Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ackermann t1_j09kz3q wrote

Reply to comment by radicalceleryjuice in Fusion energy breakthrough and national security implications explained by TheScienceAdvocate

Fission reactors could help, in the meantime

31

m0estash t1_j0a12q3 wrote

We need it badly. The problems with storing spent fuel seem much easier to engineer out than the problems with scaling fusion.

I desperately want fusion of course. A world with free energy would free humanity in so many ways but we aren’t there yet and we have a huge energy crisis to solve.

Edit: spelling

14

Mud_Landry t1_j0al74g wrote

There will never be “free energy” like in books…. We figured out how to fix diabetes and now charge people over $300 a month to live…. If you think this will be phased to us any other way you are stupid.

24

m0estash t1_j0ama4l wrote

I should have said “free” You are spot on though someone will want to control it for their own gain. Whatever that looks like.

7

kittenfordinner t1_j0aq12r wrote

I mean, it will still have a cost to build and cost to run and maintain. Just like a coal plant

5

Ok-disaster2022 t1_j0b1ohu wrote

Fusion will damage and activate the shielding. To do it on mass scale the costs of storing the activated shielding and replacing the shielding could be high. Even fast nuclear reactors have a similar issue where burner/breeder reactors have a much shorter expected operational life compared to the light water reactors that are expected to operate for 80 years.

4

Ark-kun t1_j0b1fbp wrote

How much did you pay to post this? Public messages in popular press must be expensive...

3

Skarr87 t1_j0bqz6c wrote

The thing is we don’t have to store the spent fuel, it can be put through breeder reactors over and over again to re-enrich it and use it again until the spent fuel is effectively inert. It’s just we so terrified of someone making a dirty bomb.

1

GumbyRocks89 t1_j0b99kh wrote

We should have reusable heavy launch vehicles figured out over the next decade. Let's spend $$$ to launch spent fuel in pods with a trajectory leading directly into the sun. It would be silly expensive but problem solved.

−3

radicalceleryjuice t1_j09rn42 wrote

I’m certainly more fission positive than I used to be. I wish we could just use less energy tho

1

KronaSamu t1_j09w1yv wrote

We never will, and we shouldn't. The biggest meter of progress is how much energy we have to use. Sure we shouldn't waste it, But we shouldn't seek to reduce our power consumption as it's critical to the increase of quality of life.

8

orangezeroalpha t1_j0akirk wrote

Most of us have replaced all the 60w-100w bulbs in our homes with brighter 5-8w led bulbs.

All kinds of consumer goods now operate on much less energy and do more work for us. Look at computer chips. Look at almost anything that requires electronic circuits.

The air conditioner I just bought has a newer type of motor that uses around 1/3rd of the power of my old air conditioner and cools better.

A lot of consumer spending is build around the idea of things being more efficient. HVAC units, water heaters, fridges, etc.

I could go on. Electricity per kw/h is going to keep going up in price over time for quite a long time... I don't get your attitude on this, unless you own a power plant and set the prices :)

4

KronaSamu t1_j0aoze6 wrote

I'm not talking about it on a personal scale. I'm taking on a civilization scale. Human kind as a whole should look to only increase our power production (as long as we do it sustainably).

Also efficiency is always good as it helps increase the available energy.

2

orangezeroalpha t1_j0b2fnx wrote

All of those things are society wide effects. Everyone needs lighting.

0

russrobo t1_j0b1gdm wrote

This is a good point. The cost of (grid) electricity isn’t a function of “what it costs to produce”; it’s instead “what the customers will bear”.

Remember that fossil fuels themselves are, effectively, a kind of “fiat commodity”. They’re worth exactly what people will pay for them.

For decades we’ve been in a cycle of increasing efficiency and prices. We spend our own money to drastically cut our use of some resource (based upon some technological improvement), and as soon as we do so the seller cranks up prices so we’re spending more for less.

For electricity, there is a kind of endgame. At some point prices are simply so high, and our use of resources so efficient, that utility cord-cutting becomes viable. Suddenly, you don’t need a huge national grid any more. You can trade power with your neighbors, have community-based wind generation, and so on.

2

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j0aqk6w wrote

This is the same logic which would have you look at the results of feeding a starving man, and then concluding that obesity shouldnbe solved by having everyone drink a gallon of corn syrup with each meal.

2

radicalceleryjuice t1_j0a00ln wrote

That sounds provably ridiculous and probably pertaining to a cult of economics

−5

Ender16 t1_j0a64fm wrote

If we use less energy or quality of life decreases. That's true for us, and it's true for every known living thing to have ever existed.

I don't want to use less energy. In fact most don't want to and most are not going to. So instead of wishing for something people don't want to be forced on them we do what people do want in a way that is better and less detrimental.

3

radicalceleryjuice t1_j0abq3t wrote

It's not a one to one relationship between energy and quality of life. We can have awesome lives while using energy wisely.

If we can make more energy while taking better care of the planet, I'm all for that. I see no evidence that free markets will take care of the planet. We'll need a combination of free markets and environmental protection laws.

2

m0estash t1_j0a2w13 wrote

Will you do your part?? I’m not being a smart ass, it’s a real question. Years back a read a paper that had some excellent figures in it. It took the worlds energy output, analysed the energy requirements for various nations and then normalised the data to non dimensional units. The way it broke down was that in most of Africa people used about 0.25 of a unit of energy per day to exist, in places like the USA, Australia etc it was more like 4-5 units per day. To sustain current population growth around the world we would need to average it out to about about 1 unit per person on average. This would allow for about 10 billion people to survive at the standard 1 units provides. We hit this population number around 2050. Imagine the adjustment you need to make to go from 5 units a day to 1. Can you do it? I know I couldn’t. Which country should continue to under use so that we can keep 5 units a day? Simple fact is the world needs more energy not less. We have to find a away through that need without killing the planet. At this point I think fission is the best short / mid-term solution.

Edit: stuff.

2

radicalceleryjuice t1_j0a6hbf wrote

I’m totally pro sustainable energy. We use way more energy than we need to in countries like Canada. I try hard to use less. I ride a bike. I grow food. I’m also not living in a cave.

My original point was that efficiency and more energy alone won’t solve our ecological problems. Fusion will help but only if we start enacting good political policies.

But for sure, the people in Africa need energy too.

0

KronaSamu t1_j0aj6x0 wrote

It's not an economic thing, although it totally sounds like one. It's based on the idea that the more power we have access to, the more advanced we are as a civilization therefore we will have a higher quality of life among other things. This is also about us as a whole species, and not about any individuals. All that being said, we still shouldn't waste power and we absolutely have to transition to better forms of power.

2

radicalceleryjuice t1_j0ak63a wrote

Aha. Hey, I really appreciate the friendly answer. I had wondered whether my reply above had come across as too adversarial.

I'm open to the fact that energy is allowing us to advance and evolve in ways I can't entirely understand.

I'll be more thoughtful about saying things like "use less energy." Better to think in terms of using energy wisely.

Take care!

2

TheLegendaryFoxFire t1_j0al2kb wrote

>I had wondered whether my reply above had come across as too adversarial.

You could say that yeah.

1

NickBarksWith t1_j0al6hd wrote

I wonder if there's a way to design fission reactors for easy conversion to fusion when it's available.

1

ackermann t1_j0alhje wrote

Eh, if nothing else, suitable land has already been cleared and leveled. Large power distribution lines in place. That much can be reused. Cooling water available on site, if fusion reactors need that?

1

Ok-disaster2022 t1_j0b1rqa wrote

No. Just no. You could site the new reactors next to the old reactors, it's a very energy dense reaction in either case, and most of the permitting and site security will be in place.

1

Mud_Landry t1_j0al0be wrote

Mainly Thorium reactors.. the one Israel has been working on for like 7 years would help

0

ackermann t1_j0alkrx wrote

Oh cool, Israel is actually building a thorium reactor? You always hear about them, but I didn’t know anyone was actually working on it…

2

Ok-disaster2022 t1_j0b2drc wrote

China has a thorium reactor coming online soon, if not already. India has also been working on one.

The issue with thorium is its definitely harder to start. The actual nuclide releasing the fission energy after neutron capture is U233, so the Th232 has to capture 2 neutrons to fission, as opposed to the one need in the case of U235 or Pu239. Basically most reactors you could build with Th232 you could make with U238 ( which is most of the uranium anyway.

I'm in favor of thorium, just if there's limited resources going to nuclear development anyway, and fuel prices arent an issue with uranium, why dilute your resources? Long term between uranium and thorium, there enough fuel reserves to power the global population power needs as if they were all Americans for some thing like 3000 years. The extremely long lived, but super condensed waste products can be stored deep in the continental crust using convention oil mining technologies where it can ride any that section of the crust gets subducted back into the mantle in like a billion years.

1