[HN Gopher] Tests show high-temperature superconducting magnets ...
___________________________________________________________________
Tests show high-temperature superconducting magnets are ready for
fusion
Author : paulsutter
Score : 33 points
Date : 2024-03-08 22:35 UTC (25 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (news.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu)
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| ...in thirty years.
| artninja1988 wrote:
| ...from the date of anyone asking, always
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| > only needs hydrogen atoms for fuel rather than rare and
| dangerous elements like uranium and plutonium
|
| hydrogen isn't exactly the safest element. not that any element
| is truly safe if used in the wrong way.
| porkbeer wrote:
| How is it unsafe? I just electroplated on my desk and hydrogen
| was formed (right next to pure o2) with zero danger. Sure, an
| accumulated mix near stoich might be an issue, but that is easy
| to avoid.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| and you can split water and make neat bubbles of two
| elements. more likely to shock yourself than make a boom.
|
| most elements are safe if you handle them properly. that
| assumes nothing outside of your control. and no one.
| u320 wrote:
| So he's pushing an energy solution that requires Tritium. One
| of the rarest elements of earth. And then has the nerve to
| accuse fission of relying on rare elements.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Who is he and where are they pushing tritium?
|
| Is the word tritium in the article? Chrome can't find it.
|
| Is hydrogen more common than uranium?
|
| Is hydrogen more common than plutonium?
|
| What do you mean by "the nerve to accuse"?
|
| What quote demonstrates "accuse"?
|
| Full disclosure: I live in Cambridge, MA, where MIT is
| located.
| dang wrote:
| Url changed from https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-magnets-ready-
| fusion, which points to this.
|
| (Normally we prefer the best third-party article to a press
| release but the balance of information here points the other
| way.)
| bananapub wrote:
| I really wish people involved in fusion research, and their
| university/corporate PR colleagues, had not spent the last forty
| years poisoning the fucking well. fusion power is still so far
| away that it can't even figure in to our plans for reducing
| emissions to zero, and yet people still publish articles like
| this to muddy the waters and make it sound like it matters in the
| short term at all.
| cubefox wrote:
| The real question is whether it can ever compete against
| fission in terms of cost. Currently it looks like fusion power
| plants will be substantially more expensive than fission power
| plants.
| u320 wrote:
| > "Overnight, it basically changed the cost per watt of a fusion
| reactor by a factor of almost 40 in one day,"
|
| So there is this myth that fusion enables unlimited cheap energy.
| This is 100% false. It's not unlimited at all. Most concepts
| relies on using lithium-6. That's not a super common element.
|
| But more importantly, it's not cheap. That should be obvious, if
| you could reduce the cost per watt 40x and still not be
| competitive.
| pinewurst wrote:
| It's interesting that it took 3 years from the physical test
| until paper publication.
| saagarjha wrote:
| The fusion will be power to create AGI, of course. The AGI will
| help find the cure to cancer.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-08 23:00 UTC)