Hacker News Reader

Comment by idatum | Hacker News Reader

"The incoming fusion neutrons sustain the temperature of the circulating liquid metal, whose heat would be extracted to drive a turbine."

I assume this means a steam turbine (heat engine). With the losses inherent in that process, I assume the idea is we'll have a "limitless" source of heat anyway?

Or is heat transfer inherently better with this fusion design?

View on HN

Same way fission works.

All these methods are really sophisticated ways to heat stuff and rotate a turbine.

What other process do you propose? A steam turbine is the best way we know how.

If fusion relies on a steam turbine, it's going to be economically infeasible. Natural gas power is cheaper than either coal and fission power because they both rely on big, heavy, expensive, inefficient steam turbines.

And solar power and wind is cheaper than natural gas, even with batteries.

- "Natural gas power is cheaper than either coal and fission power because they both rely on big, heavy, expensive, inefficient steam turbines."

Most natural gas power plants in the USA use steam turbines. The most common setup is a two-stage "combined cycle": first, an internal-combustion gas turbine, whose waste heat powers a lower temperature steam turbine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39012 (~90% of natural gas kWh)

The gas turbine is primary in combined cycle. There's a reason they don't use only a steam turbine like coal and fission do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com