News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by sushisource on Monday December 12, 2022 @07:31PM (#33962765)
This minimizes the main problem with really going full renewables, storage. Fusion is 24/7 output at the same level. Solar and wind are not, which means batteries, and all the problems associated with that.

Fusion could obviate the need for grid-wide storage systems which would be a huge advantage.

Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by preisschild on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @03:57AM (#33966327)
Unfortunately 100% renewable advocates just throw LCOE numbers around even though LCOE doesn't account for storage at all.

Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE) does include storage and suddenly nuclear fission gets a lot more competitive:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4028640

Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by trashtester on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @05:39AM (#33967002)
Precisely this. Do they have similar numbers available for Korea?
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by preisschild on Sunday December 18, 2022 @07:19AM (#34037023)
Couldn't find any yet, but I'm curious as well. APR-1400 business is booming.
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by moloch-hai on Monday December 12, 2022 @11:09PM (#33964726)
Not if fusion would cost orders of magnitude more than storage.

"All the problems associated with" what? Modern batteries don't burst into flame. Anyway the overwhelming bulk of storage is not and will not be chemical batteries.

Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by voqv on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @04:02AM (#33966353)
> "All the problems associated with" what?

Economic challenges of quickly building grid-scale battery storage , battery production for the entire globe, NIMBY's etc.

> Modern batteries don't burst into flame

they literally do

> the overwhelming bulk of storage is not batteries

Well overwhelming bulk is a high bar and storage is geography dependent. Germany f.e. can't build as much pumped storage as Australia and Australia built a large amount of battery storage vs PSH.

Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by Brometheus on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @08:45AM (#33968719)
Germany can has and will very well be building hydrogen and compressed air storage.
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by voqv on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @06:31AM (#33982195)
Well they certainly say they will, not sure about the rest.
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by moloch-hai on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @09:39AM (#33969430)
Germany has an overabundance of hills. Most places do. But pumped storage is just one of many options

Modern batteries do not burn. Teslas do.

Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by voqv on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @06:54AM (#33982334)
> an overabundance of hills.

That's not sufficient for pumped storage at scale, but Germany is mostly focusing on hydrogen for now.

Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by MaxBarraclough on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @01:17PM (#33973246)
It's a problem with lithium batteries in general, not just Tesla.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/recycling-firm-fined...

Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by moloch-hai on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @04:33PM (#33976174)
Lithium-ion batteries burn. But the topic was "modern batteries", which at the instant moment means LiFeP batteries, not "previous-generation batteries".

Lithium is anyway not favored for use in utility-scale storage, where its light weight offers no compelling value. Up-and-coming chemistries include iron-air (no explosions), calcium-antimony (no explosions), and bromine-zinc (no explosions). Hundreds of other chemistries are available.

Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab by Schroedingersat on Monday December 12, 2022 @11:15PM (#33964760)
Making the box of salty radiation medicine an order of magnitude cheaper and shoving a bit of hydrogen in a salt cavern solves the storage problem (which is already far smaller than you're pretending) entirely.

Fissions reactors that don't have incredibly strict and expensive regulation are already pretty unreliable, and they're operating within the bounds of known materials rather than an order of magnitude outside of them.

Even the mythical 100% uptime nuclear reactor still needs just as much storage for abritrage because it is so much more expensive.