4 ms·

No melt down? This game sucks. On a serious note: I wonder how practical and safe it would be to build fusion pants close to city centers in order to harvest t

No melt down? This game sucks. On a serious note: I wonder how practical and safe it would be to build fusion pants close to city centers in order to harvest the excess heat for district heating. Would be a boon in e.g. NYC which already has a large district steam system. You can do cooling too, look up "steam absorption chiller."

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
advisedwang 6mo ago
> I wonder how practical and safe it would be to build fusion pants close to city centers in order to harvest the excess heat for district heating The cost/benefit for doing this seems pretty similar between fusion as gas power. We don't usually do this with gas, so I guess it's probably not viable for fusion.
- markvdb 6mo ago
  Combined heat and electricity production is uncommon in the US, but much more so in Europe. Especially in the Baltics, Scandinavia and the Netherlands, non-CHP generation is rare. Related: higher energy cost, and elaborate local heat distribution networks.
- nerdsniper 6mo ago
  Many cities/towns in the USA have small power plants in them (typically associated with a University, large hospital system, or central business district) which "sell" not just power, but also hot water, and steam. The steam is typically used to heat buildings. Google for "$CITY steam tunnels" or "$CITY CHP plant" to find these in your area. San Francisco has[0][1][2][3] at least five combined heat and power plants that generate electricity and also sell steam to neighboring buildings via 72,000 feet of pipes. I worked at a privately-owned for-profit "factory" in Santa Monica whose primary product was chilled water (their other product was warm water). They built pipelines to nearby large buildings and sold chilled water to them. 0: https://cordiaenergy.com/locations/san-francisco-3/ https://cordiaenergy.com/locations/san-francisco-3/ (2 for-profit CHP plants) 1: Skanska (for-profit) 2: San Francisco General Hospital 3: Apparently there are some "Muni" CHP plants scattered about SF as well (publicly-owned)
- dheera 6mo ago
  > The cost/benefit for doing this seems pretty similar between fusion as gas power. The real problem is stupid capitalism reprices everything good to the price of the non-good thing. Solar was supposed to be almost-free clean electricity, but the price of panels has been repriced to make them the same as dirty electricity.
- namibj 6mo ago
  Look at where the Barmen gas power plant is in Wuppertal, Germany to see....
cyberax 6mo ago
Fusion power plants can't "melt down". The amount of plasma inside the vacuum chamber is just around a gram.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > Fusion power plants can't "melt down" Eh, a core-containment failure (in any magnetically-contained system) would involve superheated hydrogen getting friendly with oxygen. That, in turn, would give neutron-impregnated barrier materials a free ride on propellant. It's not strictly a melt down. But it's in the same practical category of failure.
  - Aardwolf 6mo ago
    What's the effect of this in a populated area in a certain radius? Compared to nuclear power plants...
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > What's the effect of this in a populated area in a certain radius? I'd imagine this is, like with fission plants, deeply dependent on the specific design.
    - cyberax 6mo ago
      Radiologically? Pretty much nothing. The regular industrial safety concerns will matter more. The plant will have some tritium, and the material in reactor walls will get activated by the neutron flux. Some of the activated materials can disperse in case of a catastrophic explosion (e.g. a couple of large airplanes being flown the reactor building). But the material of the walls is not volatile, so it'll stay on the site. And tritium is very volatile, so it'll quickly disperse to safe levels. You'll be able to detect them with sensitive equipment, but it won't be dangerous.
  - gmueckl 6mo ago
    Ths is a massive misunderstanding of the technology. First of all, the amount of hydrogen in the reactor is tiny. The magnetic confinement severely limits the density of the plasma. The inner containment vessel is a ultra high vacuum chamber. The chemical energy that would be released by a reaction between the hydrogen in the reactor amd oxygen from the air would be less than what is released by popping a hydrogen filled balloon with a lighter. The truly concerning failure modes would be related to release of radiation or activated materials. But that would require damaging the reactor in ways that the reactor is incapable of imparting on itself. Overall, the technology is remarkably safe.
ExpertAdvisor01 6mo ago
It already exists in many countries. They transport it through pipelines . E.g. Temelín Nuclear Power Plant, Paks Nuclear Power Plant And many more
- MisterTea 6mo ago
  My question is more about the safety of locating one smack in the middle of a city. There is radiation to shield but no radioactive fuel waste. HOWEVER, worn reactor parts that need to be replaced will be piping hot when measured with a Geiger counter. So is it safe to build and operate in the middle of e.g. NYC? And further, if they are safe, what is the public's perception of fusion? Do people hear "nuclear fusion" and immediately think nuclear disaster imagery brought about by incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?
  - DennisP 6mo ago
    Judging by the comments I see most places, the general public's perception of fusion is "magical scifi tech that will never happen."
    - hunterpayne 6mo ago
      That's because it almost certainly is. Don't hate on the messengers.
      - DennisP 6mo ago
        My point is, that's a pretty positive view of fusion. They think it's too good to be true, but if it actually happens then I doubt many people will suddenly switch into thinking it's a dirty old explodey thing like fission's public image.
    - Cthulhu_ 6mo ago
      Oh I'm sure it'll happen, in like 30 years. After which they'll need to make it commercially viable, build power plants, etc. (also it was 30 years away, 30 year ago)
grishka 6mo ago
Don't they already do this for existing types of power plants (gas, coal) that produce waste heat?

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

advisedwang 6mo ago

> I wonder how practical and safe it would be to build fusion pants close to city centers in order to harvest the excess heat for district heating The cost/benefit for doing this seems pretty similar between fusion as gas power. We don't usually do this with gas, so I guess it's probably not viable for fusion.

markvdb 6mo ago
Combined heat and electricity production is uncommon in the US, but much more so in Europe. Especially in the Baltics, Scandinavia and the Netherlands, non-CHP generation is rare. Related: higher energy cost, and elaborate local heat distribution networks.
nerdsniper 6mo ago
Many cities/towns in the USA have small power plants in them (typically associated with a University, large hospital system, or central business district) which "sell" not just power, but also hot water, and steam. The steam is typically used to heat buildings. Google for "$CITY steam tunnels" or "$CITY CHP plant" to find these in your area. San Francisco has[0][1][2][3] at least five combined heat and power plants that generate electricity and also sell steam to neighboring buildings via 72,000 feet of pipes. I worked at a privately-owned for-profit "factory" in Santa Monica whose primary product was chilled water (their other product was warm water). They built pipelines to nearby large buildings and sold chilled water to them. 0: https://cordiaenergy.com/locations/san-francisco-3/ https://cordiaenergy.com/locations/san-francisco-3/ (2 for-profit CHP plants) 1: Skanska (for-profit) 2: San Francisco General Hospital 3: Apparently there are some "Muni" CHP plants scattered about SF as well (publicly-owned)
dheera 6mo ago
> The cost/benefit for doing this seems pretty similar between fusion as gas power. The real problem is stupid capitalism reprices everything good to the price of the non-good thing. Solar was supposed to be almost-free clean electricity, but the price of panels has been repriced to make them the same as dirty electricity.
namibj 6mo ago
Look at where the Barmen gas power plant is in Wuppertal, Germany to see....

cyberax 6mo ago

Fusion power plants can't "melt down". The amount of plasma inside the vacuum chamber is just around a gram.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> Fusion power plants can't "melt down" Eh, a core-containment failure (in any magnetically-contained system) would involve superheated hydrogen getting friendly with oxygen. That, in turn, would give neutron-impregnated barrier materials a free ride on propellant. It's not strictly a melt down. But it's in the same practical category of failure.
- Aardwolf 6mo ago
  What's the effect of this in a populated area in a certain radius? Compared to nuclear power plants...
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > What's the effect of this in a populated area in a certain radius? I'd imagine this is, like with fission plants, deeply dependent on the specific design.
  - cyberax 6mo ago
    Radiologically? Pretty much nothing. The regular industrial safety concerns will matter more. The plant will have some tritium, and the material in reactor walls will get activated by the neutron flux. Some of the activated materials can disperse in case of a catastrophic explosion (e.g. a couple of large airplanes being flown the reactor building). But the material of the walls is not volatile, so it'll stay on the site. And tritium is very volatile, so it'll quickly disperse to safe levels. You'll be able to detect them with sensitive equipment, but it won't be dangerous.
- gmueckl 6mo ago
  Ths is a massive misunderstanding of the technology. First of all, the amount of hydrogen in the reactor is tiny. The magnetic confinement severely limits the density of the plasma. The inner containment vessel is a ultra high vacuum chamber. The chemical energy that would be released by a reaction between the hydrogen in the reactor amd oxygen from the air would be less than what is released by popping a hydrogen filled balloon with a lighter. The truly concerning failure modes would be related to release of radiation or activated materials. But that would require damaging the reactor in ways that the reactor is incapable of imparting on itself. Overall, the technology is remarkably safe.

ExpertAdvisor01 6mo ago

It already exists in many countries. They transport it through pipelines . E.g. Temelín Nuclear Power Plant, Paks Nuclear Power Plant And many more

MisterTea 6mo ago
My question is more about the safety of locating one smack in the middle of a city. There is radiation to shield but no radioactive fuel waste. HOWEVER, worn reactor parts that need to be replaced will be piping hot when measured with a Geiger counter. So is it safe to build and operate in the middle of e.g. NYC? And further, if they are safe, what is the public's perception of fusion? Do people hear "nuclear fusion" and immediately think nuclear disaster imagery brought about by incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?
- DennisP 6mo ago
  Judging by the comments I see most places, the general public's perception of fusion is "magical scifi tech that will never happen."
  - hunterpayne 6mo ago
    That's because it almost certainly is. Don't hate on the messengers.
    - DennisP 6mo ago
      My point is, that's a pretty positive view of fusion. They think it's too good to be true, but if it actually happens then I doubt many people will suddenly switch into thinking it's a dirty old explodey thing like fission's public image.
  - Cthulhu_ 6mo ago
    Oh I'm sure it'll happen, in like 30 years. After which they'll need to make it commercially viable, build power plants, etc. (also it was 30 years away, 30 year ago)

grishka 6mo ago

Don't they already do this for existing types of power plants (gas, coal) that produce waste heat?