Why fusion will never happen
December 17, 2022 4:11 PM Subscribe
Why fusion will never happen Not because it can’t, because it won’t. Because no matter how hard you try, it’s always going to cost more than the solutions we already have.
In the "Really, Never?" section, there's this part:
And the reason isn't because the turbines will be cheaper than wind or fossil fuels, it's because transmission and the last mile problem on power-hungry applications would effectively evaporate -- fusion absolutely will be cheaper to power, for example, massive desalination plants in locations where you would need costly transmission infrastructure to bring in alternate renewable power. Many carbon sequestration technologies are very power hungry, and a gigawatt-scale power source on the premises enable their use.
Never? No, not never.
posted by tclark at 4:33 PM on December 17, 2022 [37 favorites]
So, for instance, if you come up with a way to build a steam turbine for half as much money, you do indeed lower the cost of making a fusion plant. However, you’ve also lowered the cost of making a fission plant, and a coal plant too. You’ve probably lowered the cost of a gas turbine as well, and maybe even wind. So you’re in exactly the same place you started, everything else is still cheaper.Which fundamentally reveals how mistaken the article is. I have no idea when fusion will happen, but you (or, more likely your grandchildren) can mark my words: before 2120, barring overall civilizational collapse, there will be fusion plants all over the world, the vast majority likely powering desalination plants.
And the reason isn't because the turbines will be cheaper than wind or fossil fuels, it's because transmission and the last mile problem on power-hungry applications would effectively evaporate -- fusion absolutely will be cheaper to power, for example, massive desalination plants in locations where you would need costly transmission infrastructure to bring in alternate renewable power. Many carbon sequestration technologies are very power hungry, and a gigawatt-scale power source on the premises enable their use.
Never? No, not never.
posted by tclark at 4:33 PM on December 17, 2022 [37 favorites]
We already have fusion power, and we've had it for all known human history, it's responsible for all as we know it on Earth, it's about eight light minutes away, it's expected to last for another 5 billion years and even though our planet only intercepts about 0.000000045% of its total output it is enough total power that we could power the entire planet with about 100,000 square miles of solar panels out of the roughly 197 million square miles of the surface of Earth.
And it's right there, just waiting to be used with technology that exists right now.
(I tried to do the math to calculate how many watts are falling on the daylight side of the planet right now, using a conservative 150 watts per square meter and I probably got lost in the big numbers and exponents, but it should be something greater than 11,170,500,000,000,000 theoretically available watts, oceans included.)
posted by loquacious at 4:40 PM on December 17, 2022 [18 favorites]
And it's right there, just waiting to be used with technology that exists right now.
(I tried to do the math to calculate how many watts are falling on the daylight side of the planet right now, using a conservative 150 watts per square meter and I probably got lost in the big numbers and exponents, but it should be something greater than 11,170,500,000,000,000 theoretically available watts, oceans included.)
posted by loquacious at 4:40 PM on December 17, 2022 [18 favorites]
Solar is great but there do exist countries which don't see much of the sun for like a third of the year. And sure, they can "just import" but relying on the benevolence of your neighbors and the whims of international markets to not freeze to death isn't necessarily the smartest policy, as the whole Ukraine war has demonstrated. There's a huge political motivation for some degree of energy self-sufficiency, even if it means having to use more expensive generation methods.
posted by Pyry at 4:52 PM on December 17, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 4:52 PM on December 17, 2022 [11 favorites]
There's a lot going on in this space (not all of which TFA explains). Some of it is counter-intuitive (at least to me).
One example: the economics of baseload power plants (coal, nuclear, and non-peaker natural gas plants) depends on them running at full load basically 24/7. Many of them can not throttle down, and anything that requires them to reduce power or go offline breaks the financial model. Turns out that solar and wind do exactly that.
So, not only are solar and wind often cheaper than baseload generation, they simulaneously make baseload generation uneconomical!
I don't think we'll see Fusion plants in the next 50 years. What I think we'll see are:
- HVDC power connections to share power across continents
- overprovisioned solar, wind
- demand control (both commercial and residential)
- storage (primarily large scale battery, but also pumped hyrdo, and also V2G / V2H)
If you look at the numbers, we are far from there, right now, but it only takes some 10-20% improvements in each category to get us there.
posted by soylent00FF00 at 5:06 PM on December 17, 2022 [13 favorites]
One example: the economics of baseload power plants (coal, nuclear, and non-peaker natural gas plants) depends on them running at full load basically 24/7. Many of them can not throttle down, and anything that requires them to reduce power or go offline breaks the financial model. Turns out that solar and wind do exactly that.
So, not only are solar and wind often cheaper than baseload generation, they simulaneously make baseload generation uneconomical!
I don't think we'll see Fusion plants in the next 50 years. What I think we'll see are:
- HVDC power connections to share power across continents
- overprovisioned solar, wind
- demand control (both commercial and residential)
- storage (primarily large scale battery, but also pumped hyrdo, and also V2G / V2H)
If you look at the numbers, we are far from there, right now, but it only takes some 10-20% improvements in each category to get us there.
posted by soylent00FF00 at 5:06 PM on December 17, 2022 [13 favorites]
The article does seem to ignore the externalities of burning carbon for power, which given the growing climate disaster seems like is MUCH more expensive than even the most expensive form of not burning carbon for power. I guess it's okay if the electricity is cheaper than it would be with fusion (given that it ever happens), but if there are no pollinators left and the weather is entirely chaos all the time, then what do you even need electricity for?
posted by hippybear at 5:09 PM on December 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 5:09 PM on December 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
Wow, it’s been ages since I read an old-school, classic, “I am very smart” blogpost.
posted by The River Ivel at 5:09 PM on December 17, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 5:09 PM on December 17, 2022 [15 favorites]
- HVDC power connections to share power across continents
Whether this will happen depends on whether enough has changed for this to happen. It's been cheaper for European countries to build solar farms in the south of Europe for some time, instead of building them in their own territory. Probably more cost effective to build wind in western Europe and grid connect for over a decade. But countries keep installing at home for a few reasons.
1: while subsidies were heavily used they preferred local spend.
2: generation on home territory improves security of supply
3: money could be more easily directed to home manufacturers, supporting them as possible national champions in capturing global market share.
1 has changed in that there are lower subsidies per unit generated but local economic benefits still accrue around an installation site.
2 isn't changing, if anything it's more on minds than previously.
3 has changed in that it's got harder to introduce new manufacturers to the established sectors of wind and solar, so less emphasis on making that happen. But a home market is still important to incremental innovation for the existing companies, but maybe not to the same extent it was
So will the changes be enough to support the long range model? We are starting to see it happen to some extent, with wind in Ireland for example. The other pressure is on overcapacity and cycling that via interconnectors to minimise the need to constrain. But will that enable proper long distance systems or just more connections between neighbours?
posted by biffa at 5:31 PM on December 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
Whether this will happen depends on whether enough has changed for this to happen. It's been cheaper for European countries to build solar farms in the south of Europe for some time, instead of building them in their own territory. Probably more cost effective to build wind in western Europe and grid connect for over a decade. But countries keep installing at home for a few reasons.
1: while subsidies were heavily used they preferred local spend.
2: generation on home territory improves security of supply
3: money could be more easily directed to home manufacturers, supporting them as possible national champions in capturing global market share.
1 has changed in that there are lower subsidies per unit generated but local economic benefits still accrue around an installation site.
2 isn't changing, if anything it's more on minds than previously.
3 has changed in that it's got harder to introduce new manufacturers to the established sectors of wind and solar, so less emphasis on making that happen. But a home market is still important to incremental innovation for the existing companies, but maybe not to the same extent it was
So will the changes be enough to support the long range model? We are starting to see it happen to some extent, with wind in Ireland for example. The other pressure is on overcapacity and cycling that via interconnectors to minimise the need to constrain. But will that enable proper long distance systems or just more connections between neighbours?
posted by biffa at 5:31 PM on December 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
The odd dynamic about the optimistic carbon-free cheap energy future is that if you ignore the economics it makes a certain kind of sense to do things like desalinization, direct air capture of carbon, green hydrogen production, and whatever other schedule-flexible future tech we come up with, in bursts when the solar/wind are peaking, while running fission/fusion baseload at 100% all the time.
But the economics push towards exactly what soylent says a couple comments up, a much more dynamic system that is able to rely entirely on solar/wind by moving power around in both space and time.
The elephant in the room that the article breezes past is that governments can do lots of non-economical things if they are motivated by reasons other than economics. China is building a lot of reactors. If the dynamics of solar/wind destroy the reliability of baseload generation by driving it all out of business while storage and other measures are not built out enough to replace it, what actions will governments take after high-profile outages? If a country is dependent on incoming HVDC links, what happens when international tensions put those links at risk?
It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.
posted by allegedly at 5:37 PM on December 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
But the economics push towards exactly what soylent says a couple comments up, a much more dynamic system that is able to rely entirely on solar/wind by moving power around in both space and time.
The elephant in the room that the article breezes past is that governments can do lots of non-economical things if they are motivated by reasons other than economics. China is building a lot of reactors. If the dynamics of solar/wind destroy the reliability of baseload generation by driving it all out of business while storage and other measures are not built out enough to replace it, what actions will governments take after high-profile outages? If a country is dependent on incoming HVDC links, what happens when international tensions put those links at risk?
It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.
posted by allegedly at 5:37 PM on December 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
As I write this, spot prices for electricity are over $300/MWh in California (link) with demand of about 30GW.
California has about 500,000 EVs registered, if one assumes each EV has a 50kWh battery, that's already 25GWh of storage.
So tonight the EV owners could power California for about 0.8 hours before the grid failed.
Not ideal, but my point is that this is early days, and if spot grid prices are ~3x as much as storage prices, that's an enormous econimic incentive to build more.
You can find sources suggest lithium battery storage prices are something like $100/MWh lifetime cost, and only getting cheaper.
posted by soylent00FF00 at 5:41 PM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
California has about 500,000 EVs registered, if one assumes each EV has a 50kWh battery, that's already 25GWh of storage.
So tonight the EV owners could power California for about 0.8 hours before the grid failed.
Not ideal, but my point is that this is early days, and if spot grid prices are ~3x as much as storage prices, that's an enormous econimic incentive to build more.
You can find sources suggest lithium battery storage prices are something like $100/MWh lifetime cost, and only getting cheaper.
posted by soylent00FF00 at 5:41 PM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
Lockheed Martin has a program in their skunkworks division that supposedly shows a lot of promise. They filed patents this year for small fusion reactors that will be used for aircraft. Helion has a reactor design that doesn’t use steam turbines and instead uses the interaction between the plasma and its magnetic confinement to generate power. Helion just finished their gen 6 system and are starting gen 7 which is the one that will according to their plans be able to sustain fusion next year. A popular science YouTuber “Real Engineering” just had a video on their stuff today.
posted by interogative mood at 5:59 PM on December 17, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 5:59 PM on December 17, 2022 [10 favorites]
I'd take the other side of this bet all day long.
posted by kickingtheground at 6:12 PM on December 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 6:12 PM on December 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
It is an important point that "baseload" power largely doesn't add up in an environment with lots of renewable energy, so I think we're probably looking at a 100% renewable future for those places that don't already have nuclear infrastructure (and I kind of expect that nuclear infrastructure is probably going to be more expensive, overall, than a 100% renewable grid hardened by storage).
*- HVDC power connections to share power across continents
Demand control is a really interesting one - I think getting a tight feedback loop on how much power is being drawn, and also how much is being lost thanks to inefficient house design, is something we're going to see a lot more of in the next 30 years, such that the next generation houses will have apps that can show you your power draw in each room in real time.
I still think fusion reactors aren't going to happen in my lifetime, though, so even though I can see fusion reactors being created for military applications.
posted by Merus at 6:19 PM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
*- HVDC power connections to share power across continents
- overprovisioned solar, wind
- demand control (both commercial and residential)
- storage (primarily large scale battery, but also pumped hyrdo, and also V2G / V2H)*
Demand control is a really interesting one - I think getting a tight feedback loop on how much power is being drawn, and also how much is being lost thanks to inefficient house design, is something we're going to see a lot more of in the next 30 years, such that the next generation houses will have apps that can show you your power draw in each room in real time.
I still think fusion reactors aren't going to happen in my lifetime, though, so even though I can see fusion reactors being created for military applications.
posted by Merus at 6:19 PM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'd take the other side of this bet all day long.
That's where I am. You hear a lot about "aneutronic" approaches, and there's a reason for that. The easier-to-achieve fusion reactions generate a lot of neutrons, which 1) carry away a lot of the released energy, 2) are really hard to extract that energy from, and 3) irradiate the living fuck out of your reactor.
The one small grace of neutron activation is that the resulting radioisotopes tend to have a relatively short half-life so they don't say hellaciously radioactive for too long. The other side of that, unfortunately, is that they are hella radioactive for that period of time. Oh, and the neutron activation has all kinds of major consequences for structural integrity et cetera, so at the same time that you're trying to do stuff that requires the most extreme material science performance, you're ensuring that whatever you use to do it needs to do that miraculous work while also getting massively degraded by the neutron activation (see neutron embrittlement for just the start of your material degradation woes), and needing replacement regularly. This requires serious limits on how long a fusion reactor can operate without maintenance, such maintenance requiring core shutdown for long enough to let the profusion of nice, short-half-life stuff to decay to the point that you can even attempt to pull out anything and replace it, while putting the still-radioactive-as-fuck removed materials somewhere else to finish cooling off.
That's why you hear a lot about "aneutronic" fusion.
The problem there is that the various aneutronic fusion reactions tend to require relatively exotic reaction materials (boron isotopes or whatnot), and, more damningly, much, much higher reaction temperatures. Getting fusion to happen with the "easy" relatively low-temperature reactions is already a challenging prospect, but to do it for the aneutronic stuff is another order of magnitude more heat density. It's replacing one problem we don't know how to solve with another problem that we don't even know how to create!
TL;DR: fusion is hard, yo.
posted by notoriety public at 6:32 PM on December 17, 2022 [17 favorites]
That's where I am. You hear a lot about "aneutronic" approaches, and there's a reason for that. The easier-to-achieve fusion reactions generate a lot of neutrons, which 1) carry away a lot of the released energy, 2) are really hard to extract that energy from, and 3) irradiate the living fuck out of your reactor.
The one small grace of neutron activation is that the resulting radioisotopes tend to have a relatively short half-life so they don't say hellaciously radioactive for too long. The other side of that, unfortunately, is that they are hella radioactive for that period of time. Oh, and the neutron activation has all kinds of major consequences for structural integrity et cetera, so at the same time that you're trying to do stuff that requires the most extreme material science performance, you're ensuring that whatever you use to do it needs to do that miraculous work while also getting massively degraded by the neutron activation (see neutron embrittlement for just the start of your material degradation woes), and needing replacement regularly. This requires serious limits on how long a fusion reactor can operate without maintenance, such maintenance requiring core shutdown for long enough to let the profusion of nice, short-half-life stuff to decay to the point that you can even attempt to pull out anything and replace it, while putting the still-radioactive-as-fuck removed materials somewhere else to finish cooling off.
That's why you hear a lot about "aneutronic" fusion.
The problem there is that the various aneutronic fusion reactions tend to require relatively exotic reaction materials (boron isotopes or whatnot), and, more damningly, much, much higher reaction temperatures. Getting fusion to happen with the "easy" relatively low-temperature reactions is already a challenging prospect, but to do it for the aneutronic stuff is another order of magnitude more heat density. It's replacing one problem we don't know how to solve with another problem that we don't even know how to create!
TL;DR: fusion is hard, yo.
posted by notoriety public at 6:32 PM on December 17, 2022 [17 favorites]
> So tonight the [1/2 million] EV owners could power California for about 0.8 hours before the grid failed.
Hmmm... and there are over 17 million cars registered in CA, so if they were all used to store power in the best PV part of the day, they've have 34 hours/day (or 24 hours + some driving).
That's a lot of batteries, though. We'd also need more chargers at work so the cars would all be topped off by twilight for people that drive in. More PV, too, but that seems to be happening anyway.
Can we run Hetch Hetchy backwards during the day?
posted by ASCII Costanza head at 7:06 PM on December 17, 2022
Hmmm... and there are over 17 million cars registered in CA, so if they were all used to store power in the best PV part of the day, they've have 34 hours/day (or 24 hours + some driving).
That's a lot of batteries, though. We'd also need more chargers at work so the cars would all be topped off by twilight for people that drive in. More PV, too, but that seems to be happening anyway.
Can we run Hetch Hetchy backwards during the day?
posted by ASCII Costanza head at 7:06 PM on December 17, 2022
Pollution f-s the climate; the climate crisis f-s agriculture; the famine f-s society; the breakdown of society f-s everything else.
Any sentence that starts with "we will have X in 50 years" is false. Flying cars, moon bases, grid electricity, smart couches, not without food.
We had 50 years, we don't have 50 years. Agriculture is 3% of the econony, but it is the necessary pre-requisite for the other 97%. If something is not already being made at scale, then its not an option.
The things we build today are what the future will have to work with, not these fusion fantasies of tomorrow.
Is building a stable, controllable miniature star inside a building on the surface of your planet a good idea, an economical idea, even possible? Don't know. Will banks, governments and bored billionares try to find it? Probably.
Should we.get off fossil fuels asap even if the conversion to clean energy is expensive, inconvenient, and alters our luxurious and wasteful lifestyles - yes.
The fact that wind and solar are cheap, and batteries and demand management affordable and the lifestyle easy to get used to is just icing on the cake.
Lets make sure we have cake in the future. Decarbonize first, hail-mary fusion power when that is done.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:12 PM on December 17, 2022 [14 favorites]
Any sentence that starts with "we will have X in 50 years" is false. Flying cars, moon bases, grid electricity, smart couches, not without food.
We had 50 years, we don't have 50 years. Agriculture is 3% of the econony, but it is the necessary pre-requisite for the other 97%. If something is not already being made at scale, then its not an option.
The things we build today are what the future will have to work with, not these fusion fantasies of tomorrow.
Is building a stable, controllable miniature star inside a building on the surface of your planet a good idea, an economical idea, even possible? Don't know. Will banks, governments and bored billionares try to find it? Probably.
Should we.get off fossil fuels asap even if the conversion to clean energy is expensive, inconvenient, and alters our luxurious and wasteful lifestyles - yes.
The fact that wind and solar are cheap, and batteries and demand management affordable and the lifestyle easy to get used to is just icing on the cake.
Lets make sure we have cake in the future. Decarbonize first, hail-mary fusion power when that is done.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:12 PM on December 17, 2022 [14 favorites]
Why Fusion Ignition Is Being Hailed as a Major Breakthrough—a Nuclear Physicist Explains
posted by robbyrobs at 8:42 PM on December 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by robbyrobs at 8:42 PM on December 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
Reminds me of Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by a Princeton fusion energy research physicist.
posted by eye of newt at 8:45 PM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by eye of newt at 8:45 PM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
I have more confidence in fusion being a viable power source in 50 years than I do in the kind of capitalist systems this article bases its arguments on still being viable in 50 years.
posted by biogeo at 9:08 PM on December 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 9:08 PM on December 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
This kind of assertion simultaneously infuriates and exhausts me. Humans are exceedingly clever and stubborn, and never is just a long, long time.
posted by newdaddy at 9:32 PM on December 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by newdaddy at 9:32 PM on December 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Yeah, was just chiming in that "baseload" effectively no longer exists. There was a time where "slow" sources of power like coal were turned on 24/7, while "fast" sources of power like gas peakers were turned on for a few hours at the 7am / 7pm peak to help with demand. And to help use up baseload power, we even incentivized electrical usage overnight, with special discounted rates for water heating / home heating.
This model is effectively done for. We are still giving out "discounted" rates for heating overnight when that's the time where energy is expensive, while during the day there is so much solar being produced that power prices are regularly negative.
There is no such thing as baseload anymore.
Instead what we are transitioning to is wind power generating 24/7, covering residential use overnight. Solar generating during the day to cover industrial and commercial use. And finally hydro water releases for a few hours at 7am and 7pm to cover peak usage.
You would have lithium battery storage for voltage management and instantaneous grid stabilization with millisecond level response times, something that even the fastest gas peaker could never do. A transmission line goes down and grid voltage starts dropping? Bam your batteries can push power to the grid instantly, while it takes several minutes for a gas peaker to spool up.
If you're looking for grid stabilization on the scale of hours and days, then you're just looking at extended water releases at hydro power stations when it's cloudy and still, and pumped hydro to soak up excess energy when it's sunny and windy.
This is what the future of electricity looks like and I'm struggling to see where fusion power fits into it, solar and wind is very very cheap, just overbuild it then use the excess for pumped hydro.
posted by xdvesper at 11:30 PM on December 17, 2022 [11 favorites]
This model is effectively done for. We are still giving out "discounted" rates for heating overnight when that's the time where energy is expensive, while during the day there is so much solar being produced that power prices are regularly negative.
There is no such thing as baseload anymore.
Instead what we are transitioning to is wind power generating 24/7, covering residential use overnight. Solar generating during the day to cover industrial and commercial use. And finally hydro water releases for a few hours at 7am and 7pm to cover peak usage.
You would have lithium battery storage for voltage management and instantaneous grid stabilization with millisecond level response times, something that even the fastest gas peaker could never do. A transmission line goes down and grid voltage starts dropping? Bam your batteries can push power to the grid instantly, while it takes several minutes for a gas peaker to spool up.
If you're looking for grid stabilization on the scale of hours and days, then you're just looking at extended water releases at hydro power stations when it's cloudy and still, and pumped hydro to soak up excess energy when it's sunny and windy.
This is what the future of electricity looks like and I'm struggling to see where fusion power fits into it, solar and wind is very very cheap, just overbuild it then use the excess for pumped hydro.
posted by xdvesper at 11:30 PM on December 17, 2022 [11 favorites]
Can we run Hetch Hetchy backwards during the day?
I don't know if it's done there specifically, but pumped storage is totally a thing and certainly happens in California. Not a terribly efficient thing, but a thing.
Consider other questions: does an aluminium smelter, or a cement furnace, absolutely have to run all the time? Is it cheaper to overprovision one so that it takes all that solar or wind when it's plentiful and can afford to be idle when it isn't? It does not remove the need for storage (eg traditional batteries, flow batteries, hydrogen storage with fuel cells) but it can certainly remove the need for quite so much of them. It can be economically driven, too, if energy price to these consumers reflects availability.
As for desalination, it tends to happen on the seashore. And there are a lot of seashores that do see good, consistent wind and can generate power at the point of use from wind. Desalinated water is also eminently storable, and that also makes a stored form of power, in that it removes the need for power at a less convenient time. It does not solve for every case, but it does imply that this is not always a problem for our current models of supply.
I think we will always be looking for generation local to use, however inconvenient (transport is one favourite) but these arguments don't make fusion compelling by themselves. They change what fusion must compete with in specific circumstances and it isn't always power generation it has to compete with.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 12:38 AM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't know if it's done there specifically, but pumped storage is totally a thing and certainly happens in California. Not a terribly efficient thing, but a thing.
Consider other questions: does an aluminium smelter, or a cement furnace, absolutely have to run all the time? Is it cheaper to overprovision one so that it takes all that solar or wind when it's plentiful and can afford to be idle when it isn't? It does not remove the need for storage (eg traditional batteries, flow batteries, hydrogen storage with fuel cells) but it can certainly remove the need for quite so much of them. It can be economically driven, too, if energy price to these consumers reflects availability.
As for desalination, it tends to happen on the seashore. And there are a lot of seashores that do see good, consistent wind and can generate power at the point of use from wind. Desalinated water is also eminently storable, and that also makes a stored form of power, in that it removes the need for power at a less convenient time. It does not solve for every case, but it does imply that this is not always a problem for our current models of supply.
I think we will always be looking for generation local to use, however inconvenient (transport is one favourite) but these arguments don't make fusion compelling by themselves. They change what fusion must compete with in specific circumstances and it isn't always power generation it has to compete with.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 12:38 AM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Obviously outsiders can be right any time, but I think the “about me” page is a bit relevant:
posted by Going To Maine at 12:55 AM on December 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
I’m just a random Torontonian. I work by day, and write by night. It’s a simple existence.
In case you’re curious (and that’s why you’re here), I’m a failed physicist who tries to keep his hand in the biz. I watch the green-power market, and filter it through what I know of the technology side. Hopefully, some of you might find this useful. Let me know!
I do most of my writing on the Wikipedia, and this blog might be considered a counterpoint. The Wiki is all about facts and references, so this is primarily discussion and opinion. I don’t expect this to be a high traffic site, maybe a post or two a monthAppealing to expertise gets sneers, but as someone who knows nothing I’m kind of inclined to trust the vast apparatus of government research that has worked to make this happen.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:55 AM on December 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think fusion needs new physics to be feasible.
Such as the existence of usable magnetic monopoles, perhaps.
posted by jamjam at 1:21 AM on December 18, 2022
Such as the existence of usable magnetic monopoles, perhaps.
posted by jamjam at 1:21 AM on December 18, 2022
No (well maybe:) but it may get folks to Mars and beyond in weeks rather than months. Princeton Fusion Systems and a few others are actively building (cough researching/studying) Fusion Rocket Engines! Not to power the ship but to shoot the fuel at speeds vastly faster than current engines, making faster rockets that use less fuel.
posted by sammyo at 6:35 AM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 6:35 AM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
The fact that tritium-based fusion is always reported as a promise of a cheap, plentiful source of energy should give anyone pause. They won't give metered power away, they will sell it at market price, depending on who owns the technology. What they desperately need is public money now, so therefore the hype. Related open thread.
posted by Brian B. at 6:49 AM on December 18, 2022
posted by Brian B. at 6:49 AM on December 18, 2022
I suspect we'll also see some use of biofuels or liquified green hydrogen or ammonia for shipping
Biofuels meaning ethanol and biodiesel, no not ever. That ship sailed last decade. All it ever really was was an agriculture subsidy for corn and soy producers when prices cratered in 2008. Biogas and biochar, sure, but that's never going to be more than a precent or two at the margins. Waste volume are not large compared to energy requirements and it doesn't make ecological or economic sense to produce waste for fuel as a primary effort.
Biofuels meaning synthetic HCs (jet fuel, diesel etc...) made ab initio from atmospheric feed stocks. Possibly. There are a few companies doing engineering prototypes of this now, but there are major affordability issues. Still, my bet is that this is how air travel will be made sustainable in a decade or so. I don't think it will see on-road or marine use though. It's going to be expensive for a long time to come and so a niche product.
Green Hydrogen, perhaps, but it's hard to store and wears out containment (through embrittlement). It's also not very cost efficient. I think it may have a place in marine shipping. Mersk is experimenting with it now. I think this application has promise at least.
"Green" ammonia--fuck no. You think oil spills are bad. Fuck no. Not if I ever get an opinion about it. Hard to think of a worse idea from a safety and ecosystem impact point of view.
posted by bonehead at 7:14 AM on December 18, 2022 [8 favorites]
Biofuels meaning ethanol and biodiesel, no not ever. That ship sailed last decade. All it ever really was was an agriculture subsidy for corn and soy producers when prices cratered in 2008. Biogas and biochar, sure, but that's never going to be more than a precent or two at the margins. Waste volume are not large compared to energy requirements and it doesn't make ecological or economic sense to produce waste for fuel as a primary effort.
Biofuels meaning synthetic HCs (jet fuel, diesel etc...) made ab initio from atmospheric feed stocks. Possibly. There are a few companies doing engineering prototypes of this now, but there are major affordability issues. Still, my bet is that this is how air travel will be made sustainable in a decade or so. I don't think it will see on-road or marine use though. It's going to be expensive for a long time to come and so a niche product.
Green Hydrogen, perhaps, but it's hard to store and wears out containment (through embrittlement). It's also not very cost efficient. I think it may have a place in marine shipping. Mersk is experimenting with it now. I think this application has promise at least.
"Green" ammonia--fuck no. You think oil spills are bad. Fuck no. Not if I ever get an opinion about it. Hard to think of a worse idea from a safety and ecosystem impact point of view.
posted by bonehead at 7:14 AM on December 18, 2022 [8 favorites]
Note that "not very cost efficient" in this case is quite possibly going to be remedied by over-provisioned solar and wind. It's still useful to make hydrogen if you can, even if it's only 1/3 efficient. Otherwise the panels and the turbines are idling. That's why I think the synthetic fuel and possibly hydrogen arguments eventually make sense. Overprovisioning means people are going to look for paying applications for their power, even if they're not terribly energy-efficient.
posted by bonehead at 7:22 AM on December 18, 2022
posted by bonehead at 7:22 AM on December 18, 2022
I’m kind of inclined to trust the vast apparatus of government research that has worked to make this happen.
I work for a government research organization: we do good work bur immediate applicability of research is not the highest priority and is somewhat looked down on by researchers as a commercial interest. We do things more to see if they can be done.
I share the skepticism most people here have of the author’s certainty on how things will develop, but he raises a good point that the economics are rarely mentioned in press coverage.
posted by cardboard at 7:32 AM on December 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
I work for a government research organization: we do good work bur immediate applicability of research is not the highest priority and is somewhat looked down on by researchers as a commercial interest. We do things more to see if they can be done.
I share the skepticism most people here have of the author’s certainty on how things will develop, but he raises a good point that the economics are rarely mentioned in press coverage.
posted by cardboard at 7:32 AM on December 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
Every time we bring up solar and wind, some Clever-Clogs inevitably jumps up eagerly to say "Did you know that sometimes it's dark???" I always have to wonder what these people think we actually know or don't know.
Yes, of course I know the wind doesn't always blow the same strength all the time. Everybody knows this. An understanding of the details of this behaviour goes into the deployment patterns of wind turbines. This is not a novel revelation about the nature of wind power. The whole point is to push fossil fuels into also-ran status in corner cases, and make as much as we can using these better tools.
Part of why we ignore this a lot in discussions is that both wind turbines and solar panels have shot way up in efficiency over the past 30 years. A solar panel on a cloudy day in London now makes more electricity than a solar panel in San Diego at noon would have made in the 80s. And in our far northern latitudes we have a thing called "summer" where we only have like two hours of total darkness, thanks to the Earth's axial tilt: that can power a lot of air conditioners, now that we need them up here. We're catching up to the consequences of recent development in photovoltaics, but the "What about nighttime?" brigade are still doing outdated Reaganite "solar is a pipe dream" sneers. I'm just not sure why.
I don't know if fusion is a pipe dream. Solar seemed like Pollyanna nonsense until this century, and I'd have sighed and said we'd never see practical solar generation if you asked me in the mid-90s. It turned out that modern supercomputers helped a lot with materials science, which unlocked a lot of problems in the field that seemed intractable. I think folks are right here to look at the incentives for investment in the technology. Maybe it'll be driven by bombs like it was in the 20th century, and maybe it'll be driven by EU grants struggling to work out what to do if the Russian gas wells seize up with ice next year.
All we can do is speculate. Solar was helped by supply chains and production networks as much as by lab research. Wind was helped largely by advanced carbon fibre processes and a willingness to build up a series of projects so construction expertise could gain momentum throughout the industry from manufacturing to installation. Will something better than the 1990s National Ignition Facility happen? Will we have the people who make the tools for making the tools to build the fusion devices to the exacting tolerances that seem to be needed? I dunno. It is fun to read about recent advances, temper enthusiasm with the sheer amount of energy spent on containment, and wonder if we'll ever see a Mr. Fusion in our lifetimes. And if we do, it's fun to think of how it could get rid of fossil fuels for those dark-and-still corner-case power needs.
Just don't tell me about nighttime. I worked that out when I was two.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 7:47 AM on December 18, 2022 [6 favorites]
Yes, of course I know the wind doesn't always blow the same strength all the time. Everybody knows this. An understanding of the details of this behaviour goes into the deployment patterns of wind turbines. This is not a novel revelation about the nature of wind power. The whole point is to push fossil fuels into also-ran status in corner cases, and make as much as we can using these better tools.
Part of why we ignore this a lot in discussions is that both wind turbines and solar panels have shot way up in efficiency over the past 30 years. A solar panel on a cloudy day in London now makes more electricity than a solar panel in San Diego at noon would have made in the 80s. And in our far northern latitudes we have a thing called "summer" where we only have like two hours of total darkness, thanks to the Earth's axial tilt: that can power a lot of air conditioners, now that we need them up here. We're catching up to the consequences of recent development in photovoltaics, but the "What about nighttime?" brigade are still doing outdated Reaganite "solar is a pipe dream" sneers. I'm just not sure why.
I don't know if fusion is a pipe dream. Solar seemed like Pollyanna nonsense until this century, and I'd have sighed and said we'd never see practical solar generation if you asked me in the mid-90s. It turned out that modern supercomputers helped a lot with materials science, which unlocked a lot of problems in the field that seemed intractable. I think folks are right here to look at the incentives for investment in the technology. Maybe it'll be driven by bombs like it was in the 20th century, and maybe it'll be driven by EU grants struggling to work out what to do if the Russian gas wells seize up with ice next year.
All we can do is speculate. Solar was helped by supply chains and production networks as much as by lab research. Wind was helped largely by advanced carbon fibre processes and a willingness to build up a series of projects so construction expertise could gain momentum throughout the industry from manufacturing to installation. Will something better than the 1990s National Ignition Facility happen? Will we have the people who make the tools for making the tools to build the fusion devices to the exacting tolerances that seem to be needed? I dunno. It is fun to read about recent advances, temper enthusiasm with the sheer amount of energy spent on containment, and wonder if we'll ever see a Mr. Fusion in our lifetimes. And if we do, it's fun to think of how it could get rid of fossil fuels for those dark-and-still corner-case power needs.
Just don't tell me about nighttime. I worked that out when I was two.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 7:47 AM on December 18, 2022 [6 favorites]
I found it strange to read this article on the same days as another on "The Power Station" - this is about a grass roots attempt to set up a community power scheme for the residents of Lynmouth Road, Walthamstow, England.
In terms of electricity generation, community power outfits sit on the absolute opposite end of scale and sophistication to nuclear fusion - but strangely enough they share the characteristics of needing sustained government level effort to make them work properly.
posted by rongorongo at 7:49 AM on December 18, 2022
In terms of electricity generation, community power outfits sit on the absolute opposite end of scale and sophistication to nuclear fusion - but strangely enough they share the characteristics of needing sustained government level effort to make them work properly.
posted by rongorongo at 7:49 AM on December 18, 2022
Every time we bring up solar and wind, some Clever-Clogs inevitably jumps up eagerly to say "Did you know that sometimes it's dark???" I always have to wonder what these people think we actually know or don't know.
Oh please, the article's whole argument is that renewables are simply so cheap that nobody would ever construct more fission or fusion plants. Just replace everything with solar and wind! So simple! And yet, countries like Finland and Sweden are expanding their fission power production and even considering constructing new plants, the very things that are supposed to be economically unthinkable. And yes, the reason that solar accounts for approximately 0% of Finland's, Sweden's, and Norway's renewable energy mixes is because it is dark and overcast and snowy and simply knowing about those very obvious problems doesn't automatically let you solve them.
posted by Pyry at 9:05 AM on December 18, 2022
Oh please, the article's whole argument is that renewables are simply so cheap that nobody would ever construct more fission or fusion plants. Just replace everything with solar and wind! So simple! And yet, countries like Finland and Sweden are expanding their fission power production and even considering constructing new plants, the very things that are supposed to be economically unthinkable. And yes, the reason that solar accounts for approximately 0% of Finland's, Sweden's, and Norway's renewable energy mixes is because it is dark and overcast and snowy and simply knowing about those very obvious problems doesn't automatically let you solve them.
posted by Pyry at 9:05 AM on December 18, 2022
Yes, Pyry, that is exactly the sort of Captain Obvious corner-case whataboutism I was describing. Sure, maybe in Darklandia, Principality of Still Air, solar and wind are 100% useless and have no business in the energy mix. That is an interesting data point if true, but outliers aren't how we make broader decisions.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 10:00 AM on December 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 10:00 AM on December 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
In terms of electricity generation, community power outfits sit on the absolute opposite end of scale and sophistication to nuclear fusion - but strangely enough they share the characteristics of needing sustained government level effort to make them work properly.
But do they need the same things? Lynmouth Road sounds like the barriers are getting people onside, with enough investment (ie capital) and rooftop ownership. They aren't getting any subsidies (access stopped in 2019). So they need regulation sorted out to ease the regulatory framework. Maybe something to ease The investment process.
The UK electricity system however was set up for large-scale, centralised generation. The regulation still favours this sort of generation, grid connection is easier & cheaper and timetabled to suit. Getting to that point though likely means public support but what volume of funds will! be required? When should a particular nation throw their hat into the ring to buy in, and what would a return on that investment look like? What's the gamble or the potential total cost?
posted by biffa at 10:00 AM on December 18, 2022
But do they need the same things? Lynmouth Road sounds like the barriers are getting people onside, with enough investment (ie capital) and rooftop ownership. They aren't getting any subsidies (access stopped in 2019). So they need regulation sorted out to ease the regulatory framework. Maybe something to ease The investment process.
The UK electricity system however was set up for large-scale, centralised generation. The regulation still favours this sort of generation, grid connection is easier & cheaper and timetabled to suit. Getting to that point though likely means public support but what volume of funds will! be required? When should a particular nation throw their hat into the ring to buy in, and what would a return on that investment look like? What's the gamble or the potential total cost?
posted by biffa at 10:00 AM on December 18, 2022
solar accounts for approximately 0% of Finland's, Sweden's, and Norway's renewable energy mixes is because it is dark and overcast and snowy
Solar accounts for 0% of Norway's mix because most of their electricity comes from huge volumes of decades old hydro. Their wind resource makes that the best best for anything they want to add in.
posted by biffa at 10:04 AM on December 18, 2022 [5 favorites]
Solar accounts for 0% of Norway's mix because most of their electricity comes from huge volumes of decades old hydro. Their wind resource makes that the best best for anything they want to add in.
posted by biffa at 10:04 AM on December 18, 2022 [5 favorites]
Yes, Pyry, that is exactly the sort of Captain Obvious corner-case whataboutism I was describing. Sure, maybe in Darklandia, Principality of Still Air, solar and wind are 100% useless and have no business in the energy mix. That is an interesting data point if true, but outliers aren't how we make broader decisions.
This, in case you didn't notice, is not a general thread for arguing about the broader energy outlook in the future. It is a thread specifically about an article that claims fusion will never be deployed for power generation, and here it is not whataboutism to point out that there are countries for whom fusion power will be attractive in exactly the same way that fission power is now.
posted by Pyry at 10:05 AM on December 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
This, in case you didn't notice, is not a general thread for arguing about the broader energy outlook in the future. It is a thread specifically about an article that claims fusion will never be deployed for power generation, and here it is not whataboutism to point out that there are countries for whom fusion power will be attractive in exactly the same way that fission power is now.
posted by Pyry at 10:05 AM on December 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
1. This topic for some reason, across forums, brings out folks’ certainty like nothing else. For a lot of ppl it seems you must pick a side on fusion and I don’t understand it. I think it likely has something to do with the existential threat of climate change inspiring a fear that makes folks feel they have to hold on to some truth about what will or won’t save us. Idk. If you’re certain about what the energy mix will look like 50 years from now… I guess I envy your confidence.
2. Asking about the economics of a new tech is wise to a point. I get sad when I see folks foreclosing any possibility of life past today’s capitalism, though, who can only imagine progress or technologies that are economically viable. Humanity can do so much more but only if we let it.
posted by wemayfreeze at 10:14 AM on December 18, 2022 [6 favorites]
2. Asking about the economics of a new tech is wise to a point. I get sad when I see folks foreclosing any possibility of life past today’s capitalism, though, who can only imagine progress or technologies that are economically viable. Humanity can do so much more but only if we let it.
posted by wemayfreeze at 10:14 AM on December 18, 2022 [6 favorites]
I live in an earthquake prone area, where foreign companies want to pump emptied out oilfields, full of highly pressurized carbon dioxide gas, I just see pressure fractured water tables, and earth motion brought about by processes weird to our planetary structure and function. This is all so oil companies can continue to do exactly what they are doing now. A new foreign company which just bought out local oil producers, is is making TV infomercials about how we can't do without oil. Filming in a typical back yard and showing what all will disappear, when oil goes. Oil kicking and screaming now, oil with no plan to change or go.
posted by Oyéah at 10:36 AM on December 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Oyéah at 10:36 AM on December 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
Also, the article itself points out that China is building plenty of new (fission) reactors, but this doesn't count for some reason. If fusion power becomes possible should we likewise not count China when they build a few reactors (if only for prestige)? It's only real fusion if it's built in a capitalist democracy, otherwise it's just sparkling isotope combination.
posted by Pyry at 10:43 AM on December 18, 2022
posted by Pyry at 10:43 AM on December 18, 2022
rum-soaked space hobo makes a good point about the growth in efficiency of wind and solar over the last couple decades. To that issue, another often missed issue in any news article on fusion that I've read is that any of the experiments to this point are just that *experiments* - gaining efficiency will begin once some of the tests finally work. The recent NIF success generate 3.15 MJ's from 2.2 MJ's laser input. Not enough for a power plant but huge success for an experiment.
We need all the types of power generation, even some bio. There are high intensity applications like refining metal where solar is unlikely to ever be sufficient. And battery efficiency has a long way to go for long haul flights. Economically if fusion works there will be niches where it'll be worth while.
posted by sammyo at 10:58 AM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
We need all the types of power generation, even some bio. There are high intensity applications like refining metal where solar is unlikely to ever be sufficient. And battery efficiency has a long way to go for long haul flights. Economically if fusion works there will be niches where it'll be worth while.
posted by sammyo at 10:58 AM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
interogative mood, Your own link casts major doubts:
'Physics professor and director of the UK's national Fusion laboratory Steven Cowley called for more data, pointing out that the current thinking in fusion research is that "bigger is better". According to Cowley, experience building other fusion reactors suggests that when machine size is doubled one achieves 8 times improvement in heat confinement, that is how much of the extremely high temperatures needed for the fusion reaction can be contained without eg. heating the cooled superconducting magnets too much. Cowley thus questions the suggested small size of a working machine.'
tclark, It's this "bigger is better" problem that make fusion useless for "transmission [loss] and the last mile problem on power-hungry applications".
Is fusion really "never" then? I've no idea, but if climate change makes the tropics uninhabitable, while norther latitudes stay cloudy, and our rivers largely dry up, then yes, we could've two big fusion reactors, one for Canada and one for Russia, both built at sea so they've enough coolant water. We'd all just go without power whenever one must be turned off for maintenance, like what happened with half of France's reactors this year.
We always hear bitching about base load or industrial reaction chambers going cold at night, but as a species we're actually pretty good at adapting to living in cycles. It's capitalists who suffer form cycles because their inputs marginal prices spike.
Instead, we'd maybe just maintain solar plants in southern uninhabitable regions though, because an uninhabitable region of the earth is really just uninhabitable by the poor people who live there now, and is infinitely more inhabitable than say Mars. I'd envision massive agrivoltaic farms where people work the fields at night and use solar panels to shield plants from excessive heat during the day.
wemayfreeze, I'll tell you my own "certainty" here: Solar is fairly reliable because it's cycles are pretty short and you know mostly when the sun shines, especially with good weather reporting. Ain't reliable like fossil fuels, but we'll run out of oil and gas in 50 years, so that's not a relevant comparison. Afaik all nuclear means plants going down for extended periods, and sometimes unpredictably. We primarily need better recycling for colar and batteries right now.
I do think fusion sounds interesting for space travel of course, assuming you can build a large enough ship, but you'll need this anyways. We should not bother with hydrogen for sea shipping, but instead yolo nuclear proliferation risks and build small breeder reactors. We should also massively reduce international trade, impose high tariffs, ban food and fertilizer exports, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:59 PM on December 18, 2022
'Physics professor and director of the UK's national Fusion laboratory Steven Cowley called for more data, pointing out that the current thinking in fusion research is that "bigger is better". According to Cowley, experience building other fusion reactors suggests that when machine size is doubled one achieves 8 times improvement in heat confinement, that is how much of the extremely high temperatures needed for the fusion reaction can be contained without eg. heating the cooled superconducting magnets too much. Cowley thus questions the suggested small size of a working machine.'
tclark, It's this "bigger is better" problem that make fusion useless for "transmission [loss] and the last mile problem on power-hungry applications".
Is fusion really "never" then? I've no idea, but if climate change makes the tropics uninhabitable, while norther latitudes stay cloudy, and our rivers largely dry up, then yes, we could've two big fusion reactors, one for Canada and one for Russia, both built at sea so they've enough coolant water. We'd all just go without power whenever one must be turned off for maintenance, like what happened with half of France's reactors this year.
We always hear bitching about base load or industrial reaction chambers going cold at night, but as a species we're actually pretty good at adapting to living in cycles. It's capitalists who suffer form cycles because their inputs marginal prices spike.
Instead, we'd maybe just maintain solar plants in southern uninhabitable regions though, because an uninhabitable region of the earth is really just uninhabitable by the poor people who live there now, and is infinitely more inhabitable than say Mars. I'd envision massive agrivoltaic farms where people work the fields at night and use solar panels to shield plants from excessive heat during the day.
wemayfreeze, I'll tell you my own "certainty" here: Solar is fairly reliable because it's cycles are pretty short and you know mostly when the sun shines, especially with good weather reporting. Ain't reliable like fossil fuels, but we'll run out of oil and gas in 50 years, so that's not a relevant comparison. Afaik all nuclear means plants going down for extended periods, and sometimes unpredictably. We primarily need better recycling for colar and batteries right now.
I do think fusion sounds interesting for space travel of course, assuming you can build a large enough ship, but you'll need this anyways. We should not bother with hydrogen for sea shipping, but instead yolo nuclear proliferation risks and build small breeder reactors. We should also massively reduce international trade, impose high tariffs, ban food and fertilizer exports, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:59 PM on December 18, 2022
Pyry: I think you need to frame your argument. It seems to have two parts.
First, are there parts of the world that would struggle to use up and coming green energy technologies or can't use existing ones. The example of Scandinavia is fraught because wind and hydro (and, in Iceland, geothermal) are actually very available even if solar is not. So it doesn't appear to be the best example for your purposes.
Second, let us posit that there is a place that does suit your purposes,
a place where no green energy is available or not in sufficient quantity: no hydro, no wind, no geothermal and no solar. At that point, you could use fusion or fission, you could ship in energy (manufactured methane, electricity, wood, whatever). You're still not down to a single choice. (And I am not claiming that list is exhaustive.)
The point of the article seemed to be that penny for penny, and driven by pennies, fusion is still not likely to be your best choice. Not just 'only your second choice' but a choice that appears right down the bottom of the list to the point that it's not even close. I mean, the prices were not out of whack because renewables are now cheap; they were terrible against everything.
So it seems that you would need undermine the original argument, for instance to argue that the prices the author used for fusion costs are wildly wrong (noting that they were assigning a lower bound to the cost of fusion there, relative to other technologies, not just today's cost); or that investment is necessary because all the other conceivable options are not suitable for other factors than cost, and only fusion could possibly be a solution.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 1:02 PM on December 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
First, are there parts of the world that would struggle to use up and coming green energy technologies or can't use existing ones. The example of Scandinavia is fraught because wind and hydro (and, in Iceland, geothermal) are actually very available even if solar is not. So it doesn't appear to be the best example for your purposes.
Second, let us posit that there is a place that does suit your purposes,
a place where no green energy is available or not in sufficient quantity: no hydro, no wind, no geothermal and no solar. At that point, you could use fusion or fission, you could ship in energy (manufactured methane, electricity, wood, whatever). You're still not down to a single choice. (And I am not claiming that list is exhaustive.)
The point of the article seemed to be that penny for penny, and driven by pennies, fusion is still not likely to be your best choice. Not just 'only your second choice' but a choice that appears right down the bottom of the list to the point that it's not even close. I mean, the prices were not out of whack because renewables are now cheap; they were terrible against everything.
So it seems that you would need undermine the original argument, for instance to argue that the prices the author used for fusion costs are wildly wrong (noting that they were assigning a lower bound to the cost of fusion there, relative to other technologies, not just today's cost); or that investment is necessary because all the other conceivable options are not suitable for other factors than cost, and only fusion could possibly be a solution.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 1:02 PM on December 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
Just wanted to point out that this blogpost is 10 years old... We can surely find more current articles about this topic.
posted by Pendragon at 1:15 PM on December 18, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 1:15 PM on December 18, 2022 [7 favorites]
For a lot of ppl it seems you must pick a side on fusion and I don’t understand it. I think it likely has something to do with the existential threat of climate change inspiring a fear that makes folks feel they have to hold on to some truth about what will or won’t save us.
Oh, I think it's just an extension of the nuclear energy culture war where there are some very annoying Matt Yglesias types who are comfortable with the status quo and see nuclear energy as a convenient way to pin the blame of climate change on environmentalists for standing in the way of our glorious nuclear powered future (see: the Atlantic article also here on Metafilter). So expressing any vaguely positive sentiment towards nuclear power or fusion risks you taking some friendly fire.
Also, I think there's a fear that anything less than relentless optimism about the ease of a transition to 100% renewables will demotivate people, so pointing out that there are situations where renewables are more geographically/politically complicated to deploy can sound like you're saying therefore they shouldn't be deployed. Admitting that there could be a niche for fusion is also admitting that renewables might not be the optimal solution in every situation. (And to be clear, I think all countries do need to decarbonize ASAP even if that means compromising on e.g., energy self-sufficiency: that some countries might want to use fusion in a decades-distant post-crisis future isn't a recommendation on a short-term course of action, which of course must be aggressive decarbonization.)
So it seems that you would need undermine the original argument, for instance to argue that the prices the author used for fusion costs are wildly wrong (noting that they were assigning a lower bound to the cost of fusion there, relative to other technologies, not just today's cost); or that investment is necessary because all the other conceivable options are not suitable for other factors than cost, and only fusion could possibly be a solution.
I have no clue what a fusion plant will cost to build if such a thing is ever practically possible, and I don't think the author of this blog post does either.
My point is that all these same arguments apply to fission power, and yet some countries are expanding their fission power production, so using global average dollars/watt is not perfectly predictive of whether an energy source will be used. Countries do not choose their energy policies like they're Amazon shoppers sorting by lowest price.
posted by Pyry at 2:04 PM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Oh, I think it's just an extension of the nuclear energy culture war where there are some very annoying Matt Yglesias types who are comfortable with the status quo and see nuclear energy as a convenient way to pin the blame of climate change on environmentalists for standing in the way of our glorious nuclear powered future (see: the Atlantic article also here on Metafilter). So expressing any vaguely positive sentiment towards nuclear power or fusion risks you taking some friendly fire.
Also, I think there's a fear that anything less than relentless optimism about the ease of a transition to 100% renewables will demotivate people, so pointing out that there are situations where renewables are more geographically/politically complicated to deploy can sound like you're saying therefore they shouldn't be deployed. Admitting that there could be a niche for fusion is also admitting that renewables might not be the optimal solution in every situation. (And to be clear, I think all countries do need to decarbonize ASAP even if that means compromising on e.g., energy self-sufficiency: that some countries might want to use fusion in a decades-distant post-crisis future isn't a recommendation on a short-term course of action, which of course must be aggressive decarbonization.)
So it seems that you would need undermine the original argument, for instance to argue that the prices the author used for fusion costs are wildly wrong (noting that they were assigning a lower bound to the cost of fusion there, relative to other technologies, not just today's cost); or that investment is necessary because all the other conceivable options are not suitable for other factors than cost, and only fusion could possibly be a solution.
I have no clue what a fusion plant will cost to build if such a thing is ever practically possible, and I don't think the author of this blog post does either.
My point is that all these same arguments apply to fission power, and yet some countries are expanding their fission power production, so using global average dollars/watt is not perfectly predictive of whether an energy source will be used. Countries do not choose their energy policies like they're Amazon shoppers sorting by lowest price.
posted by Pyry at 2:04 PM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
It's wonderful if solar kills the base load production model of fossil fuel plants, xdvesper, but I'm afraid coal could spin up and down over a 24 hour cycle, no? We really must kill coal somehow.
I know nuclear fission cannot spin up and down over a 24 hour cycle, so it's fine if solar makes nuclear fusion even less profitable, or outright unprofitable.
I'm quite dubious about grid scale batteries after the Simon Michaux links in the Nate Hagens thread. Instead solar might drive industrial processes during the day, some of which yields embedded energy, ala fertilizer and concrete.
Yet, I'd think refracted solar like Heliogen and Solpart might serve industry better. You cannot pipe in solar power from elsewhere, which causes even more downtime, but you're more efficient overall. It'll maybe boil down to the cost of transporting electricity vs the costs of transporting materials, so solar power lines vs electric trains.
At present, low EROI oil from tar sands uses power from natural gas, as transporting natural gas costs more than transporting oil. It'd suck if solar became how they powered oil production.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:34 PM on December 18, 2022
I know nuclear fission cannot spin up and down over a 24 hour cycle, so it's fine if solar makes nuclear fusion even less profitable, or outright unprofitable.
I'm quite dubious about grid scale batteries after the Simon Michaux links in the Nate Hagens thread. Instead solar might drive industrial processes during the day, some of which yields embedded energy, ala fertilizer and concrete.
Yet, I'd think refracted solar like Heliogen and Solpart might serve industry better. You cannot pipe in solar power from elsewhere, which causes even more downtime, but you're more efficient overall. It'll maybe boil down to the cost of transporting electricity vs the costs of transporting materials, so solar power lines vs electric trains.
At present, low EROI oil from tar sands uses power from natural gas, as transporting natural gas costs more than transporting oil. It'd suck if solar became how they powered oil production.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:34 PM on December 18, 2022
It's like we've forgotten all about power satellites. 70s nerds weep.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:44 PM on December 18, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:44 PM on December 18, 2022 [6 favorites]
It's like we've forgotten all about power satellites. 70s nerds weep.
I was hinting at that with "our planet only intercepts about 0.000000045%" but I was already pretty frothed up and tried to keep it dialed back. But yeah, Dyson swarms and statites would be cool.
There's so much power available in our solar system just from the sun alone that it's kind of ridiculous we aren't going all in on using it.
Every time I see ITERs budget I'm wondering what would happen if we spent that kind of money on developing new solar, or simply building existing solar tech, or investing in developing better, safer and cheaper batteries.
Or if we had spent the money we've spent on fission plants both commissioning and decommissioning, radiological waste management - and included the budgets we've collectively blown on dealing with cleanup of sites like Hanford, Chernobyl and Fukushima - and spent it on simply building out solar and developing batteries how much farther along we'd be.
Further, honestly, no one should be excited about Northrup-Grumman or LLNL claiming fusion power breakthroughs.
These are and will be tools of war. Northrup-Grumman in particular isn't exactly known for humanistic altruism or caring at all about climate change. They profit from instability.
I remember first reading about the Northrup-Grumman skunkworks fusion project many years ago - and I think it's been over ten years since I first heard about it, so that's ten years out of that proverbial, elusive fifty years - and as I recall the presentation on their own sites the number one use case they presented front and center was portable power to support forward bases in warzones where shipping fuel was logistically expensive that it made the research costs and theoretical total cost of ownership it worth it.
It's not like they're going to give these things away to impoverished African countries to power desalination plants and help people out. They thrive on economic instability and war. That's their business model, to deal in death.
posted by loquacious at 4:29 PM on December 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
I was hinting at that with "our planet only intercepts about 0.000000045%" but I was already pretty frothed up and tried to keep it dialed back. But yeah, Dyson swarms and statites would be cool.
There's so much power available in our solar system just from the sun alone that it's kind of ridiculous we aren't going all in on using it.
Every time I see ITERs budget I'm wondering what would happen if we spent that kind of money on developing new solar, or simply building existing solar tech, or investing in developing better, safer and cheaper batteries.
Or if we had spent the money we've spent on fission plants both commissioning and decommissioning, radiological waste management - and included the budgets we've collectively blown on dealing with cleanup of sites like Hanford, Chernobyl and Fukushima - and spent it on simply building out solar and developing batteries how much farther along we'd be.
Further, honestly, no one should be excited about Northrup-Grumman or LLNL claiming fusion power breakthroughs.
These are and will be tools of war. Northrup-Grumman in particular isn't exactly known for humanistic altruism or caring at all about climate change. They profit from instability.
I remember first reading about the Northrup-Grumman skunkworks fusion project many years ago - and I think it's been over ten years since I first heard about it, so that's ten years out of that proverbial, elusive fifty years - and as I recall the presentation on their own sites the number one use case they presented front and center was portable power to support forward bases in warzones where shipping fuel was logistically expensive that it made the research costs and theoretical total cost of ownership it worth it.
It's not like they're going to give these things away to impoverished African countries to power desalination plants and help people out. They thrive on economic instability and war. That's their business model, to deal in death.
posted by loquacious at 4:29 PM on December 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
It's wonderful if solar kills the base load production model of fossil fuel plants, xdvesper, but I'm afraid coal could spin up and down over a 24 hour cycle, no? We really must kill coal somehow.
The energy market nowadays is in such turmoil, I don't think we need to worry about killing coal... I'm actually rather worried for their future!
Look at the past 7 days generation / price trace in South Australia for example, image snapshot or if you want, live data feed. Fair, this part of the world gets a lot of sun despite its latitude, but one major thing to note is that 30% of all electricity is generated from self owned solar panels that residents put on their roof - which is just incredible. Imagine switching over 30% of your grid to solar AND letting individuals own the means of production. The other 68% is from utility scale wind power.
They have so much excess solar and wind power that during daylight hours, energy prices are negative. Negative energy prices means factories and energy intensive industries like casting plants - that melt tonnes of metal - get PAID to use electricity. Contrary to the comment further up that said solar could not supply energy intensive industries and we would need fusion for them.
This is a total change in paradigm from energy as a limited, metered resource - similar to how phone calls, SMS and data were charged on individual items - per minute of phone call, per SMS sent, per MB of data downloaded - to what we have now, where we pay for access and consumption is (mostly) unlimited.
At the times when South Australia experiences a shortfall in wind / solar generation, they either fire up their gas peakers (6%) or import energy from other states (3%).
There is an economic equation that says in ideal, perfectly competitive markets, price = marginal cost. Well, the marginal cost for solar and wind is $0, compared to the marginal costs that coal power plants must incur (they continue shoveling coal into the furnace, and need men and machinery to do so). It's really hard to see how in this kind of market coal or any other fossil fuel could possibly even compete with producers with $0 marginal cost. Sure, gas peakers with their quick response can step in during temporary periods of shortfall, but those periods would get less and less as more renewables and storage come online.
posted by xdvesper at 6:14 PM on December 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
The energy market nowadays is in such turmoil, I don't think we need to worry about killing coal... I'm actually rather worried for their future!
Look at the past 7 days generation / price trace in South Australia for example, image snapshot or if you want, live data feed. Fair, this part of the world gets a lot of sun despite its latitude, but one major thing to note is that 30% of all electricity is generated from self owned solar panels that residents put on their roof - which is just incredible. Imagine switching over 30% of your grid to solar AND letting individuals own the means of production. The other 68% is from utility scale wind power.
They have so much excess solar and wind power that during daylight hours, energy prices are negative. Negative energy prices means factories and energy intensive industries like casting plants - that melt tonnes of metal - get PAID to use electricity. Contrary to the comment further up that said solar could not supply energy intensive industries and we would need fusion for them.
This is a total change in paradigm from energy as a limited, metered resource - similar to how phone calls, SMS and data were charged on individual items - per minute of phone call, per SMS sent, per MB of data downloaded - to what we have now, where we pay for access and consumption is (mostly) unlimited.
At the times when South Australia experiences a shortfall in wind / solar generation, they either fire up their gas peakers (6%) or import energy from other states (3%).
There is an economic equation that says in ideal, perfectly competitive markets, price = marginal cost. Well, the marginal cost for solar and wind is $0, compared to the marginal costs that coal power plants must incur (they continue shoveling coal into the furnace, and need men and machinery to do so). It's really hard to see how in this kind of market coal or any other fossil fuel could possibly even compete with producers with $0 marginal cost. Sure, gas peakers with their quick response can step in during temporary periods of shortfall, but those periods would get less and less as more renewables and storage come online.
posted by xdvesper at 6:14 PM on December 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
Just wanted to point out that this blogpost is 10 years old... We can surely find more current articles about this topic.
Oh, amazing, I feel like a chump.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:17 PM on December 18, 2022
Oh, amazing, I feel like a chump.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:17 PM on December 18, 2022
The best thing about an article about fusion that is 10 years old is that it will be just as true 20 years from now.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:21 PM on December 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:21 PM on December 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
We've know about fossil fuel pollution causing climate change for 150 years and that it would be catestrophic for 60 years. We've had hydro electric, wind electric, electric cars for 100 years and silicon based photovoltaics since the mid 1950s. "civilian" fission reactors in the mid 1960s.
Why are some of us so vehement against fusion? Because the fossil fuel industry wants us to wait and keep burning fuels. And part if their anti-climate change propoganda is telling people that just around the corner, there is new tech thst will solve all of this, so no need to act now.
And they have been doing that for decades. Even now, people concerned about climate talk about future tech (artificial photosynthesis, geo-engineering, heat dissipating paints) as if these things can substitute for getting off all fossil fuels asap. A fusion experiment that used more energy than it produced is touted after the failed COP as a ray of hope. It is hopium. Its cynically used to keeo the musical chairs going a little longer, so that the suits can bank more cash while they kill us all.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:30 PM on December 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
Why are some of us so vehement against fusion? Because the fossil fuel industry wants us to wait and keep burning fuels. And part if their anti-climate change propoganda is telling people that just around the corner, there is new tech thst will solve all of this, so no need to act now.
And they have been doing that for decades. Even now, people concerned about climate talk about future tech (artificial photosynthesis, geo-engineering, heat dissipating paints) as if these things can substitute for getting off all fossil fuels asap. A fusion experiment that used more energy than it produced is touted after the failed COP as a ray of hope. It is hopium. Its cynically used to keeo the musical chairs going a little longer, so that the suits can bank more cash while they kill us all.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:30 PM on December 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
There is no such thing as waiting at this point. Now that the train is rolling on solar, and to a lesser degree, wind, it's going to be unstoppable unless serious grid stability issues crop up.
I think it's still 100% worth pursuing fusion. Advances in plasma physics may well have benefits beyond fusion power and it's always good to have a card in your back pocket just in case. There's a long road yet to having sufficient interconnection in a near-100% renewable grid and there's always the outside possibility that a big enough volcano blows its top to cut solar production enough to be bothersome.
It isn't actually a foregone conclusion that fusion reactors have to be ITER sized to work. We can't really know for sure until we get there, but even sticking solely to tokamaks advances in the magnetic field strength that can be achieved in superconducting magnets since ITER was designed could cut the minimum size in something like half, and that's using only already demonstrated technology. Assuming ITER works as expected, of course.
Similarly, it's entirely possible new battery technologies could improve the environmental and cost impacts of large scale storage and decreasing the complications involved in running a grid with little to no (physical) inertia.
I'm all for dumping money into anything that has more than the remotest promise and doesn't involve emitting more carbon. We don't know what we don't know and no amount of money is going to dramatically speed up the rate of increase in solar production. We're already building cells, panels, and the factories to build them just about as fast as we can. They're being sold just about as fast as they can be made. Ironically, the one thing putting a brake on solar in a lot of countries (and thus keeping prices from spiking now that everyone who matters realizes that solar farms are essentially free money) is permitting for the sites and lines necessary to connect them to the grid.
On the bright side for those who want to control their own energy destiny, cheap secondhand panels are becoming increasingly easy to get ahold of. Existing solar farms are ripping out panels less than a decade old to put in ones that generate an extra 30% because again, free money (in most places). If you have the space and the older panels will generate enough to meet your needs, you can be self sufficient for a lot less money.
posted by wierdo at 8:23 PM on December 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
I think it's still 100% worth pursuing fusion. Advances in plasma physics may well have benefits beyond fusion power and it's always good to have a card in your back pocket just in case. There's a long road yet to having sufficient interconnection in a near-100% renewable grid and there's always the outside possibility that a big enough volcano blows its top to cut solar production enough to be bothersome.
It isn't actually a foregone conclusion that fusion reactors have to be ITER sized to work. We can't really know for sure until we get there, but even sticking solely to tokamaks advances in the magnetic field strength that can be achieved in superconducting magnets since ITER was designed could cut the minimum size in something like half, and that's using only already demonstrated technology. Assuming ITER works as expected, of course.
Similarly, it's entirely possible new battery technologies could improve the environmental and cost impacts of large scale storage and decreasing the complications involved in running a grid with little to no (physical) inertia.
I'm all for dumping money into anything that has more than the remotest promise and doesn't involve emitting more carbon. We don't know what we don't know and no amount of money is going to dramatically speed up the rate of increase in solar production. We're already building cells, panels, and the factories to build them just about as fast as we can. They're being sold just about as fast as they can be made. Ironically, the one thing putting a brake on solar in a lot of countries (and thus keeping prices from spiking now that everyone who matters realizes that solar farms are essentially free money) is permitting for the sites and lines necessary to connect them to the grid.
On the bright side for those who want to control their own energy destiny, cheap secondhand panels are becoming increasingly easy to get ahold of. Existing solar farms are ripping out panels less than a decade old to put in ones that generate an extra 30% because again, free money (in most places). If you have the space and the older panels will generate enough to meet your needs, you can be self sufficient for a lot less money.
posted by wierdo at 8:23 PM on December 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
Interesting "youtube collab as press release" from Helion, one of the private fusion startups. Significantly different confinement geometry (FRC - something that has been known of for a while, but not made to work) and a D-He3 cycle. Doesn't rely on a steam turbine to extract energy from the reaction.
I'm not qualified to have an opinion on whether it will work, but I'd much rather see things like this funded than ITER which is an "even if it works perfectly it doesn't make sense" project.
posted by allegedly at 9:15 PM on December 18, 2022
I'm not qualified to have an opinion on whether it will work, but I'd much rather see things like this funded than ITER which is an "even if it works perfectly it doesn't make sense" project.
posted by allegedly at 9:15 PM on December 18, 2022
I know, I know, [insert compelling argument why the good thing is better than the bad thing]. Go tell it to the only person that matters – the banker. Let me know how that goes.
I find a lot of modern optimism frustrating because I find it difficult to imagine a future we're still organized enough as a species to implement the proposed solutions without being hobbled by the deep, systemic and quasi-spiritual obstacles to implementing them that exist now.
Which is not to say that I would not absolutely fucking LOVE to be proved wrong. Please please please prove me wrong.
posted by Reyturner at 10:10 PM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
I find a lot of modern optimism frustrating because I find it difficult to imagine a future we're still organized enough as a species to implement the proposed solutions without being hobbled by the deep, systemic and quasi-spiritual obstacles to implementing them that exist now.
Which is not to say that I would not absolutely fucking LOVE to be proved wrong. Please please please prove me wrong.
posted by Reyturner at 10:10 PM on December 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Similarly, it's entirely possible new battery technologies could improve the environmental and cost impacts of large scale storage and decreasing the complications involved in running a grid with little to no (physical) inertia.
On the subject of grid storage, I've been impressed by the concept of sand batteries being pushed by "Polar Night" and as described here: when the sun shines or the wind blows you use resistive elements to heat up sand. Sand can be heated to over 1000 degrees C without melting and it retains its heat for several months. When needed the energy can be extracted either directly or via a heat exchanger. It is fitting that this is an approach coming from Finland which has both an abundance of shared residential heating systems - and many months of short, dark, cold and not very windy days (balanced out by a summer days where you might get 20 hours of sun). Sand is cheap (particularly since we need not be fussy about its quality), available everywhere, and not limited in terms of charge cycles. Unlike a lot of the competition other ideas, this is an approach I could see working in poorer countries too - you could build your own like this.
posted by rongorongo at 11:16 PM on December 18, 2022
On the subject of grid storage, I've been impressed by the concept of sand batteries being pushed by "Polar Night" and as described here: when the sun shines or the wind blows you use resistive elements to heat up sand. Sand can be heated to over 1000 degrees C without melting and it retains its heat for several months. When needed the energy can be extracted either directly or via a heat exchanger. It is fitting that this is an approach coming from Finland which has both an abundance of shared residential heating systems - and many months of short, dark, cold and not very windy days (balanced out by a summer days where you might get 20 hours of sun). Sand is cheap (particularly since we need not be fussy about its quality), available everywhere, and not limited in terms of charge cycles. Unlike a lot of the competition other ideas, this is an approach I could see working in poorer countries too - you could build your own like this.
posted by rongorongo at 11:16 PM on December 18, 2022
Keep in mind that there are still many parts of the world like China that are still using coal for heating. Coal is also heavily used in steel making — although this is changing. Electrifying the steel industry with induction furnaces and other processes it happening but it needs a lot of power. Fusion and even old fashioned fission reactors are very good for supporting that kind of industrial demand.
posted by interogative mood at 11:56 PM on December 18, 2022
posted by interogative mood at 11:56 PM on December 18, 2022
Finland and Sweden are expanding their fission power production and even considering constructing new plants, the very things that are supposed to be economically unthinkable.
It's Finland's experience with the nuclear plant construction you linked that has helped make a case against the economics of nuclear power in Europe. OL3 was supposed to come online in 2009 and cost about €3bn. It finally came online in 2022 and cost nearly €9bn. The French company that was building it went bust and there is an ongoing conflict about who will pick up the massive overrun.
Sweden is carrying out an assessment of potential to build new nuclear capacity, it's not actually building anything yet.
posted by biffa at 12:08 AM on December 19, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's Finland's experience with the nuclear plant construction you linked that has helped make a case against the economics of nuclear power in Europe. OL3 was supposed to come online in 2009 and cost about €3bn. It finally came online in 2022 and cost nearly €9bn. The French company that was building it went bust and there is an ongoing conflict about who will pick up the massive overrun.
Sweden is carrying out an assessment of potential to build new nuclear capacity, it's not actually building anything yet.
posted by biffa at 12:08 AM on December 19, 2022 [4 favorites]
Lockheed Martin has a program in their skunkworks division that supposedly shows a lot of promise.
Doubtful. They made the bold claim years ago that they'd achieve fusion by 2017 and have commercially-available powerplants by 2022. Also, how are they going to deal with shielding? Fusion reactors produce plenty of nasty radiation that requires shielding, which usually requires mass (i.e. lead, concrete, etc.)
posted by drstrangelove at 4:21 AM on December 19, 2022
Doubtful. They made the bold claim years ago that they'd achieve fusion by 2017 and have commercially-available powerplants by 2022. Also, how are they going to deal with shielding? Fusion reactors produce plenty of nasty radiation that requires shielding, which usually requires mass (i.e. lead, concrete, etc.)
posted by drstrangelove at 4:21 AM on December 19, 2022
Sand is cheap (particularly since we need not be fussy about its quality), available everywhere
There is actually concern about there being a shortage of sand given the demand for concrete, etc.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:23 AM on December 19, 2022
There is actually concern about there being a shortage of sand given the demand for concrete, etc.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:23 AM on December 19, 2022
There is actually concern about there being a shortage of sand given the demand for concrete, etc.
There is indeed a shortage (or predicted shortage) of that water-eroded sand. This is comprised of angular grains that can be made to bind together. Wind eroded sand is the sort you see people appearing over the horizon on with a train of camels; there is no shortage of it. PolarNight claim grain size or form is not important - so they prefer to use material that is specifically unsuitable for construction.
posted by rongorongo at 4:55 AM on December 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
There is indeed a shortage (or predicted shortage) of that water-eroded sand. This is comprised of angular grains that can be made to bind together. Wind eroded sand is the sort you see people appearing over the horizon on with a train of camels; there is no shortage of it. PolarNight claim grain size or form is not important - so they prefer to use material that is specifically unsuitable for construction.
posted by rongorongo at 4:55 AM on December 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has come straight out and said: The recent announcement wasn't about fusion power, it was about weapons.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:46 AM on December 19, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:46 AM on December 19, 2022 [6 favorites]
Just wanted to point out that this blogpost is 10 years old... We can surely find more current articles about this topic.
It contains some updated numbers from 2021 and the author reaffirmed their views in the comments in November this year.
I'm all for finding additional sources, but the reasoning that we have abundant energy sources that are cheaper that fusion and will remain that way makes sense to me. We've seen renewables getting cheaper than fission and coal power (even if we ignore nuclear waste, pollution and fuel costs). That trend seems to continue and fusion is much more complex that fission or coal.
posted by the_dreamwriter at 11:35 AM on December 19, 2022 [2 favorites]
It contains some updated numbers from 2021 and the author reaffirmed their views in the comments in November this year.
I'm all for finding additional sources, but the reasoning that we have abundant energy sources that are cheaper that fusion and will remain that way makes sense to me. We've seen renewables getting cheaper than fission and coal power (even if we ignore nuclear waste, pollution and fuel costs). That trend seems to continue and fusion is much more complex that fission or coal.
posted by the_dreamwriter at 11:35 AM on December 19, 2022 [2 favorites]
An argument from TFA that I think people aren't getting was this: most power plants are heat engines (make heat, heat boils water, steam turns electric turbine, makes electricity).
Current Fusion power plants are (mostly) this same design.
The article claims that if (for sake of argument) you ignore the heat generation part, and just focus on the "heat to electricity" part of the power plant, that Solar and Wind already are cheaper than this.
E.g. even if heat were free, it would still not compete with wind / solar based on the cost of the "heat to electricity" part of the plant.
I'm not saying the article convinced me, but it's an interesting thought experiment ("what if I replaced fission with fusion, or coal with geothermal...)
posted by soylent00FF00 at 4:56 PM on December 20, 2022 [3 favorites]
Current Fusion power plants are (mostly) this same design.
The article claims that if (for sake of argument) you ignore the heat generation part, and just focus on the "heat to electricity" part of the power plant, that Solar and Wind already are cheaper than this.
E.g. even if heat were free, it would still not compete with wind / solar based on the cost of the "heat to electricity" part of the plant.
I'm not saying the article convinced me, but it's an interesting thought experiment ("what if I replaced fission with fusion, or coal with geothermal...)
posted by soylent00FF00 at 4:56 PM on December 20, 2022 [3 favorites]
Which when you realize a solar panel is just a primary energy converter (whether electrical or heat) for a nuclear power source with zero capital/maintenance costs it obviously has to be that way.
posted by Mitheral at 6:44 PM on December 20, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Mitheral at 6:44 PM on December 20, 2022 [1 favorite]
Well, I wouldn't say solar has zero capital costs. I don't know how much energy is used to assemble the materials for and to construct solar panels, but it isn't zero. We looked into getting solar here, and they wanted like $10K for the install, without battery backup.
I don't know why there aren't construction requirements for rooftop solar on all new construction, however. That seems like a simple mandate to put in place and would change things a lot, and is a lot easier than trying to convince people to retrofit, even with government subsidies.
posted by hippybear at 6:54 PM on December 20, 2022
I don't know why there aren't construction requirements for rooftop solar on all new construction, however. That seems like a simple mandate to put in place and would change things a lot, and is a lot easier than trying to convince people to retrofit, even with government subsidies.
posted by hippybear at 6:54 PM on December 20, 2022
I was meaning the reactor doesn't have any costs. The energy exchanger has costs but those same costs exist for all nuclear reactors so it is a wash.
posted by Mitheral at 7:19 PM on December 20, 2022
posted by Mitheral at 7:19 PM on December 20, 2022
I don't know why there aren't construction requirements for rooftop solar on all new construction, however. That seems like a simple mandate to put in place and would change things a lot, and is a lot easier than trying to convince people to retrofit, even with government subsidies.
I know why this is in the UK: lobbying by the building sector, which didn't want to raise the initial build cost for new dwellings. they were able to persuade the Government to drop the concept of zero carbon homes, which wold have required inclusion of high levels of energy efficiency and then generation up to 100% of the usage for a new development. That was due for introduction back in 2016, it is now expected in 2025. Other countries do have some versions of this, Spain for example.
While getting this done on new build is easier and cheaper, we are in the position where we need to address retrofit as well. In the UK, about 75% of the dwellings which will exist in 2050 have already been built. Its a lower number in places with higher building turnover (eg German building turnover is 60 years rather than 100) but still a big number and essential to achieving net zero by that year. As you say, any delay in adopting this sort of low carbon planning in new build is just increasing the amount of places that will need retrofit.
posted by biffa at 2:42 AM on December 21, 2022
I know why this is in the UK: lobbying by the building sector, which didn't want to raise the initial build cost for new dwellings. they were able to persuade the Government to drop the concept of zero carbon homes, which wold have required inclusion of high levels of energy efficiency and then generation up to 100% of the usage for a new development. That was due for introduction back in 2016, it is now expected in 2025. Other countries do have some versions of this, Spain for example.
While getting this done on new build is easier and cheaper, we are in the position where we need to address retrofit as well. In the UK, about 75% of the dwellings which will exist in 2050 have already been built. Its a lower number in places with higher building turnover (eg German building turnover is 60 years rather than 100) but still a big number and essential to achieving net zero by that year. As you say, any delay in adopting this sort of low carbon planning in new build is just increasing the amount of places that will need retrofit.
posted by biffa at 2:42 AM on December 21, 2022
As he says, solar and wind are not just cheaper, but three times cheaper then the heat engine component, which leaves plenty for batteries.
Importantly, fusion reactor cannot be economical, even for northern latitudes with limited sunlight, unless they're cheaper than fission reactors, including the expensive processing of tritium or uranium. It's different for space travel since maybe you can pick up hydrogen gas along the way.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:59 AM on December 21, 2022
Importantly, fusion reactor cannot be economical, even for northern latitudes with limited sunlight, unless they're cheaper than fission reactors, including the expensive processing of tritium or uranium. It's different for space travel since maybe you can pick up hydrogen gas along the way.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:59 AM on December 21, 2022
When (can't add an 'if', am tru blvr ;-) fusion is solved, the advantages will be huge, minimal containment required, just really solid walls. If there's a problem, one switch and it all shuts down, probably subsecond. Zero chance of a meltdown, not even conceptually. The advantage over solar/wind will be high power in a relatively small footprint. Enough solar for a steel refinery would be massive. Not that there are no issues, neutron radiation is problematic but far from spent fusion cores. When they get the engineering worked out there will be economic use cases.
I'm totally pro solar/wind I just think we need many options, a varied ecosystem of energy methods. It's important that solar is getting implemented prior to fusion to keep the options localized, just replacing coal plant with fusion would have kept the grid a centralized distribution model, which not matter how clean is still a hub model. Where high energy is required install a huge node, make your own power locally when possible.
posted by sammyo at 2:41 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm totally pro solar/wind I just think we need many options, a varied ecosystem of energy methods. It's important that solar is getting implemented prior to fusion to keep the options localized, just replacing coal plant with fusion would have kept the grid a centralized distribution model, which not matter how clean is still a hub model. Where high energy is required install a huge node, make your own power locally when possible.
posted by sammyo at 2:41 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
As I understand it, breeder reactors can massively reduce the waste problem of fission nuclear, sammyo, not without "trade offs", but probably orders of magnitude cheaper than fusion, assuming fusion even works at the scales we're seeking.
Are there climate fiction stories about fusion's massive "bigger is better" problem?
A plot line maybe like: There are three massive fission reactors in the world, one in each of North America, China, and Europe. It's impossible to build more because due to the "bigger is better" problem they're each as large as Paris and incur astronomical resource costs, including several years worth of the whole planet's oil use. We turn them off for extensive maintenance in early fall and late spring, when solar alone can handle everything, but this year after reactivating one we discovered some unexpected neutron embrittlement or whatever, After much shenanigans, they've no choice but to deactivate it briefly knowingly killing tens of thousands in the cold, etc. but saving millions.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:00 AM on December 24, 2022
Are there climate fiction stories about fusion's massive "bigger is better" problem?
A plot line maybe like: There are three massive fission reactors in the world, one in each of North America, China, and Europe. It's impossible to build more because due to the "bigger is better" problem they're each as large as Paris and incur astronomical resource costs, including several years worth of the whole planet's oil use. We turn them off for extensive maintenance in early fall and late spring, when solar alone can handle everything, but this year after reactivating one we discovered some unexpected neutron embrittlement or whatever, After much shenanigans, they've no choice but to deactivate it briefly knowingly killing tens of thousands in the cold, etc. but saving millions.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:00 AM on December 24, 2022
« Older Instead of soccer - the rest is history | Putin's War (SLNYT) Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Anyone serious about fusion knows that electricity from fusion will never affordable. Yet several nations are putting billions into the research so that those nations have a good number of fusion scientists.
What do those nations want fusion scientists for?
Making nuclear bombs.
I was first told this by a French fusion scientist twenty-five years ago and since then, fusion has become even less economically viable. Yet the money train rolls on.
posted by happyinmotion at 4:29 PM on December 17, 2022 [8 favorites]