Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The bottom like is that fusion energy is now engineering problem and not basic science problems. Engineering risks are more manageable and predictable.

It's like Manhattan project, you can do it if you want it bad enough.




This is simply not true. There are unsolved engineering problems and not just risks.


I think comparison with Manhattan project is appropriate. Manhattan project also had unsolved engineering problems, which they solved.


Fusion has fundamental engineering obstacles, not just unsolved problems.

The basic problem is that heat transfer limits guarantee that fusion reactors will be big and expensive (meaning: power density an order of magnitude worse than a fission reactor core, and probably worse than that.)

The core of a PWR fission reactor that one can build today has a power density of 100 MW per cubic meter. The power density of ITER (dividing the gross fusion power by the volume inside the cryostat) is 0.05 MW per cubice meter, 2000x worse. Other fusion designs aren't quite as ludicrous, but will still be much worse than fission.

The problem is that heat in the PWR has to get out of fuel rods that are 1 cm in diameter. The heat in a fusion reactor has to get out of a plasma vessel that is meters in diameter. The ratio of surface area/volume is orders of magnitude higher for the fission reactor.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: