3 ms·
Zap Energy. They're at least thinking about co-opting existing infrastructure. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newszap-energy-considers-retrofitting-fusion-re
by greesil 3y ago
Zap Energy. They're at least thinking about co-opting existing infrastructure.
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newszap-energy-considers-retrofitting-fusion-reactor-at-coal-plant-10066974 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newszap-energy-considers-re...
Also their concept is just so weird, I love it. Worst case it works in space as a nuclear fusion drive :)
My guess is that they're all going to tank without government money, unless by some miracle they have truly found some special low-cost of operation on the first try that beats the current heavily optimized solutions for power generation.
- cyberax 3y agoSorry, but this is bullshit. A steam turbine and a generator will be a _minor_ detail in the overall list of expenses building a fusion generator. It's like saying: "We should build an airport here in the desert, because we'll be able to save on cutting the grass!"
- greesil 3y agoHow would you know?
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoI feel like it's more like saying, we should build an airport here, because it's near a city and in a good location, and the land is cheap because no one else wants it for a number of reasons and this is the only thing that practically makes sense to go there. It's not going to save a meaningful amount of money. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
- cyberax 3y agoSure. But even in your example the site selection won't help you much to build the airport, you still need to do that, and it's still going to be massively expensive. I'm also in general skeptical about conversions of coal power plants into nuclear even for fission. Typical nuclear plants produce much milder steam temperatures and pressures than coal power plants, so their steam turbines are optimized for different conditions.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoIsn't the grid interconnect way more valuable than the turbine?