Comment by icanhackit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by icanhackit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

think of finance in terms of latency/bandwidth [...] reactors are high latency - they're expensive and take a long time to set up

I like this metaphor. I think what you might have implied but didn't explicitly mention was distributed vs centralized when thinking about these systems as well. Solar can be a distributed system whereas fission & fusion systems are centralized.

Even though you can make small fission systems and IIRC Skunkworks is working on a small fusion reactor (small = fits on freight truck...once the damn thing works) you still have issues with waste, heat, faults etc. so they need to remain isolated from living space. Thus they are better utilized in a centralized manner.

Sticking with the computer/internet metaphors, you could consider solar to be like a Solid State Drive while fission is very much the classic HDD, moving parts and all. The elimination of moving parts/complexity to generate electricity makes solar suitable for the home just as NAND is better for portable devices like phones.

Pros: speed vs capacity, Cons: cost vs complexity - pick one from each pile.

Faults are not a serious issue with a fusion reactor beyond it breaking down. Neither is waste - an inert reactor is harmless unless you insist on crowbaring into the core to bathe in all those activated inner wall materials.

Faults are not a serious issue with a fusion reactor beyond it breaking down

That's what I mean in the context of centralized vs distributed - replacing a faulty solar panel is no biggie. Replacing a micro fusion reactor, while not as bad as replacing a tokamak reactor, is significant.

Neither is waste [...] unless you insist on crowbaring into the core

Reactors still need to be decommissioned at some point, though you're right - it's trivial comparatively. I will do a dance when fusion is a thing and the world will be a better place.

crowbaring into the core

This is all Freeman's fault, isn't it.

Faults are not a serious issue with a fusion reactor, because energy-positive, sustaining fusion reactors don't exist.

Yet.

I'd love to see this change, but I'm not gambling humanity's future on the assumption that this is a solvable problem.

Faults are not a serious issue with a fusion reactor beyond it breaking down. Neither is waste - an inert reactor is harmless unless you insist on crowbaring into the core to bathe in all those activated inner wall materials.

Interesting analogy and choice of words since UPower is building a solid state reactor.

From what I can gather it's solid state in the sense that it's a passive system that doesn't require pumps but it still involves heat creating steam which in turn drives generators. The liquid changes phase from liquid to gas then cools to a liquid again, so it can remain self-contained.

Very cool, but feels kinda not as solid if you know what I mean. Don't want to downplay how neat it is though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com