4 ms·

It is a nice piece of napkin maths and shows how challenging (nearly impossible?) commercial fusion is in reality. Definitely going to reuse in some arguments.

by Kydlaw 3y ago

It is a nice piece of napkin maths and shows how challenging (nearly impossible?) commercial fusion is in reality. Definitely going to reuse in some arguments. Also, this one should be shouted louder for those in the back. > "Many in our culture truly believe in “the amazing future,” uncritically extrapolating our fossil-fueled joy ride into ever-more impressive innovations and technologies."

b112 3y ago
It is a nice piece of napkin maths and shows how challenging (nearly impossible?) commercial fusion is in reality. Definitely going to reuse in some arguments. The computer was in the same category 50 years ago, as was the ball point pen 100. Just making aluminum cheap, was a miracle. And before you think aluminum isn't a biggie, it revolutionized so many industries. Including airflight, missles, and more at the time. Things impossible, became possible. And now these things are trivial. The only question is, when it becomes cheap and easy to use fusion power, will it be the optimal power source at that time?
- mbb70 3y ago
  Calling out aluminum and pens is like picking lotto numbers after the drawing. You're ignoring the mountain of failures that were all incredibly promising and had incredibly smart people spending incredible amounts of time and money on them. Scientific advancement comes from exploring every path at once, quickly pruning failed paths and doubling down on successes, with enough stochastic jumps to keep us out of ruts for too long.
  - b112 3y ago
    I think you missed the point. Fusion power is 100%, hands down possible. There is no question in this. It's all about cost, and my point was, when, not if fusion power is a net positive, will other things be cheaper? I find it incredible how people on HN, a more technical site, seem to consider 10 years a long time, or even 100. Or that money is "wasted" because the research and work will "vanish", which is beyond absurd. Every penny spent on fusion, and cold fusion comes back to us in many wsys, there is no waste.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Yes, other things will be cheaper than DT fusion. This has been known for decades.
      - b112 3y ago
        No it hasn't been known, because to be known, a mature technology must be exist. And your presumptive statement presumes that nothing changes. What is difficult today, is simple tomorrow. Just like aluminum, which used to be more expensive than gold.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        There's a generic argument against DT, in any form, that was formulated back in the 1980s. All experience since then confirms the argument: it's that DT fusion reactors must have unacceptably low volumetric power density, much worse than fission reactors. This follows from limits on power/area at the reactor boundary and from minimum thickness of the blanket dictated by nuclear cross sections. This will make the reactors much more expensive than fission reactors. And give that fission has proven to not be competitive, DT fusion has no chance.
rob74 3y ago
My gripe with this article is that it only talks about the NIF - and the NIF is not called the National Ignition Facility for nothing! Its purpose is studying fusion (mostly for weapons research), not producing a viable commercial fusion power plant. The technology it uses to generate fusion is not scalable, and that's obvious to everyone who cares to look into it a bit deeper. Now, there are some other fusion startups with interesting claims about their technology (not to mention ITER) - I'm not enough of an expert to judge these, but I'm pretty sure any of these approaches is much more likely to eventually lead to a viable fusion power plant than what the NIF is doing.

by Kydlaw 3y ago

b112 3y ago

It is a nice piece of napkin maths and shows how challenging (nearly impossible?) commercial fusion is in reality. Definitely going to reuse in some arguments. The computer was in the same category 50 years ago, as was the ball point pen 100. Just making aluminum cheap, was a miracle. And before you think aluminum isn't a biggie, it revolutionized so many industries. Including airflight, missles, and more at the time. Things impossible, became possible. And now these things are trivial. The only question is, when it becomes cheap and easy to use fusion power, will it be the optimal power source at that time?

mbb70 3y ago
Calling out aluminum and pens is like picking lotto numbers after the drawing. You're ignoring the mountain of failures that were all incredibly promising and had incredibly smart people spending incredible amounts of time and money on them. Scientific advancement comes from exploring every path at once, quickly pruning failed paths and doubling down on successes, with enough stochastic jumps to keep us out of ruts for too long.
- b112 3y ago
  I think you missed the point. Fusion power is 100%, hands down possible. There is no question in this. It's all about cost, and my point was, when, not if fusion power is a net positive, will other things be cheaper? I find it incredible how people on HN, a more technical site, seem to consider 10 years a long time, or even 100. Or that money is "wasted" because the research and work will "vanish", which is beyond absurd. Every penny spent on fusion, and cold fusion comes back to us in many wsys, there is no waste.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Yes, other things will be cheaper than DT fusion. This has been known for decades.
    - b112 3y ago
      No it hasn't been known, because to be known, a mature technology must be exist. And your presumptive statement presumes that nothing changes. What is difficult today, is simple tomorrow. Just like aluminum, which used to be more expensive than gold.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        There's a generic argument against DT, in any form, that was formulated back in the 1980s. All experience since then confirms the argument: it's that DT fusion reactors must have unacceptably low volumetric power density, much worse than fission reactors. This follows from limits on power/area at the reactor boundary and from minimum thickness of the blanket dictated by nuclear cross sections. This will make the reactors much more expensive than fission reactors. And give that fission has proven to not be competitive, DT fusion has no chance.

rob74 3y ago

My gripe with this article is that it only talks about the NIF - and the NIF is not called the National Ignition Facility for nothing! Its purpose is studying fusion (mostly for weapons research), not producing a viable commercial fusion power plant. The technology it uses to generate fusion is not scalable, and that's obvious to everyone who cares to look into it a bit deeper. Now, there are some other fusion startups with interesting claims about their technology (not to mention ITER) - I'm not enough of an expert to judge these, but I'm pretty sure any of these approaches is much more likely to eventually lead to a viable fusion power plant than what the NIF is doing.