5 ms·

I guess that means we will have another round of "this interesting result in basic research that has no relation to practical use of fusion energy shows that p

by hannob 3y ago

I guess that means we will have another round of "this interesting result in basic research that has no relation to practical use of fusion energy shows that practical and commercially viable fusion energy is basically just around the corner".

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
The rate of progress is astounding. If growth is high, you can look nowhere near something, and then without too much time, it actually is right around the corner. We are probably AT LEAST 50 years away from a near 100% non-nuclear "renewable" world. That's enough time for the entire lifecycle of nuclear reactors and fusion reactors. Much of the world doesn't have their own fossil fuels they can rely on, and is definitely interested in alternatives in less than 50 years - even if it means - in ideal conditions - they'd be overpaying for nuclear (or fusion if it becomes viable within 15 years). It's almost as if all the people working on these projects and funding them aren't complete morons, and the world quite so reductive, like half of hacker news seems to smugly dismiss EVERY time any fusion article is posted.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Much of the world doesn't have their own fossil fuels they can rely on For some reason this thought reminded me of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Iron failed to displace bronze during the Bronze Age for two reasons: 1. It is technologically difficult to make. 2. It is mostly an inferior material. (Steel is a lot better than bronze, but that wasn't an option.) But the Bronze Age ended in a near-total collapse of the social order across most of Eurasia. International trade routes dried up. And iron was readily available everywhere in the world, whereas bronze was not even available to regions that mined their own copper, because they didn't have any tin. Interestingly enough, having your own local supplies of food and energy protects you from suddenly starving and freezing if a war should break out, but it makes everyone else a lot less safe from you, because now you're insulated from the consequences of war.
- danhor 3y ago
  > We are probably AT LEAST 50 years away from a near 100% non-nuclear "renewable" world. For electricity (which is the only energy category where nuclear makes sense) I see no reason to be this pessimistic (of course, depending on your definition of near 100%, but let's say 95%). Solar and Wind have strong growth prospects and are very economical, with reason to believe in further price reductions (especially for solar). As we've seen at COP, a lot of countries are planning to strongly build out renewables (a simple tripling, disregarding a lot of factors, leading to 45% share of renewables by 2030) and only a few are planning a much slower expansion of nuclear. Storage shows a lot of promise and very successful initial deployments for short duration storage and I see no reason to be more (or even as) optimistic about future development of nuclear & fusion reactors than chemical energy storage. > It's almost as if all the people working on these projects and funding them aren't complete morons, and the world quite so reductive, like half of hacker news seems to smugly dismiss EVERY time any fusion article is posted. Or there's a reason why this is mostly funded by governments as a foundational work, presumably with hopes that fusion will be largely viable in the long term. If governments funding this work were hopeful that fusion would be economically viable within 15 years, you'd expect very large funding increases (especially from the private sector) and a reduction in investment for transforming the electricity grid away from big central power producers to more geographically diverse renewable supply.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  I still don't get why thorium reactors basically don't exist despite on paper being superior for energy generation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

by hannob 3y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

The rate of progress is astounding. If growth is high, you can look nowhere near something, and then without too much time, it actually is right around the corner. We are probably AT LEAST 50 years away from a near 100% non-nuclear "renewable" world. That's enough time for the entire lifecycle of nuclear reactors and fusion reactors. Much of the world doesn't have their own fossil fuels they can rely on, and is definitely interested in alternatives in less than 50 years - even if it means - in ideal conditions - they'd be overpaying for nuclear (or fusion if it becomes viable within 15 years). It's almost as if all the people working on these projects and funding them aren't complete morons, and the world quite so reductive, like half of hacker news seems to smugly dismiss EVERY time any fusion article is posted.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> Much of the world doesn't have their own fossil fuels they can rely on For some reason this thought reminded me of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Iron failed to displace bronze during the Bronze Age for two reasons: 1. It is technologically difficult to make. 2. It is mostly an inferior material. (Steel is a lot better than bronze, but that wasn't an option.) But the Bronze Age ended in a near-total collapse of the social order across most of Eurasia. International trade routes dried up. And iron was readily available everywhere in the world, whereas bronze was not even available to regions that mined their own copper, because they didn't have any tin. Interestingly enough, having your own local supplies of food and energy protects you from suddenly starving and freezing if a war should break out, but it makes everyone else a lot less safe from you, because now you're insulated from the consequences of war.
danhor 3y ago
> We are probably AT LEAST 50 years away from a near 100% non-nuclear "renewable" world. For electricity (which is the only energy category where nuclear makes sense) I see no reason to be this pessimistic (of course, depending on your definition of near 100%, but let's say 95%). Solar and Wind have strong growth prospects and are very economical, with reason to believe in further price reductions (especially for solar). As we've seen at COP, a lot of countries are planning to strongly build out renewables (a simple tripling, disregarding a lot of factors, leading to 45% share of renewables by 2030) and only a few are planning a much slower expansion of nuclear. Storage shows a lot of promise and very successful initial deployments for short duration storage and I see no reason to be more (or even as) optimistic about future development of nuclear & fusion reactors than chemical energy storage. > It's almost as if all the people working on these projects and funding them aren't complete morons, and the world quite so reductive, like half of hacker news seems to smugly dismiss EVERY time any fusion article is posted. Or there's a reason why this is mostly funded by governments as a foundational work, presumably with hopes that fusion will be largely viable in the long term. If governments funding this work were hopeful that fusion would be economically viable within 15 years, you'd expect very large funding increases (especially from the private sector) and a reduction in investment for transforming the electricity grid away from big central power producers to more geographically diverse renewable supply.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
I still don't get why thorium reactors basically don't exist despite on paper being superior for energy generation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor