Fusion - breakthrough or another false dawn
Discussion
hidetheelephants said:
Caruso said:
hidetheelephants said:
If power independent of weather is needed fission works fine, no need to spend an indeterminate and large sum on a science project.
Even when fission works fine (which is only most of the time) it leaves behind some pretty expensive long term problems. CraigyMc said:
hidetheelephants said:
Caruso said:
hidetheelephants said:
If power independent of weather is needed fission works fine, no need to spend an indeterminate and large sum on a science project.
Even when fission works fine (which is only most of the time) it leaves behind some pretty expensive long term problems. Mr Whippy said:
Yes but you keep forgetting, AI.
It’s not worth £ trillions for nothing all of a sudden
Genuinely though, it’s not an existential issue so it gets chicken feed funding.
If some country genuinely wanted fusion in 25 years they’d likely have it.
But they don’t, there is more money in burning stuff to make steamy water, or making fans to blow in the wind.
I agree it’s depressing being mid 40s yo and the same type of stories cropping up that you were excited about 30 years ago in school.
It’s sad to think what I experienced was the dying light of the technological and positivity boom of the 60s through 90s, and since then we’ve just advanced profit making and optimising what we have.
Ie, Concorde has become 737 Max…
Fusion has become a load of wind turbines and burning gas.
While everyone is terrified of spending actual money on a new idea then all we get is rehashed old stuff.
If you and others had spent money on Concorde tickets, it would still be running It’s not worth £ trillions for nothing all of a sudden
Genuinely though, it’s not an existential issue so it gets chicken feed funding.
If some country genuinely wanted fusion in 25 years they’d likely have it.
But they don’t, there is more money in burning stuff to make steamy water, or making fans to blow in the wind.
I agree it’s depressing being mid 40s yo and the same type of stories cropping up that you were excited about 30 years ago in school.
It’s sad to think what I experienced was the dying light of the technological and positivity boom of the 60s through 90s, and since then we’ve just advanced profit making and optimising what we have.
Ie, Concorde has become 737 Max…
Fusion has become a load of wind turbines and burning gas.
While everyone is terrified of spending actual money on a new idea then all we get is rehashed old stuff.
The issue wasn’t technological stagnation; it was that the problem Concorde was designed to solve turned out to be more easily soluble with video conferencing.The sad fact is that - outside of the USA - prosperity simply hasn’t grown fast enough to allow the Thunderbirds-style stuff to flourish at scale. Instead we can now loft billionaires to the edge of space.
We need to keep research going into fusion as there will surely be a breakthrough at some point with one of the approaches. Once proof of principle has been achieved then more effort can be concentrated to develop the technology in that direction.
I do agree about wave, tidal and ocean currents not being exploited enough though - they are a constant and reliable source of energy unlike wind or solar. Expensive and challenging environment though, so that's probably why things haven't developed much.
Energy storage is the key I think to making fluctuating renewables work - maybe when everyone has an EV which is plugged in most of the time, some portion of the battery can be reserved for keeping the grid balanced.
I do agree about wave, tidal and ocean currents not being exploited enough though - they are a constant and reliable source of energy unlike wind or solar. Expensive and challenging environment though, so that's probably why things haven't developed much.
Energy storage is the key I think to making fluctuating renewables work - maybe when everyone has an EV which is plugged in most of the time, some portion of the battery can be reserved for keeping the grid balanced.
AJLintern said:
maybe when everyone has an EV which is plugged in most of the time, some portion of the battery can be reserved for keeping the grid balanced.
The UK grid *isn't* symmetrically bidirectional.Your EV would only be able to put into the grid about 5% of what the house can take in, the numbers don't balance out in this way -- you'd be better off using that in-house (take your own power needs from your own car battery).
Grid-scale storage is more correctly pumped storage hydro (as is already used in places like Dinorwig) and battery storage (many coming on stream, and usually collocated beside offshore terminus bus from wind farms).
The UK is building a new pumped storage scheme at the moment, at Coire Glas in Scotland.
skwdenyer said:
If you and others had spent money on Concorde tickets, it would still be running The issue wasn’t technological stagnation; it was that the problem Concorde was designed to solve turned out to be more easily soluble with video conferencing.
The sad fact is that - outside of the USA - prosperity simply hasn’t grown fast enough to allow the Thunderbirds-style stuff to flourish at scale. Instead we can now loft billionaires to the edge of space.
Well exactly. The issue wasn’t technological stagnation; it was that the problem Concorde was designed to solve turned out to be more easily soluble with video conferencing.The sad fact is that - outside of the USA - prosperity simply hasn’t grown fast enough to allow the Thunderbirds-style stuff to flourish at scale. Instead we can now loft billionaires to the edge of space.
No one wants a utopia, they just want to keep burning gas and making batteries with rare earth metals mined by questionable means.
It’s cheaper, leaving them money for spending on other cheap but sufficiently ‘ok’ stuff like 10yr throw-away kitchens etc.
Fusion is as far away as civilisation wants it to be.
Civilisation wants consumerist crap at the lowest price, not a utopia for their children.
Mr Whippy said:
Well exactly.
No one wants a utopia, they just want to keep burning gas and making batteries with rare earth metals mined by questionable means.
It’s cheaper, leaving them money for spending on other cheap but sufficiently ‘ok’ stuff like 10yr throw-away kitchens etc.
Fusion is as far away as civilisation wants it to be.
Civilisation wants consumerist crap at the lowest price, not a utopia for their children.
Read my mind there No one wants a utopia, they just want to keep burning gas and making batteries with rare earth metals mined by questionable means.
It’s cheaper, leaving them money for spending on other cheap but sufficiently ‘ok’ stuff like 10yr throw-away kitchens etc.
Fusion is as far away as civilisation wants it to be.
Civilisation wants consumerist crap at the lowest price, not a utopia for their children.
CraigyMc said:
hidetheelephants said:
Caruso said:
hidetheelephants said:
If power independent of weather is needed fission works fine, no need to spend an indeterminate and large sum on a science project.
Even when fission works fine (which is only most of the time) it leaves behind some pretty expensive long term problems. 
|https://thumbsnap.com/x5JtgxJv[/url]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-fro...
PlywoodPascal said:
CraigyMc said:
hidetheelephants said:
Caruso said:
hidetheelephants said:
If power independent of weather is needed fission works fine, no need to spend an indeterminate and large sum on a science project.
Even when fission works fine (which is only most of the time) it leaves behind some pretty expensive long term problems. |https://thumbsnap.com/x5JtgxJv[/url]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-fro...
hidetheelephants said:
It's right that discharge of radioactive waste should be regulated. Did you have a point?
Sure. Let me re-quote for your context.CraigyMc said:
hidetheelephants said:
Caruso said:
hidetheelephants said:
If power independent of weather is needed fission works fine, no need to spend an indeterminate and large sum on a science project.
Even when fission works fine (which is only most of the time) it leaves behind some pretty expensive long term problems. the link said:
Magnox Swarf Storage Silo (MSSS) facility leak
There is an ongoing leak of radioactive liquid from the MSSS facility at Sellafield into the ground. Sellafield Ltd estimate that the leak started in July 2019. They formally reported it to the Environment Agency in November 2019.
The cause of the leak is believed to be reopening of historical cracks in the facility structure that caused leakage to ground in the 1970s. When the leak resumed in 2019, its rate initially increased up to around 2,400 litres per day. It has stabilised at this level since October 2020.
We expect the leak to result in significant long-term consequence due to additional radioactive contamination of the ground and groundwater at Sellafield. This will need to be addressed in the clean-up of the site, with potentially significant implications for:
nuclear liabilities
the quantities of low and intermediate level waste resulting from the site clean-up
Based on the current understanding of the leak, we conclude that any risk to the off-site environment and public:
is expected to be very low
would be realised over an extended timescale
There is:
no risk to public water supply boreholes from the leak
no risk of drawing any contaminated groundwater towards these boreholes
We have classified the leak as category 1 (major) on our compliance and common incident classification schemes because of the long term consequence.
The Environment Agency’s formal investigation into the resumption of the leak resulted in a warning letter to Sellafield Limited in July 2022. The continued leakage represents an ongoing non-compliance with the permit. We recognise that there are significant challenges in addressing the leak because of the nature of the facility and its location. Therefore our regulatory focus is on working with Sellafield Ltd to ensure an effective and timely plan is implemented to address the leak.
As part of our regulatory response, in March 2021 we issued a series of improvement requirements for the MSSS (as part of a further variation to the permit).
The improvement requirements in the permit require action to tackle the MSSS leak. They aim to:
stop or minimise the current leak and its consequences
minimise the potential for further below ground leaks in the future
In July 2023 Sellafield Limited provided us with its detailed plan to meet these improvement requirements. The plan includes decisions to be taken on:
how and when to retrieve waste from the silos
possible implementation of measures in the silo and in ground to reduce the consequences of the leak
We assessed the plan and agreed to its delivery on 4 December 2023. Sellafield Limited is now required by conditions we introduced into its permit in response to the leak to implement the plan.
You're claiming that the magnox plants (because those are the ones that date to 1965) are zero emission; I've shown a link to their fuel being leaked into the environment over decades.There is an ongoing leak of radioactive liquid from the MSSS facility at Sellafield into the ground. Sellafield Ltd estimate that the leak started in July 2019. They formally reported it to the Environment Agency in November 2019.
The cause of the leak is believed to be reopening of historical cracks in the facility structure that caused leakage to ground in the 1970s. When the leak resumed in 2019, its rate initially increased up to around 2,400 litres per day. It has stabilised at this level since October 2020.
We expect the leak to result in significant long-term consequence due to additional radioactive contamination of the ground and groundwater at Sellafield. This will need to be addressed in the clean-up of the site, with potentially significant implications for:
nuclear liabilities
the quantities of low and intermediate level waste resulting from the site clean-up
Based on the current understanding of the leak, we conclude that any risk to the off-site environment and public:
is expected to be very low
would be realised over an extended timescale
There is:
no risk to public water supply boreholes from the leak
no risk of drawing any contaminated groundwater towards these boreholes
We have classified the leak as category 1 (major) on our compliance and common incident classification schemes because of the long term consequence.
The Environment Agency’s formal investigation into the resumption of the leak resulted in a warning letter to Sellafield Limited in July 2022. The continued leakage represents an ongoing non-compliance with the permit. We recognise that there are significant challenges in addressing the leak because of the nature of the facility and its location. Therefore our regulatory focus is on working with Sellafield Ltd to ensure an effective and timely plan is implemented to address the leak.
As part of our regulatory response, in March 2021 we issued a series of improvement requirements for the MSSS (as part of a further variation to the permit).
The improvement requirements in the permit require action to tackle the MSSS leak. They aim to:
stop or minimise the current leak and its consequences
minimise the potential for further below ground leaks in the future
In July 2023 Sellafield Limited provided us with its detailed plan to meet these improvement requirements. The plan includes decisions to be taken on:
how and when to retrieve waste from the silos
possible implementation of measures in the silo and in ground to reduce the consequences of the leak
We assessed the plan and agreed to its delivery on 4 December 2023. Sellafield Limited is now required by conditions we introduced into its permit in response to the leak to implement the plan.
Unless the point you're making is that radioactive emissions are fine so long as they avoid greenhouse gas ones, or that emissions only mean "in gas form", or that it is somehow better for the radiation to wind up in cumbria rather than where the powerplant is?
All of which is a consequence of the UK's nuclear weapons programme; a civil power system would not have had any requirement for any of that plant, it was planned and constructed hastily for production of plutonium for weapons. Reprocessing of used fuel has never made economic sense and is unlikely to until molten salt processing is perfected, reprocessing has only ever been done for military or political reasons.
hidetheelephants said:
All of which is a consequence of the UK's nuclear weapons programme; a civil power system would not have had any requirement for any of that plant, it was planned and constructed hastily for production of plutonium for weapons. Reprocessing of used fuel has never made economic sense and is unlikely to until molten salt processing is perfected, reprocessing has only ever been done for military or political reasons.
Hopefully you can see the logical fallacy of claimig "emissions free power since 1957" and then looking at the emissions that power caused though, right?CraigyMc said:
I should point out by the way -- I'm in favour of more fission reactors (ideally the RR SMR project), but I don't like inaccuracy either.
Fission's not clean, and is a risk. I'd just like it taken in that context.
Fusion isn't clean either! I've seen Culham's permit! Admittedly that is for tokomak based research and some of the other ideas currently being promoted might not be as inevitably active, but difficult to see a successful fusion plant without activation and therefore waste.Fission's not clean, and is a risk. I'd just like it taken in that context.
llewop said:
CraigyMc said:
I should point out by the way -- I'm in favour of more fission reactors (ideally the RR SMR project), but I don't like inaccuracy either.
Fission's not clean, and is a risk. I'd just like it taken in that context.
Fusion isn't clean either! I've seen Culham's permit! Admittedly that is for tokomak based research and some of the other ideas currently being promoted might not be as inevitably active, but difficult to see a successful fusion plant without activation and therefore waste.Fission's not clean, and is a risk. I'd just like it taken in that context.
CraigyMc said:
hidetheelephants said:
All of which is a consequence of the UK's nuclear weapons programme; a civil power system would not have had any requirement for any of that plant, it was planned and constructed hastily for production of plutonium for weapons. Reprocessing of used fuel has never made economic sense and is unlikely to until molten salt processing is perfected, reprocessing has only ever been done for military or political reasons.
Hopefully you can see the logical fallacy of claimig "emissions free power since 1957" and then looking at the emissions that power caused though, right?Those emissions aren’t from the power generation part. They are from nuclear weapons manufacturing that processes byproducts from nuclear power reactors. No weapons program, no Sellafield, no contamination, just conventional nuclear power plant waste that’s well understood and managed.
And no MAGNOX (or AGR) as they were good for plutonium production but not the best choice for power generation compared to the ubiquitous water cooled reactor variants.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff