Will fusion power.....

[brenthutch 383]

Render wind and solar obsolete?

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Render wind and solar obsolete?

Cold fusion will.

[billvon 2,400]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Render wind and solar obsolete?

If it works and is cost effective, yes.  

But keep in mind that  Lewis Strauss, chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, said this of the promise of nuclear power in 1954:

"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter . . "

So now we are 65 years on, and Walter Marshall's kids have retired.

The promise of cheap nuclear power has been been around for a long time.  Unfortunately even after decades of refinement, nuclear fission is still one of the most expensive forms of power around.  From what we've seen so far (ITER in France) fusion plants will be even more expensive, take far longer to build and generate less thermal power than fission plants.  ITER will take at least 22 years to build, has already cost $14 billion, and will not generate enough heat to effectively generate electricity.  If all that works they might be able to look at starting to build a fusion power reactor around 2040.

So barring a breakthrough, fusion won't be a source of energy for decades.

In the meantime there are plenty of options for nuclear that are available more quickly.  Small modular reactors like the Toshiba SMART reactor (licensed) and the Nuscale reactor (in process) can be built quickly and relatively easily, at least compared to conventional nuclear plants.  Nuclear for baseline power (reliable) with renewables for daytime energy (cheap and clean) plus natural gas/hydro for peaking (flexible) would be a good combination.

[turtlespeed 212]

23 minutes ago, billvon said:

If it works and is cost effective, yes.  

But keep in mind that  Lewis Strauss, chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, said this of the promise of nuclear power in 1954:

"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter . . "

So now we are 65 years on, and Walter Marshall's kids have retired.

The promise of cheap nuclear power has been been around for a long time.  Unfortunately even after decades of refinement, nuclear fission is still one of the most expensive forms of power around.  From what we've seen so far (ITER in France) fusion plants will be even more expensive, take far longer to build and generate less thermal power than fission plants.  ITER will take at least 22 years to build, has already cost $14 billion, and will not generate enough heat to effectively generate electricity.  If all that works they might be able to look at starting to build a fusion power reactor around 2040.

So barring a breakthrough, fusion won't be a source of energy for decades.

In the meantime there are plenty of options for nuclear that are available more quickly.  Small modular reactors like the Toshiba SMART reactor (licensed) and the Nuscale reactor (in process) can be built quickly and relatively easily, at least compared to conventional nuclear plants.  Nuclear for baseline power (reliable) with renewables for daytime energy (cheap and clean) plus natural gas/hydro for peaking (flexible) would be a good combination.

Wouldn't that take a complete overhaul of the current power grid?

[DJL 232]

38 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Render wind and solar obsolete?

There will never be any single thing that makes the benefits of a mixed system of power generation obsolete.  Simply the inability to modulate a reactor over the full spectrum of demand makes nuke-only impossible.  Next, while nuke energy has good applications we can only use it at the rate at which we can deal with its radioactive waste.  In the scope of the existence of humanity remember that we just stopped using open flames indoors to see in the dark.

[billvon 2,400]

13 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Wouldn't that take a complete overhaul of the current power grid?

Not a big one.  One of the benefits of SMR's is that you put them where the loads are; they are typically 50-250 megawatts, not the 1-2 gigawatts of larger plants.  We already have the gas plants, and renewables have been built out in California to the point where they supply 95% of our electrical load on good days - without significant changes to the grid.  DG (distributed generation) is ideal for the grid, because only local powerlines carry the load.

What will be needed are new SCADA systems to manage a more flexible grid.  Most grid systems only allow power flow in one direction.

[turtlespeed 212]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

Not a big one.  One of the benefits of SMR's is that you put them where the loads are; they are typically 50-250 megawatts, not the 1-2 gigawatts of larger plants.  We already have the gas plants, and renewables have been built out in California to the point where they supply 95% of our electrical load on good days - without significant changes to the grid.  DG (distributed generation) is ideal for the grid, because only local powerlines carry the load.

What will be needed are new SCADA systems to manage a more flexible grid.  Most grid systems only allow power flow in one direction.

So - just reuse the old Distribution hubs as generation stations?

[gowlerk 1,912]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Render wind and solar obsolete?

Solar power and wind power are both fusion power. I can see no reason to believe that we need to move the fusion reactor any closer than 93 million miles away.

[AlanS 1]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Render wind and solar obsolete?

I don't think we will see any fusion power plants in the next 50 years, and maybe never. 

If you want to cut greenhouse gasses in a meaningful way, it is better to focus on the next generation nuclear fission reactors for base-load power, and solar and wind with batteries for peak load.  Then phase out coal, and natural gas power plant.

Edited May 24, 2019 by AlanS

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 hours ago, AlanS said:

I don't think we will see any fusion power plants in the next 50 years, and maybe never...

I've heard it said that "Fusion is the power of the future... And always will be."

 

Small scale fusion reactors are largely impractical. A sustained and stable reaction (that generates more power than it requires) needs to be big. Really big. 

So for us to see "Fusion power plants" like we do fission plants is far more fantasy than reality.

OTOH, we DO have a large scale fusion reaction readily available. With enough fuel onboard to last for a couple billion more years. It would be far more practical to develop ways to more efficiently and effectively capture that energy than to try to develop small scale fusion.