Also

[james_davis_nicoll]

Team Phoenicia was kind enough to use an essay of mine:


The chimera of Lunar Helium-three as a driving force for space development

Comments

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

I wonder if these people have ever actually looked at the actual state of fusion development. Starved of funds, and power plants will be at least as big and expensive as normal fission reactors if anyone actually gets organized on building them.

[neowolf2.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've been beating that drum for years, ever since the late Lawrence Lidsky pointed out the problems with fusion in 1983.

The article suggests advanced fuels as the only possible way forward, but Lidsky later abandoned even those. I believe he was Todd Rider's thesis advisor.

And coming in "at least as expensive" as fission would be a major win for fusion. Fusion cores are going to be much more complex and expensive than than fission cores of equal power (although balance of plant costs will be similar), and also less reliable.

Anyway, don't assume that fusion is marginal because it's starved for funds. The causality could go the other way: fusion is starved for funds because it looks unlikely to succeed.

[stephenshevlin.livejournal.com]

"And coming in "at least as expensive" as fission would be a major win for fusion. Fusion cores are going to be much more complex and expensive than than fission cores of equal power (although balance of plant costs will be similar), and also less reliable."

Aren't the great advantages of fusion power:

1: Scaling, fusion plants may be much larger than fission. The first industrial prototype is supposed to produce 2GW electricity[1], whereas (so far as I am aware) the largest fission plants produce 1GW.

2: Produce much less in the way of long-lived radioactive materials, so whole-life cycle costs might be less.

How does this affect things?

[1] Rep. Prog. Phys. Volume 74, 022801, (2011)

[neowolf2.livejournal.com]

1. Scaling works against fusion, due to the square-cube law. All the power has to go through the wall of the reactor, so at the limit of wall power density set by material considerations (neutron damage for DT, perhaps sputtering), volumetric power density declines with increased reactor size.

2. Long-lived nuclear waste isn't the problem with nuclear power, capital cost is. Fusion solves the non-problem while making the real problem worse.

[stephenshevlin.livejournal.com]

1: That's a good point! And the material considerations are considerable. I vaguely suspect that even if fusion is a complete bust then the research on materials science that it's fostered would by itself be quite significant.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Is #1 even an advantage? With fission power, scaling big is a problem: it increases the necessary capital commitment and makes everything very path-dependent. The grid becomes dependent on aging reactors remaining in operation and it's very expensive to replace them, which is why we still have to deal with the safety problems of 1960s reactors today.

[stephenshevlin.livejournal.com]

Scaling was quoted to me by a researcher as the big reason for fusion plants in a RSc meeting last year, but I'm not at all an expert on this. Fewer but larger power plants would be an issue if you wanted to take one down for maintenance though, what would fill the gap in the meantime?

[neowolf2.livejournal.com]

Scaling of energy confinement is why fusion reactors are big, but this is a bug, not a feature.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

You are a nontrivial voice crying in the wilderness!

[grimjim.livejournal.com]

Just shared the link on FB, for what it's worth.

[zxhrue.livejournal.com]

succinct and to the point, and with just the right amount of seasoning snark. bravo.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

My 104 degree (F, obvs) fever read your icon as "Commit No Insurance" which I found oddly fitting as I am waiting until the doctor's office opens so as not to get charged $100 for being sick in the middle of the night.

[awesomeaud.livejournal.com]

Interesting essay. Thanks for the food for thought!

But why did they put in all those typos?

[neowolf2.livejournal.com]

Typos happne.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

I love that Helium-3 is like your arch nemesis.

*chuckle*

[(Anonymous)]

You chose that image very carefully for maximum effect, did you not?

Re: *chuckle*

[ilya187.livejournal.com]

It's a Helium-3 cloud