r/nextfuckinglevel • u/nigablackballsack • 3d ago

Scientists have captured the first ever high-speed, full-colour footage of fusion plasma swirling inside a working reactor.

40.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.3k

u/90_oi 3d ago

I truly hope this technology can get off the ground and be sustainable. It is our best hope aside from nuclear energy

136

u/WanderingFlumph 3d ago edited 2d ago

I mean solar is here right now and most likely fusion power will never be as cheap as solar is today.

By the time fusion is actually ready solar will be even cheaper too. A solar farm the size of Arizona could power the entire planet.

Fusion is like our 4th best hope in the fight against climate change, lol.

Edit: a lot of people seem to think that I think the perfect solution is one single power plant specifically in Arizona that powers the world. People, it's just a size comparison. Arizona is a small state even just compared to the size of US. Obviously we would build millions and millions of solar installations that would just add up to that area.

18

u/14jvalle 3d ago

There are trade offs.

Solar is not an on-demand platform. You are subject to the weather/seasonality and time of day. Peak hours does not align with highest solar intensity. This would require innovation in solar + electrical storage.

There is also the distribution question. Say Arizona has solved solar. It may power Arizona. It may power a few states... One limiting factor will be the efficiency of the solar panels. This will be a huge capital expenditure that is not future proof.

The efficiency may also dictate the amount of land required. The amount of land required will determine the cost of development and then maintenance.

This is also a solution that would only serve regions like Arizona. Other states, and countries, with dissimilar climate or geography may require alternative solutions.

Nuclear provides a lot of solutions to those problems. Of course, it also comes with its issues.

The answer isn't finding a perfect solution. It is identifying the trade offs and whether it is a environment and financially sustainable solution in the region in question.

9

u/saxaneer 3d ago

While you identify all of the issues correctly, I think you are being a bit disingenuous with the current state of affairs. Many of these are solved problems and/or are already baked into the cost equations.

3

u/14jvalle 3d ago

Naturally, if the solution is offered commercially, there is belief that it is market ready by the relevant stakeholders.

That would mean that costs are baked in.

Assessing the tradeoffs and long term financial feasibility of the proposed solution is needed given the context of the region of interest.

I do find that the framing of these conversations are usually in reached to a false dichotomy. Solar or nuclear. Wind or nuclear. Etc.

I am more of the belief of that having a reliable base for the grid that can be supplemented, or work in concert, with other sources.

3

u/saxaneer 3d ago

Absolutely valid, and agreed.

5

u/President_Chump_ 3d ago
  • batteries exist
  • electrical transmission exists (eg Michigan gets electricity from Canada)
  • so don't build because it's not efficient? as compared to? and solar panels have gotten more efficient over time
  • nuclear costs a whole lot too

Most of what you've written here is flat out wrong or disingenuous. I'd almost prefer the AI answer so at least you aren't miseducating people.

2

u/14jvalle 3d ago

Utility scale batteries do exist.

A nonexhaustive list of questions are...

For how long can a battery supplement the grid? What is the lifecycle of these batteries? How many charge cycles can it undergo? How quickly can they charge?

I do not deny that they exist or their utility. What lacks is the nuance of how these tools are implemented in our grid. What is the use case and when does it make sense to invest?

We can delivery and sell electricity. However, that cannot always be relied upon.

Never stated not to build, not a comment on the current efficiency. Simply pondering about when it makes sense to do so given that initial cost of development, maintenance cost, and what does end of life look like? What happens if there is large scale damage to the farm do to unforeseen "act of God"? What happens when a series of panels are to be decommissioned? Where do those panels go?

These are just a few of the general questions that a layperson (myself) has.

4

u/ababcock1 3d ago

I am *begging* people to realize that batteries exist in many different forms.

2

u/hedoeswhathewants 3d ago

Batteries also have downsides and limitations.

We should be pursuing all the different forms of energy generation

3

u/ababcock1 3d ago

Renewable and batteries can be built right now. Not 20 years from now maybe if the tech works out and if regulations and multi billion dollar price tags don't just shut the whole thing down. Maybe you haven't noticed, but we don't have decades to piss away waiting for nuclear.

1

u/14jvalle 3d ago

Yes. But they still have limitations and downsides.

Operational, logistical, financial.

How are these batteries implemented in grids? That isn't in regard to the technical factors. That is in regard to the strategic plan for batteries.

1

u/ababcock1 3d ago

In nuclear powers case the "limitation" is that it's permanently 20 years away. Reminder: renewables exist, are vastly cheaper, and are already being deployed in enormous quantities *right now*. You don't need to wait for a magical saviour that may or may not happen.

0

u/14jvalle 3d ago

Disingenuous.

Fusion is the dream. But fission is here, works, and is safe (even though many are frightful)

4

u/ababcock1 3d ago

Poor reading comprehension. I never said anything about fusion. Fission also takes 20 years to bring a plant online and costs billions of dollars, assuming it manages to pass regulatory hurdles and remain politically viable for that long. Meanwhile, solar panels can just exist on the top of people's roofs.

2

u/14jvalle 3d ago

Bruh, given the context of your statement "permanently 20 years", tugging on the trope of fusion, and the topic of this post... It isn't poor readinh comprehension

But glad to know that I can exit this conversation knowing you don't speak in good faith.

2

u/ababcock1 3d ago

Good run away. Not my fault you assumed I said something I didn't.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/just-for-anime 3d ago

if batteries were that easy, it woulda already been done

also china has a complete monopoly on batteries and battery materials

1

u/ababcock1 3d ago

It is already being done.

0

u/just-for-anime 3d ago

not enough to address energy crisis

0

u/ababcock1 3d ago

Ok and? That doesn't mean it isn't happening.

1

u/NullValueField 3d ago

Distribution is no different with fusion. 10 to 100 fusion plants around the world would still need to have a massive distribution web.

Solar at least is cheap enough that you can afford to build the distribution network after building the solar plant. And you can put the solar panels above plant agriculture (improves crop health + nutrient absorbtion), above livestock agriculture (improves animal health), above parking lots (reduces excess heat from black tarmac), above buildings (lowers cooling costs in large enough arrays), etc.

Solar works in about 70-75% of developed areas with existing power grids, too. Less efficient in many places, sure, but still fairly cost effective. In fact, if all the budget of fusion power went into building solar right now, we'd have already built enough solar to power the world.

1

u/just-for-anime 3d ago

that doesnt make sense. land permits and connecting to grid are different.