Let’s say ITER works exactly as planned at some point in the future (delayed or not). How far are we from commercial fusion power as a reasonable source for things?
One cloud hanging over all this is that ITER is going to use up most of the world's tritium. With fission in trouble, especially heavy water moderated fission, there will likely not be a continued source of this isotope, and making it intentionally would be extremely expensive ($100M/kg and up.)
We need to take drastic action on power generation in the next decade. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that fusion will make it in time. I can't over-emphasize how dire our current situation is - and that's with us currently living in a world where 3 cent/kwh solar power exists.
If we're gambling on fusion, at this point, the best-case outcome for it would be that it could be brought online sometime between us hitting 'drastic climate catastrophe' and 'civilization ending climate catastrophe'. To me, that doesn't sound like a great situation to be in.
It’s one of those things that enable sending spacecraft to other stars. D-T fusion is still baby steps on that path, but worthwhile none the less.
Unlocking fusion, allows us to tap into a near infinite source of fuel. On a planetary scale.
What kind of dream world do you inhabit where you think it’s easier to travel to other stars or terraform planets than simply not “shit where you eat” on this planet? Slow down our economic growth? Stop dumping trash? Nah, that’s too hard. Let’s build fucking rockets to other solar systems instead and invent entirely new life support systems to survive in places without any food, water, or air at all. Sure, that’s way easier than planting a garden.
Even if this were possible, the technology almost certainly wouldn’t be ready by the time civilization fully collapsed at the end of the century.
A lot of people do see the concept of some entity strictly controlling the entire world as unattainable, regardless of whether it would be desirable or not.
Seriously.
So, yeah, travelling elsewhere is easier, because it requires less coordination. Space travel doesn't seem as rooted in the insolubility of political problems.
Not trying to convince you this is right, just that the opposite of your opinion is "obvious" to other people who think differently than you.
A political revolution against the corruption of our democracy by extractive industries is much, much easier than going to other planets. It might get a bit bloody or require you to march in the street, but it will sure as hell be easier and cost fewer lives in the long run.
It is cowardly to assume that our political situation can’t change; it’s merely a matter of what kind of action you’re willing to take.
To not have space travel, everyone must agree not to do it.
To save the environment, everyone must agree to do it.
Anything that everyone must agree to do probably won't happen and seems "difficult" to me.
I don't think any expansion steps looked less hard at the time.
Wipe out 90% of the population and we're back to what, the 1800s? That level of death requires most people to just let the rising ocean drown them as they stand there plus a bunch more inland to walk in and drown themselves as well.
Massively distruption to the status quo is what climate change will bring. Civilization ending? Not even close.
But our civilization as we know it may very well collapse. Yes some sort of civilization will continue to exist. But this will be on par with the dark ages: not a complete destruction of human civilization but an enormous regression.
We will most likely loose a lot of our technological know-how and abilities. Events like this don't simply cause a gradual decline in standards of living. Rather they tend to cause massive outbreaks of wars, unrest, migrations, refugees, destruction etc.
Climate change in the bronze age caused nearly all major bronze age civilizations to collapse. But with this collapse we had major migration of people, wars, invasions, collapse of trade and many more things. What followed was large population declines as well as losing the ability to write and maintain organized rule, construct buildings etc.
Did all humans disappear? Of course not, that is why civilization reappeared again eventually at a later time. The same will likely happen with us. But how long will the dark ages last?
In many ways our resilience is weaker than theirs. Our trade networks are far more extensive and important than the ancient ones. What happens e.g. if the middle east, Africa and South America are turned into turmoil and we can no longer get resources extracted from either of those places?
Our economies may suffer a lot too, causing the breakout of widespread riots and unrest, overthrow of governments. If modern trade breaks down, there will be widespread famines even in the west, because many countries simply are not self sufficient. And if they are, their food production depends on a large number of imports. If they don't get hold of artificial fertilizer, fuel etc food production will collapse.
This is what we saw after the fall or Rome. Economies became far more regionalized/local. In a collapsing world economy, countries will become significantly poorer if forced to rely exclusively on local production of most essential things.
1. Except without access to easily accessible sources of oil, minerals, and energy.
2. If you think that rising sea levels are the problem [1] with climate change, I'm not sure you understand it, at all. This seriously undermines your points. The actual threat is disruption of agriculture, and ocean ecosystem collapse.
http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16...
If you compute the thermal power/volume ratio of the reactor, it's about 50 kW/m^3.
In comparison, the thermal power/volume ratio of a commercial PWR fission reactor is about 20 MW/m^3 -- 400 times higher.
A commercial tokamak would have a somewhat higher power, but not enormously higher. If based on ITER, the power density would be two orders of magnitude worse than a fission reactor. And since the complexity of a fusion reactor is far higher than a fission reactor core, the cost ratio of the reactors (for a given power output) would be even larger.
Since fission reactors are having desperate trouble being competitive today, how is making the reactor core orders of magnitude more expensive going to lead anywhere useful?
Stronger super-magnets, different designs could lead to smaller reactors.
As to why is it useful? A zero emissions powerplant, with minimal environment impact that is immune to core meltdown. Sure we don't have the tech to build it profitabily. Yet. But doesn't mean we never will.
Say we get commercial reactors in 2050. If these are anything like building fission reactors, we will start getting these commercial reactors online in 2060. That is very late.
Within that time we can massively expand solar power and wind power. As renewable energy start dominating the grid, ultra low spot prices on power will spur a huge cottage industry of businesses relying on buying this power cheap, storing it and selling it later. Alternatively factories will be built to take advantage of it. E.g. only running power hungry processes in periods of low power prices.
ATM fission, with its Chernobyl and Fukushima is still safer than solar and wind. And overall better for environment.
Fusion in theory promises even more - low environment impact plus no risk of disaster.
I don't see variability as a positive trait. From what I remember, renewables, really suck for the grid, as it wasn't designed for too much variability or diffusion in mind.
I don't think DEMO is ever getting built, btw. I suspect ITER is not going to have a very happy operational experience either (disruptions, maintainability). If ITER cannot effectively control disruptions they won't ever operate it with DT.
The idea that "renewables suck for the grid" is not correct. The very low levelized price of renewables means there's a lot of economic headroom to deal with intermittency.
Don't mistake current trends for future prognosis. Even if costs are falling at the moment, there is no reason future fusion technology will be museumware.
At worst we'll discover new data on plasma behavior. At best we have a possible tech for colonizing the Milky Way.
> I don't think DEMO is ever getting built,
It's ok. I don't think we'll transfer to renewables before it's too late anyway.
> The very low levelized price of renewables means there's a lot of economic headroom to deal with intermittency.
So you're saying that economics will change grid design? That grids designed for single way of transmitting energy will somehow reconfigure to allow consumers to stream energy to the source?
Is there any reason to think they will be correct now? I assert no: PV modules are still well away from the costs of the material and energy inputs.
I'll add that fusion economic studies have to posit large learning effects as well, so the "N-th of a Kind" plant is much cheaper than the first. And there, this assumption is dubious, since the closest technology (fission) has not shown good learning effects. That's why fission is failing now -- any technology that doesn't improve eventually gets killed as the competition does.
> It's ok. I don't think we'll transfer to renewables before it's too late anyway.
And you think the transition to fusion would be FASTER? My mind boggles at your double think.
> So you're saying that economics will change grid design? That grids designed for single way of transmitting energy will somehow reconfigure to allow consumers to stream energy to the source?
It's bizarre you think dealing with intermittency would require impossible, or even particularly difficult, changes. If you notice, grids are already becoming smarter, with power markets dispatching on short term prices. Storage and dispatchable demand fit nicely into this system. The market is going to force things in the right direction, which is renewables/storage and not high cost baseload sources.
No? I just think fusion tech is the future. A clean, abundant, uninterruptible, and independent source of energy that can be used on Earth or on Alpha Centauri.
I don't really expect to see them in my lifetime.
> It's bizarre you think dealing with intermittency would require impossible, or even particularly difficult, changes. If you notice, grids are already becoming smarter, with power markets dispatching on short term prices. The market is going to force things in the right direction, which is renewables/storage and not high cost baseload sources.
Again, that's not my experience. I've seen some countries move towards renewables, but nothing on the required scale. As for smart grids are you talking about decentralized grids, where consumers can send energy upstream or just more efficient energy grids?
And as for the markets, those depend on policies. If Trump says, we're making a renewables tax and tariffs on solar panels, those same markets could turn on renewables.
This is a form of a tired and invalid argument that one often sees. It's basically "nothing can ever happen for the first time." It also ignores the details of just what has been happening.
Renewables have declined in price very quickly. The timescale for this decline has been shorter than the lifespan of installed generating infrastructure. This is very unusual for power technology, so if one is not careful one may be misled, as you apparently have been. We're in a weird situation where that installed base is obsolete. It's still there, churning away, but only because its capital cost is written off. And some is being ripped out because it can't even earn its operating costs now.
What you want to look at is not this set of stranded assets, but the choices being made for new capacity. That is becoming overwhelmingly renewable. General Electric, for example, is in a world of hurt right now because the demand for gas turbines is collapsing. And nuclear fission or coal with steam turbines? Dead technologies.
But in a tokamak reactor, you have a large container with all the expensive engineered stuff placed around its surface, so cost should be roughly proportional to surface area, or volume^(2/3).
This complexity also means keeping that fusion reactor running would be a nightmare. Complex things break, and the fusion reactor will be so irradiated that hands on maintenance will be impossible.
I will add that fission power plants are uncompetitive even if you ignore the cost of the reactor itself.
That's a non sequitur. Your volume comparison can, at best, tell you how cost scales with reactor power. If the exponent is wrong, it serves no valid purpose at all.
Surely your apparent position, that something made of superconductors is going to be just as cheap as something made of steel, is much more supportable! /s
And I wasn't talking about an exponent there.
No. The statement "Fusion reactors are MUCH more complex than fission reactors." followed by "So, just comparing volume is being very favorable to fusion." is a non sequitur.
> And I wasn't talking about an exponent there.
Your compared power/volume ratio, implying that cost is proportional to volume (otherwise, the comparison is pointless).
I pointed out that the different operating principles of fission and fusion reactors suggest cost proportional to volume^(2/3) for the latter (which of course implies that there is a size beyond which a fusion reactor will be more cost efficient than a fission one).
The 2/3 is known as an exponent. I believe exponents are part of the K-12 math curriculum, and definitely propaedeutic to nuclear engineering.
You seem to be implying that comparing by volume is unfair to fusion. So, instead, let's compare by mass. The mass of ITER is 23,000 tonnes, for an average density of about 2.8 g/cm^3. I don't have the figure for the mass of a PWR reactor vessel in front of me, but it's mostly empty space (filled with water and fuel in operation, which are not part of the capital cost). So, comparing by volume alone may actually ALSO be giving fusion an advantage.
> I pointed out that the different operating principles of fission and fusion reactors suggest cost proportional to volume^(2/3) for the latter (which of course implies that there is a size beyond which a fusion reactor will be more cost efficient than a fission one).
I don't think scaling data for cost of fusion experiments supports this.
BTW, as a fusion reactor gets bigger, at a fixed geometry and magnetic field strength, the mass of the material needed to support the magnets (to resist the outward force the magnetic field puts on the coils) is proportional to the volume of the reactor, not to the surface area of the plasma. And you want the reactor to be at as high magnetic field as possible, since the fusion power density goes as B^4. If wall power loading prevents one from taking advantage of this the reactor is too big and will have inferior power density, compared to a smaller reactor at higher B. This is why concepts like MIT's ARC have power density an order of magnitude higher than ITER (but still very much less than a PWR).
> The 2/3 is known as an exponent. I believe exponents are part of the K-12 math curriculum, and definitely propaedeutic to nuclear engineering.
That's very special, I'm sure.
I am pointing out an obvious logical fallacy. If it really isn't obvious, try substituting "Tesla cars" for "fusion" and "bars of gold" for "fission reactors". Here's what you get:
"Tesla cars are MUCH more complex than bars of gold. So, just comparing volume is being very favorable to Tesla cars."
Which of course is utter nonsense. A Tesla Model 3 occupies roughly 10 m^3 (order of magnitude, mind you); that volume of gold would weigh about 19.3e4 kg, which at the current price of $45.6e3/kg would be worth about $8.8 billion.
Clearly, the MUCH more complex Tesla Model 3 costs quite a bit less than the same volume in gold.
> So, instead, let's compare by mass.
That would be equally pointless. Instead, how about taking a moment to look up a serious economic analysis? Here is a fairly recent one, open access and all:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421...
It compares existing power plants with four tokamak conceptual designs which "span a range from relatively near-term concepts, based on limited technology and plasma physics extrapolations, to a more advanced conception". Upon reading it, you will be happy to learn that it finds Total Cost Of Electricity (TCOE) produced by those fusion reactors to be slightly higher than the lowest cost alternative, fission reactors.
All other options considered (combined-cycle gas turbines, open-cycle gas turbines, coal plants, solar large photovoltaic plants, onshore and offshore wind plants) turn out to be more expensive.
Think about the motivations for the people making estimates of the economics of fusion. They have little external motivation to be honest. The worst they could suffer if they were caught cooking the books was to lose their professional positions: but that is the same thing that would happen if fusion turns out to be seen as unaffordable and work is shut down. And really, a fusion power plant is so far in the future that they aren't likely to be caught on any but the most blatant dishonesty anytime soon. And who is being funded to check on their estimates?
So what might they do in that situation, even if they didn't flagrantly lie? They could tweak the assumptions going into the estimates, and keep tweaking them until they get results that are acceptable. If some source gives an input to their cost model that seems too good to be true, they might not question it too much. It's not "lying lying", they might tell themselves. They might even rationalize it's only a venial sin to bend things a bit, since fusion is so obviously a good thing to work on, right? Motivated reasoning can be a powerful thing.
All those failure modes are there, and there's incentive for them to occur, and there's little real world feedback to keep them in check. So you should take any estimates like the ones you linked to with more than a few grains of salt, especially when they fail a "smell test" by giving better economics than simpler, smaller fission.
In contrast, costs for renewables face the harsh test of actual experience, many times a year. Renewable cost estimates are, as a result, highly grounded in real evidence, and typically come in within 10% of the actual values. There is no room for lying -- to oneself or to others -- there.
The paper explains the methodology and lists references to the data. You can go through them and check the calculations yourself.
> Think about the motivations for the people making estimates
That's another logical fallacy, a classic one known as "ad hominem". Their motivations are utterly irrelevant to the question whether their results are correct.
If you think their work is in error, show how.
That's now how it works. If they put together a big, complicated cost model, it's up to them to provide evidence it's valid. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in "believe us, we're honest". For example, they could apply the same model to fission reactors and show it accurately predicts what they end up costing. Oddly, I don't recall fusion cost modelers ever doing that. Hell, I don't recall fission cost models being terribly accurate.
You like this result because it's telling you what you want to hear, not because it's intrisically believable. More motivated reasoning.
Yes it is. They presented their work, their sources and conclusions. If you believe it's wrong, but can not explain why, all you have is a prejudice. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to provide a rational argument explaining exactly how they are wrong, not just why you want to believe that they are.