5 ms·

It's insanely cool that YC is now part of this. Also love that pg credits Sam for making it happen. On a somewhat related note. Despite the setbacks and the ba

by wamatt 12y ago

It's insanely cool that YC is now part of this. Also love that pg credits Sam for making it happen. On a somewhat related note. Despite the setbacks and the bad rep nuclear gets, fusion really could be a better future. The energy density is in a class of its own, compared to that of renewables. Prof David MacKay demonstrates this quite effectively here[1]. This of course is not to take anything away from renewables or imply we shouldn't pursue funding both. One group of companies I find particularly interesting, are those attempting aneutronic fusion.[2] Like many good ideas, that became bad ideas (in the 60's), it appears to now be back in fashion.[3] Theoretical advancements have pushed the achievable temperature ceiling northwards, allowing a move towards commercialization. Whether this particular line of fusion innovation will ultimately pan out, is perhaps anyone's guess. Personally however, I suspect there is a chance it can work. The benefits would be almost too good to pass up. Small, modular, cheap and safe (with almost no radioactive waste) Some examples in the industry: Raman-budget: Focus Fusion [4] Secretive and heavily funded: Tri Alpha Energy [5] [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_ren... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion [3] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/proton-boron-nuclear-fusion-returns-spotlight https://www.sciencenews.org/article/proton-boron-nuclear-fus... [4] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focus-fusion-empowertheworld--3 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focus-fusion-empowerthewo... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri_Alpha_Energy,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri_Alpha_Energy,_Inc.

phaemon 12y ago
Prof Mackay's talk pretty much says that in order to use renewable energy the whole UK would have to be covered in electricity generating equipment. However, 15% of UK energy is generated from renewables (excluding nuclear), which would mean that currently one seventh of the landmass of the UK was covered in wind turbines etc. Which it isn't. You'd be able to tell. So, one of us has made a mistake with our calculations somewhere.
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > However, 15% of UK energy is generated from renewables (excluding nuclear), which would mean that currently one seventh of the landmass of the UK was covered in wind turbines etc. Which it isn't. Most likely brought in from other countries, and the wind parks in the North Sea. Many local utilities in Germany hold stakes e.g. in a Norwegian (iirc) dam project, so they recieve a given amount of electricity output. This increases Germany's renewable-source amount even if the energy itself isn't produced in Germany.
  - phaemon 12y ago
    Nope, Scotland over produces and sells to England, but that's still UK, at least for another month ;-) Offshore wind was included in the impossible. There's something off in his figures. Perhaps wind turbines have become more efficient since he first made his calculations?
    - cmdkeen 12y ago
      It may also be diminishing returns, not all land is equal for wind turbine placement. If all the "good" spots can't generate enough for the UK's needs you might need to start using less suitable locations.
      - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
        By far the most efficient wind turbine placements are offshore. We have plenty of coast, and so far very little of it has offshore wind farms. We also have a good few estuaries that could create electricity relatively easily - using known and proven technology, which fusion certainly isn't. Bottom line is these figures are either incompetent or disingenuous. I'm old enough to remember fusion being touted as the Next Big Thing for literally all of my life. Commercial containment fusion seems no closer now than it did fifty years ago. There are alternatives, but they're highly speculative. Dropping YC cash on them makes sense as a long shot, but the science doesn't suggest it's wise to expect them to make good.
- 12y ago
exDM69 12y ago
> On a somewhat related note. Despite the setbacks and the bad rep nuclear gets, fusion really could be a better future. It sure could be a better future but the "bad rep" problem is bigger than I ever thought. The coalition of green parties in the European council (or Commission? Parliament? EU bureaucracy is confusing-) have the following in their program (paraphrased): "Cancel the funding of all nuclear power projects, like the ITER project". This is a purely political move that is made solely to appeal to the feelings (not intelligence) of their voters. Nuclear fusion should be the project for the Green movement, but instead they are doing the complete opposite, just because of the reputation issues.
- tfgg 12y ago
  I was interested for a source, so I found this: http://www.greens-efa.eu/nuclear-safety-in-europe-following-the-nuclear-accident-in-japan-3519.html http://www.greens-efa.eu/nuclear-safety-in-europe-following-... "23. Calls on the Commission, the Member States, the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and other public banks to freeze public funding for nuclear fusion, including ITER, or fission, except for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities;" What the hell? I just don't understand the Green parties sometimes and could never support them while they still do rubbish like this.
  - Joeri 12y ago
    It's because even ITER produces radioactive waste, and the greens are only interested in clean energy. In their view, with hydro, geothermal, wind and solar we have all the clean energy sources we need, if people cut back their energy consumption. That is, ofcourse, a big if.
- clarkmoody 12y ago
  Pandora's Promise is a very interesting documentary about plain nuclear fission power, created by an environmentalist who decided to think for himself and investigate the power source that his movement hates. The film highlights much of the misinformation campaign about fission, with particular emphasis on Chernobyl. I highly recommend watching, no matter the what you believe about nuclear power. > "Cancel the funding of all nuclear power projects, like the ITER project" This is so very sad indeed. Fusion and fission are entirely different technologies, and both show immense promise to meet the energy needs of the future.

by wamatt 12y ago

phaemon 12y ago

Prof Mackay's talk pretty much says that in order to use renewable energy the whole UK would have to be covered in electricity generating equipment. However, 15% of UK energy is generated from renewables (excluding nuclear), which would mean that currently one seventh of the landmass of the UK was covered in wind turbines etc. Which it isn't. You'd be able to tell. So, one of us has made a mistake with our calculations somewhere.

mschuster91 12y ago
> However, 15% of UK energy is generated from renewables (excluding nuclear), which would mean that currently one seventh of the landmass of the UK was covered in wind turbines etc. Which it isn't. Most likely brought in from other countries, and the wind parks in the North Sea. Many local utilities in Germany hold stakes e.g. in a Norwegian (iirc) dam project, so they recieve a given amount of electricity output. This increases Germany's renewable-source amount even if the energy itself isn't produced in Germany.
- phaemon 12y ago
  Nope, Scotland over produces and sells to England, but that's still UK, at least for another month ;-) Offshore wind was included in the impossible. There's something off in his figures. Perhaps wind turbines have become more efficient since he first made his calculations?
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    It may also be diminishing returns, not all land is equal for wind turbine placement. If all the "good" spots can't generate enough for the UK's needs you might need to start using less suitable locations.
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      By far the most efficient wind turbine placements are offshore. We have plenty of coast, and so far very little of it has offshore wind farms. We also have a good few estuaries that could create electricity relatively easily - using known and proven technology, which fusion certainly isn't. Bottom line is these figures are either incompetent or disingenuous. I'm old enough to remember fusion being touted as the Next Big Thing for literally all of my life. Commercial containment fusion seems no closer now than it did fifty years ago. There are alternatives, but they're highly speculative. Dropping YC cash on them makes sense as a long shot, but the science doesn't suggest it's wise to expect them to make good.
12y ago

exDM69 12y ago

> On a somewhat related note. Despite the setbacks and the bad rep nuclear gets, fusion really could be a better future. It sure could be a better future but the "bad rep" problem is bigger than I ever thought. The coalition of green parties in the European council (or Commission? Parliament? EU bureaucracy is confusing-) have the following in their program (paraphrased): "Cancel the funding of all nuclear power projects, like the ITER project". This is a purely political move that is made solely to appeal to the feelings (not intelligence) of their voters. Nuclear fusion should be the project for the Green movement, but instead they are doing the complete opposite, just because of the reputation issues.

tfgg 12y ago
I was interested for a source, so I found this: http://www.greens-efa.eu/nuclear-safety-in-europe-following-the-nuclear-accident-in-japan-3519.html http://www.greens-efa.eu/nuclear-safety-in-europe-following-... "23. Calls on the Commission, the Member States, the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and other public banks to freeze public funding for nuclear fusion, including ITER, or fission, except for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities;" What the hell? I just don't understand the Green parties sometimes and could never support them while they still do rubbish like this.
- Joeri 12y ago
  It's because even ITER produces radioactive waste, and the greens are only interested in clean energy. In their view, with hydro, geothermal, wind and solar we have all the clean energy sources we need, if people cut back their energy consumption. That is, ofcourse, a big if.
clarkmoody 12y ago
Pandora's Promise is a very interesting documentary about plain nuclear fission power, created by an environmentalist who decided to think for himself and investigate the power source that his movement hates. The film highlights much of the misinformation campaign about fission, with particular emphasis on Chernobyl. I highly recommend watching, no matter the what you believe about nuclear power. > "Cancel the funding of all nuclear power projects, like the ITER project" This is so very sad indeed. Fusion and fission are entirely different technologies, and both show immense promise to meet the energy needs of the future.