Energy Debate: Fusion, or Solar?

[niky]

If power is being generated and consumed, then it's replacing power that would be produced by another means, even if production is erratic.

Note: I do agree with you that wind is not economical.

 

[Keef]

Not now, no. It probably could be. Storage technologies need to improve drastically for that and various other reasons.

So about this thorium. Was this even on the Table when I was in school? Why am I just now hearing about this element's usefulness if it was experimented with 50 years ago? The Cold War has been over for over 20...that seems like enough time for somebody to have put it back into use by now. If it's really as amazing as they say then why the hell not?

 

[Emptyone]

So about this thorium. Was this even on the Table when I was in school? Why am I just now hearing about this element's usefulness if it was experimented with 50 years ago? The Cold War has been over for over 20...that seems like enough time for somebody to have put it back into use by now. If it's really as amazing as they say then why the hell not?

The US government played with it in the '50's, and then went with Uranium, as it's useful for making bombs. Yes the Cold War is over, but there is now a vested interest in keeping the status quo, due to the fact we know how to do It relatively cheaply, it's easier than a whole new technology and it's still useful for making bombs.

It's mainly the developing powers like India and China that are looking at it. China sits on most of the worlds surface rare earth minerals, and thus gets a lot of useless Thorium as a extra, so putting that to use makes sense. India is sitting on a massive bed of Thorium too, so it's wants to make use of that as a viable alternative to Uranium.

I think that's why it's taken so long anyway.

 

[niky]

India already has one operational plant, I believe.

The problem for anything nuclear is the huge upfront costs. Thorium is potentially cheaper in terms of fuel cost than Uranium, but up-front costs are still pretty high, so there's little impetus to mothball existing Uranium reactors to replace them with Thorium.

Then again, the up-front costs for new Uranium reactors is huge, too.

 

[Emptyone]

All I can find is that India has plans to have one up and running in the next five years or so, not that it has one running now. Though there are a lot of research reactors going around the world.

The cost is part of the problem, as it's difficult to see the benefits of starting with a new fuel fresh if your a government that has already invested heavily in Uranium reactors. Though a fair amount of those present reactors are being mothballed anyway, in Germany, and here in the UK some are decades old.

The long term benefits outweigh the cost, but it's making that long term investment which is tricky.

 

[sumbrownkid]

India already has one operational plant, I believe.

The problem for anything nuclear is the huge upfront costs. Thorium is potentially cheaper in terms of fuel cost than Uranium, but up-front costs are still pretty high, so there's little impetus to mothball existing Uranium reactors to replace them with Thorium.

Then again, the up-front costs for new Uranium reactors is huge, too.

Not just that, it's the disposal of spent fuel rods, and the possible political and health related issues that will possibly whip up of storm of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

That, and governments still paranoid of terrorists doing terrorist things and what not.

And with India's track record of pollution, I won't be surprised if they tossed spent fuel rods into Pakistan's garbage dump...

 

[Johnnypenso]

If power is being generated and consumed, then it's replacing power that would be produced by another means, even if production is erratic.

Note: I do agree with you that wind is not economical.

It doesn't "replace" the basic energy generating infrastructure that's in place, meaning billions and billions spent on reducing CO2 emissions by next to nothing, relative to our overall output and the influence in Ontario of 150+ coal fired power plants blowing emissions into the province from the U.S. Midwest.

 

[Joel]

It doesn't "replace" the basic energy generating infrastructure that's in place, meaning billions and billions spent on reducing CO2 emissions by next to nothing, relative to our overall output and the influence in Ontario of 150+ coal fired power plants blowing emissions into the province from the U.S. Midwest.

Did you hear the big controversy? They had to move a bald eagle nest (endangered species, estimated only 50 nests in Ontario) to put in windmills!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you hear the big controversy? They had to move a bald eagle nest (endangered species, estimated only 50 nests in Ontario) to put in windmills!

No I didn't hear that, but given the economics of windmills, I'd rather scrap this particular windmill altogether, then build a camoflaged building near the nest and pay some university kids $30/hour, 24/7, just to watch the eagles and make sure no one messes with them. It would be far cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run relative to putting up the money pit of a windmill

 

[Danoff]

It's odd to me that solar seems to have come along and taken the wind out of the sails of fusion. Fusion has been the expected savior of mankind and the harbinger of a future of abundant power since I was born. Yet in the span of a decade, solar showed up and said "hold my beer".

In comparison, the report puts unsubdized levelized wind costs within a range of $26-$54 per MWh, utility-scale solar at $29-$42 per MWh, natural gas at $44-$73 per MWh and coal from $65-$159.

General Fusion hopes to ultimately produce power at a levelized cost of energy of $50-$60 per MWH, and has drawn up a business model to manufacture a system which can be easily deployed in replacement of fossil-fuel baseload power systems.

Say Company A successfully demonstrates fusion and can build a power plant that produces 150 MW of electricity for $0.7B. We don’t know how much it will cost to operate the fusion plant, but let’s assume that operating costs are roughly 40% of the LCOE, as for nuclear power plants, and that it will operate for 30 years. [7] The LCOE for this fusion plant would be $0.11/kWh. Considering EIA’s predictions of about $0.03–0.045/kWh for solar, wind and natural gas in 2040, it is unlikely that fusion will be the absolute cheapest source of electricity. Still, fusion may be economically attractive for small power plants in remote areas with low sunlight or access to other fuels (remember that Hawaii’s retail electricity price is almost 3X the national average).

Even if you assume based on the figures in the quote above that the fusion plant could be fully automated and have no cost to operate, it's still $0.08/kWh.

Solar is already reaching levels below the theoretical expected future cost of fusion power, solar is currently sitting at about $0.06/kwh.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I mean...solar is fusion.


Being serious, I don't think price per unit is the only consideration. A fusion plant the size of a building could likely power entire states, whereas solar takes up an enormous footprint. However, there is the case to be made for decentralizing...

 

[Danoff]

I mean...solar is fusion.


Being serious, I don't think price per unit is the only consideration. A fusion plant the size of a building could likely power entire states, whereas solar takes up an enormous footprint. However, there is the case to be made for decentralizing...

The solar footprint is not that "enormous". I guess it depends on what you consider to be enormous.

This footprint would power the entire world. Break it up into millions of pieces and spread it out. Or just use New Mexico... because... I mean it's New Mexico. Apparently it works out to 44% of Texas. Texas is definitely not using at least 44% of its land. Again, that's world electricity consumption.

 

[UKMikey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57512229.amp