
Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly - andyjenn
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/28/worlds-largest-nuclear-fusion-project-under-assembly-in-france
======
dmitrybrant
I'm not sure where people are getting this terminology of "unlimited" energy
from fusion. Nothing in the universe is unlimited. The earth's supply of
deuterium and/or tritium is not unlimited.

It's also not infinitely "clean" energy. A fusion reactor is not a black box
that is built once and never again maintained or rebuilt, or doesn't use any
consumable components besides fuel.

We already have the technology that gives us _nearly_ clean energy, namely
nuclear (fission) reactors. If we truly want to reduce CO2, we should be
ramping up nuclear power, as a bridge to switching to renewables in the long
term. If only nuclear power wasn't so politically... radioactive.

~~~
nsl73
Please, don’t act like nuclear fusion is a simple iteration of nuclear
fission. It’s a fundamentally different process.

Fusion would provide (much) more energy, use (much) less radioactive inputs,
and produce (much) less radioactive outputs. Fusion is significantly safer. In
a failure mode the fusion reaction will lose containment and die out like a
fire without oxygen. Fission rods will continue to produce heat & radiation in
a failure mode, and all failure modes of a fission power plant need to account
for this.

I’m actually pro fission, because the risks of fission are lower than the
risks of coal, oil, and natural gas. Yes, the article was hyperbolic. However,
you’re under-hyping the advancement of fusion. When fusion comes it will be
politically palpable globally, cleaner than fission, and it will reduce the
cost of energy significantly.

~~~
sandworm101
The actual reactive core is safer, it cannot meltdown, but we don't know much
about the support systems just yet. With all that energy running through the
magnets, the pressures involved in the contemplated energy collection system,
there is a potential for catastrophic failure modes. A steam explosion isn't
nuclear bomb but can still kill. Fusion is safer than fission but I wouldn't
yet call it safer than solar panels.

~~~
regularfry
Depends how you're measuring risk. Microdeaths per megawatt-year?

The thing about a fusion plant is that there likely won't be that many people
on site. Failure modes for the most part ought to look like conventional
explosions, which we largely know how to mitigate where they're likely.

What worries me, with the sequence of plants, starting with ITER and DEMO, is
that because of the scaling laws that seem to be involved, we're heading
towards very few gigantic generators, where they're each responsible for such
a large proportion of the power supply that we couldn't cope with any one of
them going offline. The immediate power loss itself could be responsible for
loss of life.

------
akmarinov
Virtually unlimited clean energy like that would allow us to vacuum back the
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reverse the damage we’ve done in the
past 200 years, while allowing us to continue with our fossil fuel
infrastructure.

It’ll also enable unlimited desalination which would allow more crops and a
lot more food, ending a whole mess of problems.

~~~
hannob
I'm honestly surprised where these fantasies come from.

In order to get that energy you'll have to build a hugely complex industrial
installation. That won't be for free. It won't be easy. If it will even be
possible remains to be seen. You'll still need transmission lines and other
infrastructure that costs money.

Whether it'll work and if it works whether it will be cost competitive to
renewable energy (still improving and getting cheaper) remains to be seen. But
it almost certainly won't be "virtually unlimited".

~~~
spodek
From misunderstanding exponential growth, which it will jump start. They think
people will continue to live as they do now, just with lower electric bills.

Norman Borlaug on receiving the Nobel Prize for the green revolution, said it
well:

 _" The green revolution has won a temporary success in man's war against
hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully
implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during
the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must
also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be
ephemeral only._

 _Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the
"Population Monster"...Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I
am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-
destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population
growth..."_

We haven't steered away from that course. Fusion would accelerate us on it. If
we have to come into balance at some point, why not now instead of when we
exhaust fusion's potential? Why does this community think we can solve every
technical problem from the moon to Mars to fusion, but we can't live in
balance with nature?

~~~
vladTheInhaler
Except that we actually _have_ steered away from this course, though not
through any conscious decision. More economically developed nations tend to
have lower birth rates, with the most affluent somewhat below the rate of
replacement. In my opinion, the best method to curb population growth is to
get more of the world up to that standard - and energy production is evidently
a huge factor. See for instance the work of Hans Rosling.

And either way, energy-intensive practices wouldn't accelerate environmental
destruction, they would _enable_ us have a smaller footprint in the natural
world through, for instance, vertical farming (currently infeasible because
electricity is more expensive than sunlight), carbon capture, switching from
aquifers to desalinated seawater, etc.

------
chabad360
Already discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23979608](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23979608)

