Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamzerner | Hacker News Reader

I don't know much about fusion. It seems that the breakthrough they're talking about is that reactors are ~10x smaller. Why is this a big deal? Square footage is plentiful. I thought the problems are safety and how much energy it could produce.

View on HN

One big difference is the smaller the device, the quicker and cheaper it is to iterate. If it takes 15 years and $X billion to build and test your device, then progress gets measured on a per-lifetime instead of per-year basis. If your device can be built in a year and for $X millions instead, the testing and debugging can be done much faster. For a software dev comparison, think waterfall versus agile.

Because these relatively small reactors can be made to tie in with existing gas turbine power plants. They can ship these replacement fusion plants all over the world. http://aviationweek.com/blog/high-hopes-can-compact-fusion-u...

If it's 10x smaller it is available for portable applications. Like boats/planes/space ships. It would also presumably be easier to air drop in developing regions to bypass building a giant energy grid (similar to cell phone deployment).

I think it's less about the size in square feet than the size in dollars (including installation, maintenance, and waste disposal). The pool of people willing to buy a $100M device is small. The pool of people willing to buy a $10M device - even if it's less efficient - is much larger. That makes it a potential revenue source, instead of an eternal revenue sink. Much as fusion doesn't become technically useful until energy output exceeds energy input, it doesn't become economically useful until revenue (for its maker) exceeds cost.

Take a look at the footprint of ITER. It surprised me how massive the thing is planned to be. That's the competition.

> Take a look,at the footprint of ITER

Or any other power plant for that matter.

"If it sounds too good to be true..."

The area energy density of ITER is particularly low. The whole plant is only designed to produce 500MW, on a concrete platform 1000mx400m.

Compare that to this: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Barking+Power+Station,+B... google.co.uk

That's a 20 year old 1GW combined cycle gas plant, in a building roughly 50mx150m. Anything they can do to bring fusion plants smaller than ITER is going to help.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com