Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by scythe on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @12:40PM (#14204607)

Energy storage is easier than fission or fusion. We've just been working on the other two problems for ten times as long. Grid energy storage became financially viable maybe five years ago and there are already startups in compressed air and sodium-ion batteries (which can be potentially much larger/cheaper than lithium-ion at the cost of being less space-efficient). Nuclear energy has been financially viable forever and it took an existential crisis for the richest nation in the world to devote all of its resources to it for years to make it happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by Robotbeat on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @01:06PM (#14204866)

Energy storage for a few hours is easier than fission. Seasonal energy storage, on the other hand, is much more difficult.

This is why I think a mix of clean power sources (including some nuclear) is going to be optimal.

I am of the firm belief that there are MULTIPLE feasible ways to solve the clean energy problem that we, as a society, could probably do if we put as much effort into it as we did a world war. Examples:

<>nuclear France (ultimately using breeders of uranium or thorium)

<>hydro/geothermal Iceland

<>over-built intermittent renewables buffered with grid storage and perhaps either a little hydrogen seasonal storage or a mega-grid connecting north to south

even exotic solutions like

<>inertial or magnetic confinement fusion

<>space-based solar power (which is easier than fusion)

But the optimal (both in time and money) solution is to use a mix of clean energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear) and some storage and some demand-response (smart meters are a pretty obvious solution, here) and some increased geographical grid interconnection (UHVDC power lines).

[ Parent | on HN ]