News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by mrfusion on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @10:50AM (#14203435)
Not just deserts. You could also float them in the ocean, no? We have 70% of our planet we're not using.

Spread them far enough apart and add some movement and shadows wouldn't hurt wildlife much.

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by Recurecur on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @10:53AM (#14203458)
The ocean environment isn't easy on equipment, plus storms are a major issue. Then there's cabling...
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by Robotbeat on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @11:05AM (#14203563)
That all looks trivial compared to the challenges of fusion power, though.
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by spdionis on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @11:39AM (#14203911)
Are you sure? This is a recurring theme in your arguments but I don't necessarily agree with you.

What are the reasons for you to think that?

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by Robotbeat on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @11:51AM (#14204053)
Read the article that this conversation is attached to for a list of very good reasons. Getting fusion to work is most certainly possible, but incredibly hard. Engineering for salt water is way easier than engineering for neutron activation, achieving high neutron economy to breed the tritium, managing tritium, managing a high temperature reactor next to a very cold magnetic containment system, a high vacuum system, oh and the very basic problem that has yet to be solved (achieving even just breakeven fusion in a non-H-bomb) etc, etc. It really does look trivial to just properly seal stuff against saltwater.

We'll probably need fusion to help reach the stars, so I think it's definitely something that should be pursued, but making it an economic power source for Earth seems very unlikely to me.

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by prewett on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @02:09PM (#14205462)
We already have things that float in the ocean for long periods of time (ships, oil rigs) and which withstand ocean storms, so it seems like a solved problem compared to fusion.
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by olleromam91 on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @07:16PM (#14207876)
And people could...idk...work on solar rigs to maintain these systems!
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by Recurecur on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @11:35AM (#14203868)
Truthfully in the medium term next generation modular fission reactors seem like the way to go, as a complement to intermittent and variable solar/wind power.

If the LPPFusion approach eventually works out, it will be a giant win compared to the Tokomak or implosion fusion reactors.

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by KnightOfWords on Thursday April 27, 2017 @03:03AM (#14209732)
By the time you mount those panels on a floating structure the lifetime energy yield may well drop to zero or (most probably) negative. Building a ship has a huge energy/emissions cost as the raw materials have to be mined, refined, transported, formed and assembled.

I'd recommend this site for a good overview on where our energy really goes and what might be achievable with renewables: https://www.withouthotair.com/

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by OJFord on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @11:21AM (#14203694)
> You could also float them in the ocean, no?

Yes, offshore wind and solar farms do exist.