this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
224 points (96.3% liked)

science

14767 readers
86 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A massive nuclear fusion experiment just hit a major milestone, potentially putting us a little closer to a future of limitless clean energy.

(page 2) 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (28 children)

They still need to figure out how to harness that plasma, right now its creating plasma but sadly this is the easy part. Extracting energy from that contained plasma will be 100x harder than creating it in the first place. If only we had some other type of reactor that was far simpler and could be up in running and producing electricity for the masses in a relatively short time span...

Taken these smart people and have them work on MOLTEN SALT REACTORS FFS

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

MSRs are a boondoggle, a waste of effort.

What are the claimed benefits? Simplified piping, abundant fuel, self limiting power, etc.

Trivial engineering counterpoints:

  • Piping remains extremely complex, the activated thorium becomes U235 eventually, irradiating the hell out of the entire system. How do you change a valve when it gets damaged? You have other valves, and bypasses, and check valves, and... ~~Piping is simpler~~.
  • Abundant fuel.. we keep extracting from the Earth, and cutting huge ugly gashes in her. Let's not.
  • Self-limiting power... Some materials are very, very corrosive by themselves. Want to make them nastier? Add energy to them in the form of heat. MSRs use Sodium or Fluorine salts, both of which strongly react with water in the atmosphere, if not the air itself in an exothermic manner. And they do so with a bang, under the right conditions. So yeah, self limiting. But at a very risky cost.
  • materials: prior reason also effects material selection. Inconel is expensive, and very damn hard to machine, even with our modern carbide tooling. Materials keep coming along, and maybe that'll reduce cost. But just like fusion, it's a maybe.

MSRs: nah.

Extracting energy from fusion: some systems can be solid state. Depending on the process and the inputs, it's possible to directly extract electrical energy from neutrons crossing a charged grid, and dump that power (after some filtering and such) right into the national electrical grid, no steam needed.

Need to find a working fusion reactor? Look up.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Need to find a working fusion reactor? Look up.

Oh me so smart. Did we creatbthe sun? Seriously bad argument. Best solar panels are only 30% efficient.

Also things that are worth it are hard, and expensive. Look at the average cost of a Light or heavy water reactor. Another moot argument

Yes salts are corrosive but that's what Hasteloy-N solves along with Inconel

And maintenance can be done by robots as they currently do in current reactors where the radation is so bad humans can't go there.

You are the worst at this

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

🤭 Try making clear points instead of mucking several things together, you can do it!

Robots can do the maintenance! Who maintains the hopefully mildly activated bots? How do we ensure mission-critical systems can come back online in a timely manner without lots of expensive redundancy? Have you observed how long robots can survive exposure to intense radiation?

Sorry little guy. MSRs take all of LWR/BWR issues and adds extremely corrosive components into the highly radioactive mix. Try talking to the rest of us when you're more experienced actually building things that are economically/environmentally contributory.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm no longer going to argue with an idiot

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Only one of us seems afraid of facts. Adios, gringo.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Fusion reactors will ALWAYS be 30 years away. Not only that they will concentrate energy resources with in the very wealthiest of nations because they are EXTREMELY hard to build and expensive. Molten salt reactors or even light water reactors are the solution too our energy needs. They are available now and the waste can be managed despite the endless fear mongering. Fusion is a waste of time for now. Even fission reactors are wildly expensive to build and you think we as a species can move on to fusion reactors in the near future? Changing mildly radioactive value or dealing with corrosive materials is 100000x less of an engineering feat than achieving cheap and reliable nuclear fusion. The reason it's not wide spread is because counties love their oil and have fear mongered fission so that little to no research goes that way. Fusion is a pipe dream

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›