LLNL may have surpassed fusion power net-gain

[MechAg94]

Maybe we need to put the Nuclear Regulatory Agency in charge of all power plants.  Then all forms of power generation can be equally expensive. 

[zahc]

Nuke plants are horrifically expensive to build, have significant drawbacks regarding waste disposal, and require insane amounts of monitoring and maintenance.

There is no reason to believe any of this would be any different for fusion than for fission. Except for the first one, which is opposite.... fusion plants, if they are possible at all, will certainly be much more expensive than fission plants. So, we're talking about a technology that 1) doesn't exist 2) will be expensive with no compelling advantages even once it does exist and 3) we have no fuel for it anyway.

"News" about fusion like this, like the research itself, primarily exists to generate more funding for projects that plausibly-deniably never have to produce any results, and are an example of the unique incompetence -as-smokescreen-for-corruption grift that characterizes the late-stage decline of Americans industry.

Meanwhile, countries who can still build things (in this case, France), never got the message that nuclear power isn't practical, and are already generating 70% of their electricity from nuclear plants, and are building 6 more.

[MechAg94]

These days fusion will most certainly be expensive as much because it can be than anything else.  There is no incentive to do it cheap so it probably won't be. 

It is a bit sad that we haven't taken advantage of what fission has to offer with the most modern designs. 

[HankB]

These days fusion will most certainly be expensive as much because it can be than anything else.  There is no incentive to do it cheap so it probably won't be. 

It is a bit sad that we haven't taken advantage of what fission has to offer with the most modern designs.

That's because politicians are (generally speaking) stupid, insane, or corrupt . . . likely a combination of all three. And not just in our country. Look at Germany - because an earthquake-generated tsunami caused problems at Fukushima, Germany decided to abandon nuclear.  (They're revisiting that idiocy now.) Jimmy Carter prohibited reprocessing of spent fuel on the advice of his pre-teen daughter Amy, making him - from the standpoint of energy - the best POTUS France ever had. And of course the NRC/EPA/greenies etc. have deliberately made construction of new nuclear plants in the USA extremely difficult.

[K Frame]

Fusion plants will be expensive to build, there's no doubt about that.

But, they don't require nearly as much ancillary stuff that fission plants need to control and contain the radioactivity, so that will be an order of magnitude cheaper.

The majority of the radioactive material waste that would be generated by a fusion reactor would be in the form of relatively small amounts of metal and concrete, and that's a one and done disposal issue that needs to be addressed on decommissioning. There's no ongoing generation of radioactive waste in the form of spent fuel as there is with a fission reactor.

Fusion reactors also appear to have a far longer life time than fission reactors, so total life cost should be far less than a fission reactor.

[MechAg94]

Fusion plants will be expensive to build, there's no doubt about that.

But, they don't require nearly as much ancillary stuff that fission plants need to control and contain the radioactivity, so that will be an order of magnitude cheaper.

The majority of the radioactive material waste that would be generated by a fusion reactor would be in the form of relatively small amounts of metal and concrete, and that's a one and done disposal issue that needs to be addressed on decommissioning. There's no ongoing generation of radioactive waste in the form of spent fuel as there is with a fission reactor.

Fusion reactors also appear to have a far longer life time than fission reactors, so total life cost should be far less than a fission reactor.

I would just point out that we really have no idea what we will have with a fusion power plant.  We think all those things will be true, but we won't know for sure until we build one. 

Only 20 years away so it won't be long.   

[dogmush]

I would just point out that we really have no idea what we will have with a fusion power plant.  We think all those things will be true, but we won't know for sure until we build one. 

Only 20 years away so it won't be long.   

Well to be fair, the one existing fusion reactor we use for power has had an exceptionally long service life, low maintenance costs, and no disposal costs so far, so it's reasonable to assume those traits will continue on any new fusion reactors built.

[cordex]

Well to be fair, the one existing fusion reactor we use for power has had an exceptionally long service life, low maintenance costs, and no disposal costs so far, so it's reasonable to assume those traits will continue on any new fusion reactors built.

Yeah, but usable output varies significantly throughout the year.

[K Frame]

I would just point out that we really have no idea what we will have with a fusion power plant.  We think all those things will be true, but we won't know for sure until we build one. 

Only 20 years away so it won't be long.   

Actually, the parameters of the supporting design for a fusion reactor are pretty well scoped out, just as they were with the first fission reactors. Those early designs, without a tremendous amount of revision, were the basis of the Shippingport reactor, the first commercial production reactor.

It's extremely doubtful that, after nearly 60 years of research and experimentation, they're going to go "OMG! OF COURSE! IT NEEDS TO BE 72 TIMES MORE COMPLEX, 150 TIMES BIGGER, AND 7,000 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE!"

Yes, iterative design will continue to move costs upwards as we get closer to solving the sustained fusion reaction problem but, there are some estimates that a fusion reactor could last (with maintenance and replacement parts, of course) for 100 years or more.

[RoadKingLarry]

Yeah, but usable output varies significantly throughout the year.

The output doesn't vary, the ability to use he output varies.

[cordex]

The output doesn't vary, the ability to use he output varies.

So "usable output"?

[K Frame]

Like hell the sun's absolute output doesn't vary.

It varies quite a bit.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight

[RoadKingLarry]

Like hell the sun's absolute output doesn't vary.

It varies quite a bit.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight

That's racist propaganda! people who identify as women and minorities are affected the most.

[HankB]

Like hell the sun's absolute output doesn't vary.

It varies quite a bit.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight

Looking at the scale of the first graph at the link, a variance of +/- 0.1% or so isn't what I'd consider to be "be quite a bit."

[K Frame]

Be glad that the variance is that "small."

[HankB]

Be glad that the variance is that "small."

We wouldn't like it if old Sol were a Cepheid variable.

[MechAg94]

Actually, the parameters of the supporting design for a fusion reactor are pretty well scoped out, just as they were with the first fission reactors. Those early designs, without a tremendous amount of revision, were the basis of the Shippingport reactor, the first commercial production reactor.

It's extremely doubtful that, after nearly 60 years of research and experimentation, they're going to go "OMG! OF COURSE! IT NEEDS TO BE 72 TIMES MORE COMPLEX, 150 TIMES BIGGER, AND 7,000 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE!"

Yes, iterative design will continue to move costs upwards as we get closer to solving the sustained fusion reaction problem but, there are some estimates that a fusion reactor could last (with maintenance and replacement parts, of course) for 100 years or more.

If the BigGov builds in, I would not be so sure of that.   

But good points all around. 

[230RN]

Oh, backtracking a little....

HankB remarked,

...Jimmy Carter prohibited reprocessing of spent fuel on the advice of his pre-teen daughter Amy...

Well, let's be careful about saying stuff like that.  Let's make sure we're going for the throat, not the fur on the throat.  I found this quote easily:

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1980/10/30/Amy-Carters-concern-about-nuclear-warfare-and-the-strategic/1556341730000/

Amy Carter's concern about nuclear warfare and the strategic...
Amy Carter's concern about nuclear warfare and the strategic arms limitation treaty appears to have rubbed some viewers of the Reagan-Carter debate the wrong...

Updated Oct. 30, 1980 12:00 AM View original
WASHINGTON -- Amy Carter's concern about nuclear warfare and the strategic arms limitation treaty appears to have rubbed some viewers of the Reagan-Carter debate the wrong way.

Rebutting a reply by Ronald Reagan on negotiating a weapons treaty with the Soviet Union, President Carter mentioned his 13-year-old daughter, apparently to show the extent of interest in the subject.

'I think to close out this discussion, I think it would be better to put into perspective what we are talking about. I had a discussion with our daughter, Amy, the other day before I came here to ask her what the most important issue was. She said she thought it was nuclear weaponry, and the control of nuclear arms,' Carter said.

Some reporters covering the debate in Cleveland groaned at the remark, a debate professor thought it was an unfortunate slip, and a number of callers to a coast-to-coast talk show suggested it was a memorable gaffe.

'The general consensus was that it was absolutely outrageous,' said Jack Kirby, producer of the Mutual Broadcasting System's 'The Larry King Show,' which took calls from its national audience from 2 until 5:30 a.m. EST Wednesday, a few hours after the debate concluded.

'It was compared to (President Gerald) Ford's Polish remarks. This could be Carter's great gaffe.'

Kirby said a surprising number of the calls were about Amy and most were concerned that 'Carter being president would invoke a 13-year-old child and use (her) politically. Most people thought it absurd.'

James Golden, debate professor at Ohio State University, said, 'It's that kind of statement that lends itself to ridicule. I think it was an unfortunate statement and one that he probably wishes he hadn't made. It was probably the only unfortunate statement made during the night.'

Campaigning in Jackson, Tenn., Wednesday, first lady Rosalynn Carter told of the derivation of Carter's remark but without much explanation.

'Did you hear Amy's dad talking about her last night?' Mrs. Carter asked a crowd of 4,000. 'It all started when she asked him, 'What is a megaton?''

William Albers, Virginia coordinator for the Carter-Mondale campaign, said, 'I think a lot of fathers and daughters related to that (the Amy remark).'

But independent presidential opponent John Anderson twitted Carter for using his daughter in a major debate.

Campaigning in Philadelphia, Anderson, who was excluded from the Cleveland debate, said his mistake was in not talking to Amy.

'If I could have gotten Amy's ear, I would have said, 'Honey, you just tell your daddy it's important for the American people to hear John Anderson's ideas on nuclear proliferation too.''

But he said he might have had to 'disappoint little Amy a little bit because I would have ... said that your daddy who professes this great passion for non-proliferation _ he did sell 38 tons of enriched uranium to India a few weeks ago.'

Even allowing for 10 or 20 percent MSMBIAS, this puts a somewhat different perspective on the matter of "taking atomic advice from a 13 year old girl"

Terry, 230RN