Re:Fusion Foolery
by megaman821 on Thursday August 17, 2023 @09:09AM
(#37160985)
You can't just group all those things together and say they are alike. Fusion in particular is a bit more physics experiment than the future of energy. Even in a world where we master than engineering and physics around fusion it won't be an economical source of power generation. It will only be used in areas where fusion's power generation to physical footprint ratio is highly valued.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
This is a weird comment. There is no reason to expect that a hypothetical economically viable fusion power plant would have an unusually good "power generation to physical footprint ratio". At the same time - you really don't consider "uses water as fuel" an advantage?
It's only an advantage when compared to fossil fuels (and why would one do that?) For fission, solar, and wind, the fuel costs range from small to zero.
Not grouping those advancements together -- they're wildly different. Suggestion is that the reaction by (a section of) the public to those advancements is similar, and reveals something about our collective psychology.
Re:Fusion Foolery
by Apocryphon on Thursday August 17, 2023 @09:10AM
(#37161007)
What if room-temperature superconductors were real and led to improved efficiency in tokamak reactors?
Re:Fusion Foolery
by megaman821 on Thursday August 17, 2023 @09:42AM
(#37161427)
The economic "problem" is that ultimately fusion is a heat source that turns water into steam which turns a steam turbine. Solar and wind are approaching the cost of just the steam turbine alone. There is hardly any room for fuel and operational costs.
Even today steam turbine plants produce higher cost electricity that natural gas combined cycle plants.
Re:Fusion Foolery
by tsimionescu on Thursday August 17, 2023 @09:37AM
(#37161356)
The only difference between existing superconductors used for tokamaks and a RT version would be the energy cost of cooling the magnets to keep them below the critical temperature. Cooling does take a significant amount of energy, but I don't think that just getting rid of that would mean fusion produces enough energy compared to the cost of building the plant to compensate.
And of course, a room temperature superconductor can have better or worse qualities than existing conductors in other ways. If it were much heavier, or required more expensive raw materials, or had lower critical current, it could in favt be worse than the existing solutions (the extra construction costs could offset the extra energy output).