you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Fuel wont be the expensive part. Materials engineering constraints will mean most of the heat sink will need replacing with essentially bespoke parts on a regular basis. No other energy source puts materials under the same trauma as fusion does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 days ago (6 children)

    No other energy source puts materials under the same trauma

    I'm sure people said the same thing the first time we thought about turning a piston with literal explosions.

    The engineering challenges are immense, but these challenges shouldn't be an excuse we use to prop up inferior, dirtier power generation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

    We didn't really, steel is a phenomenal material at retaining strength at high temperatures with minimal long-cycle damage and was well industrially established at the time.

    The issue with fusion and especially tokamaks is the triple challenge of mechanical loads + radiation loads + high heat flux. There's really no material known to mankind which can maintain the necessary high-temperature strength, while moving enough heat out of the reactor to keep it economical, without critically degrading in a matter of weeks/months due to fast neutron irradiation (let alone decades, as is standard for nearly every other thermal energy source). Hence, the heat sink will need to be replaced regularly.

    Add to that the fact that fusion companies are essentially giant bubbles of debt owed to venture capital currently and you don't have a formula for a successful and cheap energy source.

    But anyway, we already have fusion energy and it was probably partly used to charge your phone! It comes from the big floating fusion reactor in the sky, only requires a few panels of silicon, and is the cheapest and greenest energy source in existence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    I love solar, but we can't pretend it's without its own challenges.

    A utility scale solar installation comparable to an average fission plant would take 15 square kilometers. Not to mention how complicated the infrastructure to actually transmit that power is.

    Space is only one challenge though. You have no energy production at night, and energy generation can drop by half to almost three quarters during winter at higher latitudes.

    fusion companies are essentially giant bubbles of debt owed to venture capital currently

    There's a couple of loud, commercial fusion companies sucking up VC money, but all the serious projects are nationalized (China) or are projects run by public institutes with government funding (EU).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

    It's called energy storage technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    So then you need 15km² to cover the day, another 5-10km² to cover the night, and then however much space and lithium it's going to take to store all that energy.

    And this still doesn't solve the problem once you're a little too far off the equator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    Sodium ion, ammonium/hydrogen production, elevated hydro, compressed air, etc. There are lots of options that are being built up. There is also a lot of desert in the world. It would be a major undertaking but it's possible.

  • source
  • parent