7 ms·

Would love to see comments that actually respond to the article! Everyone here seems to be sharing their general opinions on fusion or a reaction to the article

Would love to see comments that actually respond to the article! Everyone here seems to be sharing their general opinions on fusion or a reaction to the article title. The article is actually very detailed!

sien 2y ago
Yep. It's a well done article that had a lot of research behind it. FWIW if you're interested in Fusion the book 'The Future of Fusion Energy' is very good. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43700662-the-future-of-fusion-energy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43700662-the-future-of-f... Also Commonwealth Fusion Systems put out a lot of interesting stuff about how they are going. Even having a look at their YouTube channel is worthwhile. Metaculus has a lot of stuff on predictions about when fusion will be made viable : https://www.metaculus.com/questions/?search=fusion https://www.metaculus.com/questions/?search=fusion
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Agreed, I think it is a great article. Personally, I'm most inclined to agree with the "bear case" summarized at the bottom of the article: 1. I think it's highly likely that, at some point (and probably in the not-too distant future with ITER and DEMO), humans will produce fusion reactors that are self-sustaining with net positive output (ignition). 2. Given the inherent complexity and difficulty with fusion, I think it's unlikely to ever be cost competitive with simpler power generation technologies. 3. Perhaps most importantly, at least in the next human lifetime, I think fusion will be largely irrelevant in the quest for carbon-free power generation, mostly as a result of the timescales required. I think right now that everyone pretty much understands that the problem with decarbonization tech is base load and storage: carbon-free renewables like solar and wind are already the cheapest form of energy generation, but they're intermittent and unreliable. Given the latest climate data, I think it's imperative that we develop base load and storage tech in the text 10/20/50 years, or we're REALLY f'd. But I haven't heard even fusion's biggest boosters say that fusion will be ready for large scale deployment in those timeframes, at cost-competitive economics. Point being, by the time I think fusion might be ready for large scale deployment, we better have already solved the base load and storage problems with cheaper tech.
- buu700 2y ago
  Personally, I don't see fusion as relevant on a time scale that will impact the climate crisis in any significant way, but it could be a major asset in taking us from net zero emissions to preindustrial carbon levels. It could also simply just be a way to achieve cheap and abundant energy in general, irrespective of climate issues. But as you said, of course it's an open question whether fusion will actually be more economical at scale. It could conceivably turn out to be a day late and a dollar short on Earth, and more relevant elsewhere. I'm keeping my eye on Helion (the one Sam Altman invested in). Seems they're making some pretty big claims, and have already entered into contracts to deliver to customers by 2030 or face financial penalties. Could still be vaporware, but they seem to think they have something.
  - frankgrimesjr 2y ago
    Would there be any obligation to pay out financial penalties if the company declares bankruptcy?
    - nradov 2y ago
      Obviously not. Those customers would have to line up as unsecured creditors, so the "penalties" are only theoretical and exist mainly for PR purposes.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  "Base load" doesn't really enter into it: you just need storage to make renewables make sense by supplying when generation doesn't meet demand and recharging when demand is less than supply. (or, if you have a cheap "base load" you use storage to even out the peaks and troughs in the same way). Base load is just a somewhat arbitrary line drawn across the lowest point of demand, it's not an actual requirement of the grid like supply and demand always matching.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Base load was a useful concept when steady output power plants with high capital cost produced energy at the lowest cost. It then made sense to use them as much as possible -- to handle the "base load" -- and cover the rest with more expensive to operate but lower capital cost sources. But that's no longer the world we live in. The lowest cost energy is now from intermittent sources, and the optimal grid design will look very different.
Animats 2y ago
It's detailed, but dated. Most of the graphs stop between 2000 and 2005. Yet the article is from 2024. Somebody took the easy way out and copied and pasted old graphs, probably. Whatever happened to Lockheed's compact fusion program?[1] [1] https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion...
- XorNot 2y ago
  Cancelled in sometime before 2021: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/skunk-works-halted-nuclear-fusion-effort-2021 https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/s... My long run prediction is that ITER will work and everything people on HN kept insisting would work in 5 years will suffer a similar fate. I'll stake my claim now that I think Helion is probably not going anywhere (just a vibe, but there's something off about their recent big marketing push).
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    ITER will "work" in the sense of achieving its goals, but that will all ultimately be pointless, as it's a dead end. A device with a volumetric power density 400x lower than a PWR cannot conceivably lead to a competitive energy source.
giarc 2y ago
Welcome to online forums.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
Lemme sum it up for you: Not from fucking Helion.
wnc3141 2y ago
I use the comments to see if the article is worth reading.

sien 2y ago

Yep. It's a well done article that had a lot of research behind it. FWIW if you're interested in Fusion the book 'The Future of Fusion Energy' is very good. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43700662-the-future-of-fusion-energy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43700662-the-future-of-f... Also Commonwealth Fusion Systems put out a lot of interesting stuff about how they are going. Even having a look at their YouTube channel is worthwhile. Metaculus has a lot of stuff on predictions about when fusion will be made viable : https://www.metaculus.com/questions/?search=fusion https://www.metaculus.com/questions/?search=fusion

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

Agreed, I think it is a great article. Personally, I'm most inclined to agree with the "bear case" summarized at the bottom of the article: 1. I think it's highly likely that, at some point (and probably in the not-too distant future with ITER and DEMO), humans will produce fusion reactors that are self-sustaining with net positive output (ignition). 2. Given the inherent complexity and difficulty with fusion, I think it's unlikely to ever be cost competitive with simpler power generation technologies. 3. Perhaps most importantly, at least in the next human lifetime, I think fusion will be largely irrelevant in the quest for carbon-free power generation, mostly as a result of the timescales required. I think right now that everyone pretty much understands that the problem with decarbonization tech is base load and storage: carbon-free renewables like solar and wind are already the cheapest form of energy generation, but they're intermittent and unreliable. Given the latest climate data, I think it's imperative that we develop base load and storage tech in the text 10/20/50 years, or we're REALLY f'd. But I haven't heard even fusion's biggest boosters say that fusion will be ready for large scale deployment in those timeframes, at cost-competitive economics. Point being, by the time I think fusion might be ready for large scale deployment, we better have already solved the base load and storage problems with cheaper tech.

buu700 2y ago
Personally, I don't see fusion as relevant on a time scale that will impact the climate crisis in any significant way, but it could be a major asset in taking us from net zero emissions to preindustrial carbon levels. It could also simply just be a way to achieve cheap and abundant energy in general, irrespective of climate issues. But as you said, of course it's an open question whether fusion will actually be more economical at scale. It could conceivably turn out to be a day late and a dollar short on Earth, and more relevant elsewhere. I'm keeping my eye on Helion (the one Sam Altman invested in). Seems they're making some pretty big claims, and have already entered into contracts to deliver to customers by 2030 or face financial penalties. Could still be vaporware, but they seem to think they have something.
- frankgrimesjr 2y ago
  Would there be any obligation to pay out financial penalties if the company declares bankruptcy?
  - nradov 2y ago
    Obviously not. Those customers would have to line up as unsecured creditors, so the "penalties" are only theoretical and exist mainly for PR purposes.
rcxdude 2y ago
"Base load" doesn't really enter into it: you just need storage to make renewables make sense by supplying when generation doesn't meet demand and recharging when demand is less than supply. (or, if you have a cheap "base load" you use storage to even out the peaks and troughs in the same way). Base load is just a somewhat arbitrary line drawn across the lowest point of demand, it's not an actual requirement of the grid like supply and demand always matching.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Base load was a useful concept when steady output power plants with high capital cost produced energy at the lowest cost. It then made sense to use them as much as possible -- to handle the "base load" -- and cover the rest with more expensive to operate but lower capital cost sources. But that's no longer the world we live in. The lowest cost energy is now from intermittent sources, and the optimal grid design will look very different.

Animats 2y ago

It's detailed, but dated. Most of the graphs stop between 2000 and 2005. Yet the article is from 2024. Somebody took the easy way out and copied and pasted old graphs, probably. Whatever happened to Lockheed's compact fusion program?[1] [1] https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion...

XorNot 2y ago
Cancelled in sometime before 2021: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/skunk-works-halted-nuclear-fusion-effort-2021 https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/s... My long run prediction is that ITER will work and everything people on HN kept insisting would work in 5 years will suffer a similar fate. I'll stake my claim now that I think Helion is probably not going anywhere (just a vibe, but there's something off about their recent big marketing push).
- pfdietz 2y ago
  ITER will "work" in the sense of achieving its goals, but that will all ultimately be pointless, as it's a dead end. A device with a volumetric power density 400x lower than a PWR cannot conceivably lead to a competitive energy source.

giarc 2y ago

Welcome to online forums.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Lemme sum it up for you: Not from fucking Helion.

wnc3141 2y ago

I use the comments to see if the article is worth reading.