this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
100 points (99.0% liked)

Green Energy

2282 readers
82 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Retrofitting a nuclear fission plant for fusion? There's no way that's even remotely feasible, the two are radically different in construction.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They sound pretty similar. How hard can it be?

Just make the plant go in reverse.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Both make heat. Both need heat exchangers. Heat exchangers and the surrounding facility is the majority of the construction. I wish people would stop blabbering without knowing a thing on power production.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Go look at a video on ITER and see how hard that will be to fit inside a fission plant.

If ITER is a success they were planning to make a bigger one for commercial use.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So you make a seperate building to enclose it while keeping the multiple tons of pipes and concrete used for the fission heat exchanger. Listen, this is both above our heads but the general concepts are applicable. Make the sites now and worst case scenario we keep using fission. Oh no.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's certainly above both our heads but I did nuclear physics at university and I'm not sure what you are talking about is possible. I'm happy to see something otherwise but my limited understanding makes me think it is entirely impossible.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Honestly that's pretty cool that you studied nuclear physics, I'm not sure if it's possible either but we still need the plants even if it isn't. My understanding of energy production, even with a 7 year or longer time frame, tells me we need these facilities three decades ago but right now works too.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Just to clarify I did a module on nuclear physics. I didn't get a full degree in nuclear physics.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The only difference is the core. The entire apparatus around it that converts heat into steam, those big ass funnels of concrete, are what take fucking years to build. It would still safe a ton of time if and when fusion becomes sustainable.

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Highly optimistic. For one, the specific parameters of the core dictate the shape, size and configuration of all of the apparatus around it. You can't just slot in a different heat generator and call it good to go. Secondly, there's no guarantee that your future fusion reactor core even fits in the footprint of your fission plant. You have no idea what size and shape it will take.

Finally, your assertion is incorrect. Steam turbines, heat exchangers, and cooling towers are comparatively simple, low risk, and well understood parts of a nuclear reactor. The safety features, checks, design reviews, bureaucracy and permitting surrounding the core itself are what take the most time. Any part that could lead to radioactive containment breach.