A nuclear fusion reactor in China, dubbed the "artificial sun," has broken its own record to bring humanity one step closer to near-limitless clean energy.
IIUC the end goal, for any fusion reactor, is to heat up water and drive a steam turbine.
Imagine you could drive a steam turbine at zero cost. What happens if just keeping that turbine running costs more in upkeep than e.g. solar panels do overall?
Is there really much of an economic case for infinite energy on demand (and that is if fusion can be made to work in not just the base load case) if we have infinite energy at home already?
I really feel the urge to correct the “infinite power part” because it hurts my soul as a (wannabe) physicist.
There exist no thing like infinite energy generator because energy is always conserved (well, there are some weird corner cases this isn’t true, but that is another lesson).
There are massive “transformators” of energy known as stars (like our Sun)which expel radiation in massive quantities thanks to its humongous size and will take billions of years until it grows into a giant red star and more billions of years until it explodes into a white dwarf (If I recall it correctly).
Billions or even “measly” millions of years is basically “infinite” for human lifespan, I agree.
But it still is finite.
Fusion won’t be “infinite” (billions nor even millions of years) because it will be basically a “microscopic sun”
We’d need something a bit bigger than Jupiter to get something closer to a “infinite-red-dwarf-energy-generator”.
And Jupiter’s diameter is around 10 or 11 Earths diameter, so it is something that is already a big massive for humans to do.
I’d say that photovoltaic cells for solar energy would be easier to make “infinite energy” becuse we are copying what the best “infinite energy users” (also known as plants) have been doing for millions of years.
Fusion reactors don’t necessarily need to heat water. I’m aware of at least one company that is developing a power plant which primarily uses induction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_Energy
Even if not a single residential property gets hooked up to a fusion generator, there will still be an economic case for fusion, especially as you move away from the equator. Industrial applications require an enormous amount of energy, and with solar power having a hard limit on the amount of energy you can get from a square meter, you’d have to have square miles of panels and batteries to keep one plant going.
Average transmission costs for grid is 8c/kwh in US. There are also fixed monthly fees of distribution networks, and meter readings, and utility asking you to pay for its billing/collection staff. $20 to $50/month. Home solar is economic at just the 8c/kwh transmission costs, and cheaper when no grid connection is tolerated. Its much more affordable in Australia than US, due to utility BS and tariffs, but will still provide a tax free ROI higher than 30 year bonds in US.
Fusion power will cost at least 30c/kwh, even if its touted as free energy, because there is a massive infrastructure capital cost that involves a fission plant to not only make tritium, but provide startup/sustained energy input.
IIUC the end goal, for any fusion reactor, is to heat up water and drive a steam turbine.
Imagine you could drive a steam turbine at zero cost. What happens if just keeping that turbine running costs more in upkeep than e.g. solar panels do overall?
Is there really much of an economic case for infinite energy on demand (and that is if fusion can be made to work in not just the base load case) if we have infinite energy at home already?
I really feel the urge to correct the “infinite power part” because it hurts my soul as a (wannabe) physicist.
There exist no thing like infinite energy generator because energy is always conserved (well, there are some weird corner cases this isn’t true, but that is another lesson).
There are massive “transformators” of energy known as stars (like our Sun)which expel radiation in massive quantities thanks to its humongous size and will take billions of years until it grows into a giant red star and more billions of years until it explodes into a white dwarf (If I recall it correctly).
Billions or even “measly” millions of years is basically “infinite” for human lifespan, I agree.
But it still is finite.
Fusion won’t be “infinite” (billions nor even millions of years) because it will be basically a “microscopic sun”
We’d need something a bit bigger than Jupiter to get something closer to a “infinite-red-dwarf-energy-generator”.
And Jupiter’s diameter is around 10 or 11 Earths diameter, so it is something that is already a big massive for humans to do.
I’d say that photovoltaic cells for solar energy would be easier to make “infinite energy” becuse we are copying what the best “infinite energy users” (also known as plants) have been doing for millions of years.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/SolarSystem_OrdersOfMagnitude_Sun-Jupiter-Earth-Moon.jpg
The economic case for infinite power is that it is infinite power, Karen.
Not everything needs to be a fucking profitable business, god damn ferengi idiots.
Fusion reactors don’t necessarily need to heat water. I’m aware of at least one company that is developing a power plant which primarily uses induction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_Energy
Even if not a single residential property gets hooked up to a fusion generator, there will still be an economic case for fusion, especially as you move away from the equator. Industrial applications require an enormous amount of energy, and with solar power having a hard limit on the amount of energy you can get from a square meter, you’d have to have square miles of panels and batteries to keep one plant going.
Average transmission costs for grid is 8c/kwh in US. There are also fixed monthly fees of distribution networks, and meter readings, and utility asking you to pay for its billing/collection staff. $20 to $50/month. Home solar is economic at just the 8c/kwh transmission costs, and cheaper when no grid connection is tolerated. Its much more affordable in Australia than US, due to utility BS and tariffs, but will still provide a tax free ROI higher than 30 year bonds in US.
Fusion power will cost at least 30c/kwh, even if its touted as free energy, because there is a massive infrastructure capital cost that involves a fission plant to not only make tritium, but provide startup/sustained energy input.