this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
746 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

10694 readers
4525 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
746
puts hair on ya chest (mander.xyz)
submitted 6 days ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gork@lemm.ee 50 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Too 👏 cheap 👏 to 👏 meter

[–] Zink@programming.dev 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Given the up-front cost of any kind of reactor, I don’t think the concept of a usage-based electric bill goes away as long as it’s corporations competing for customers. Maybe eventually it would be like ISPs where it’s a flat fee depending on the size of your connection. I guess it could be totally unmetered then.

Like so many things, it gets a lot simpler if it’s the government supplying the service.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not too cheap to meter even when provided as a public service. Nuclear is more expensive than battery + solar, more expensive than wind, more expensive than coal

"Too cheap to meter" was a lie that ignored costs of safety and decommissioning.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah I agree, and you still hear that BS about fusion power, that it will be an unlimited source of cheap/free clean energy.

I guess I could imagine scenarios where power is not metered and is supported via taxes, maybe in a scenario where citizens have a right to energy just like a right to healthcare. It’s not free by any means, but the people who make the most money and thus benefit the most from the infrastructure end up paying into it the most. And the truly poor would get free (to them) electricity.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I really wonder about fusion. Most of the news of energy production higher than energy input is about non-electricity fusion - the big tokamak fusion systems are not yet producing more power than they take to run, but scientists working on them are expecting good results soon

Like when I was a kid fusion was 20 years away and would always be 20 years away. Now it looks like it'll be 5 years away for a while

[–] Zink@programming.dev 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I like to follow fusion news whenever I see it, and I think the situation might be even worse than you’re describing, lol.

The news about ignition and/or more energy out than in, that refers to the energy actually delivered to the sample versus the full energy released from the sample. So it doesn’t include all the energy needed to charge and fire the lasers that was lost along the way. And like you said, it’s the thermal power they’re measuring, and you lose a huge amount of that power when converting to electricity.

I think we’re still firmly in the “fusion is 20/30 years away” cycle.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'm hanging out for when ITER is operational. There's every chance it runs at or just over 1:1

[–] Zink@programming.dev 1 points 3 hours ago

Oh yeah, I think ITER is supposed to have a Q of like 10, so maybe they can produce a net gain system-wide.