Solar power with fusion reactors

[Dan Tibbets]

Cost efficiency and reliability are of course root considerations. but this is modified somewhat by political considerations. Government subsidies,and mandates, and public perception plays a role. The contribution may be artificial or even silly and often considerations like percentage contribution that is tolerable is not stressed. The picture is complex. My perception is that solar photovoltaics and even wind are moderatly attractive so long as their penetration (percentage of base load) is not too high. The cost to bring these systems online is close to coal, the operating costs are possibly low. The problem with fusion as represented by the Tokamak is that if the physics and engineering actually works, the cost of building the plants and operating them far exceeds even the heavily over supplied photovoltaics that would provide adequate coverage (most of the time).

This is one reason I am a Polywell fan boy. This fusion approach along with others like FRC, DPF, General Fusion, and possibly even stellarators actually have some potential to be be practical electrical power plants if they work (that is a big if). Tokamaks are a dead end.
I even appreciate the potential for advanced uranium and thorium fission plants, But the radioactive waste products and accident vulnerability in these systems is scary. Also, the costs are currently marginal, advanced designs would probably push them out contention, unless supported by government interventions.

Boiling water from these relatively small (and thus relatively cheap) reactors is the baseline requirement for deliverable electrical power. Improvements to the steam cycle, supercritical CO2 , direct conversion, recovery of waste heat through thermocouples or heating streets as in Stockholm can improve the picture somewhat. But the baseline requirement is the production of excess energy in a package that is economical.

Dan Tibbets

[Richard Hull]

We gotta' get there even if it costs billions!? It already has! The rush to give billions more to something that still hasn't happened is losing its appeal real fast with the holders and dolers of the money substances. Money and econmics drive it all and all the good wishes and the wringing of the hands, don't feed th' bulldog.

Ricahrd Hull

[Kiernynn Lewis]

Yes, money is an issue, but I don't think it should stop us from improving and trying different things. Like you said Richard, we gotta do. We can't let these obstacles loom over us and stop us from doing things that might work. It'd suck if we had the information and ideas that would actually work and then not do them because of money issues. I understand that we do need money to actually, y'know, DO things but ideas like "oh I'll never get money from that" or "I'll never get enough money to do that" will only stop plausible ideas. Since we already have fed billions into it, we'll just have to feed in billions more. Until we get it right or everyone on the planet stops believing it could work.

[Richard Hull]

Perhaps long before fusion power is a reality, the world energy crunch just might force more fission reactors to be produced (thorium breeders, traveling wave fission, etc.), or even more coal plants. Depends on the dire nature of the shortage and how far short of a crying need, the shortage becomes. It is nice knowing there are quick fixes there as fusion continuously languishes.

Richard Hull