Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sure, I understand delta-T, and Carnot haunts my nightmares.

My question about fusion isn't about thermodynamic efficiency, but about economics. Our waste heat solutions produced electricity at about 2x the LCOE of a natural gas turbine. Since it was carbon-free electricity, by selling the carbon credits we could get close to the ROI of a natural gas plant. A NG plant might have a 20 year IRR of 14-16% - we could get to 11 or 12. But that was enough to kill the project.

And we have other technologies that produce carbon free electricity at a price close but not quite at NG turbines - renewables + storage, for example, or geothermal. But those aren't considered economic to build right now, despite being here and ready and understood.

I might be wrong, but I can't imagine a nuclear fusion plant getting within spitting distance of a NG plant for capital cost. And if it's even twice as much money -- which seems wildly optimistic -- maybe nobody will build them. Or maybe they will, because there are other factors at play besides carbon free electricity and cost! That's what I'm asking - what are those other factors?



Coal plants runs on heat as coal isn't explosive enough to run turbines directly. If they are affordable then so is fusion heat. So the question is if we can generate fusion heat at low enough cost.


They are not affordable. That's why they are being replaced by gas plants and renewables all over the place.




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

Search: