS magnets are also more powerful, even in the Tokamak systems (like CFSs) which again get the size way down - I think it's something like cubed size reduction for doubling magnet strength (?). You'd be right for something of the silly size of ITER.

hnlmorg 4y ago

That’s because commercial fusion doesn’t exist yet. All new technology isn’t commercially viable when only viewed from the perspective of early prototypes. This is as equally true for consumer hardware as it is for massive scientific endeavours.

crispinb 4y ago
Many (most?) novel technologies never become commercially viable. I think what @charlieao is saying is that they suspect fusion will be one of the failures. That's a different claim from the one you're countering. Of course predicting the future of new tech is always a kind of bet. I don't know enough about the details to make a judgement either way. Fairly obviously it just isn't going to be ready in time for the thing it's most often touted for - ie. the decarbonisation exigency. That's just the usual research funding opportunism. But assuming we do make it over the next few decades (very unlikely in my view), cheap limitless energy is inevitably going to be transformational.
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  Usually those novel technologies that don’t become viable is because it’s either a technology we don’t want (like a sentient toaster) or there is another technology that can solve the same problem but cheaper. In the case of fusion, it’s something we do want (fission and burning fuels aren’t sustainable indefinitely) and as our energy needs increase year on year, the cost for energy will also increase if we don’t find a way to supply that demand. This makes a mass producer of clean energy more viable. Renewable energy is great but it’s not exactly cheap to scale either. In fact the only reason it has gotten so cheap is precisely because the need for it has lead to plenty of advancements that have also driven down the cost. So fusion in this form of reactor might prove to be a dead end but at some point humanity will end up with some form of fusion. Even if it’s not in our life time. And assuming we haven’t had an extinction event first…
  - crispinb 4y ago
    > Usually those novel technologies that don’t become viable is because it’s either a technology we don’t want (like a sentient toaster) or there is another technology that can solve the same problem but cheaper. I'm sure there must be academic studies looking into reasons for tech not getting to production. I don't know them, so I can only hazard a guess that this isn't quite right. I think many technologies just don't prove feasible outside the lab. One cause of infeasability is of course price (no route found to a true industrial scale learning curve). But sometimes it's safety or inherent limitations that weren't understood before trying to scale, or any number of other causes not predictable from basic science. You can't know 'till you know, and for fusion, we don't know yet. It's a bet (which to be fair is the same with nearly any new tech). A good one, perhaps.

saiya-jin 4y ago

It doesnt have to be cheaper, the bar is set somewhere around 'lets not fuck up this planet more than we need' level, price is secondary. A lot of renewables require massive amount of energy, raw materials and pollution to get done, and then last decade or two at best. I have yet to see a bigger wind turbines fields who are all fully working at given time, usually mote than half doesnt move even in stronger winds due to ie maintenance

jabradoodle 4y ago

The cost of materials may be low for fission but convincing people to have a nuclear powerplant near there homes and engineering it to be safe are not. Fusion on the other hand has no chance of a run away meltdown and the materials that are used are much easier to dispose of.

rootusrootus 4y ago
We can make fission reactors now that have no chance of run away meltdown. Good luck convincing the public to live next to one anyway. I don't expect Average Joe is going to be willing to differentiate between fission and fusion in that regard.