Fusion Power Economic Impact: An Overview

[Stephanus]

Dear PF Forum,
Can anyone give an idea.
Supposed fusion power is available. With its limitless fuel source from the ocean. What would happen?
How much would this energy cost in term of money compared to gasoline and electricity?
In fission, the fuel is expensive (uranium).

 

[mfb]

That is the (possible) trillion-dollar question ITER and DEMO are supposed to answer. There are multiple estimates, but without a demo power plant it is impossible to get a reliable number.

In fission, the fuel is expensive (uranium).

Per kilogram, but not per kWh. Fuel is just a few percent of the total cost of fission.

 

[Stephanus]

That is the (possible) trillion-dollar question ITER and DEMO are supposed to answer. There are multiple estimates, but without a demo power plant it is impossible to get a reliable number.
Per kilogram, but not per kWh. Fuel is just a few percent of the total cost of fission.

I mean comparing 1 Kg U235 vs (3250 * 18+1) / 2 Kg of sea water. Plus 1.5 Kg Litium or Tritium. Perhaps Litium, it is much cheaper.

 

[Czcibor]

I mean comparing 1 Kg U235 vs (3250 * 18+1) / 2 Kg of sea water. Plus 1.5 Kg Litium or Tritium. Perhaps Litium, it is much cheaper.

The US Nuclear Energy Institute suggests that for a coal-fired plant 78% of the cost is the fuel, for a gas-fired plant the figure is 89%, and for nuclear the uranium is about 14%

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/
(different estimates in the article, also one with less than 10%)

Assuming that powerplants cost per kwh would be the same (looks as more complicated and more expensive, though maybe there would be some economics of scale) the result is similar like cutting nuclear energy cost by 14%. Does itsound like impending revolution? ;)

 

[Stephanus]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/
(different estimates in the article, also one with less than 10%)

Assuming that powerplants cost per kwh would be the same (looks as more complicated and more expensive, though maybe there would be some economics of scale) the result is similar like cutting nuclear energy cost by 14%. Does itsound like impending revolution? ;)

That's an interesting link that you give.
I mean the fuel cost of fission power plant (uranium) vs the fuel cost of fusion power plant (sea water, or just water, where we get deuterium)

 

[Czcibor]

That's an interesting link that you give.
I mean the fuel cost of fission power plant (uranium) vs the fuel cost of fusion power plant (sea water, or just water, where we get deuterium)

My point is (mfb tried to say that too ;) ) that fuel cost for nuclear energy production is a small part of bill. The main part is capital cost (read: construction cost and paying off the mortgage ;) ).

In most calculation it leads to nuclear energy being already quite cheap source. (there is a tricky part of how high interest rates and how many decades the power station would work, which is a bit guessing incoming safety regulations).

 

[Stephanus]

My point is (mfb tried to say that too ;) ) that fuel cost for nuclear energy production is a small part of bill. The main part is capital cost (read: construction cost and paying off the mortgage ;) ).

In most calculation it leads to nuclear energy being already quite cheap source. (there is a tricky part of how high interest rates and how many decades the power station would work, which is a bit guessing incoming safety regulations).

Yes, I think you're right in that point. Reading from your link, fuel cost is relatively small compared to construction and operating cost.

 

[Czcibor]

Yes, I think you're right in that point. Reading from your link, fuel cost is relatively small compared to construction and operating cost.

So is your question, concerning result of a bit cheaper nuclear (assuming no longer any phobias related) valid? Because I see a few results, but not sure whether it would be interesting for you.

 

[Stephanus]

So is your question, concerning result of a bit cheaper nuclear (assuming no longer any phobias related) valid? Because I see a few results, but not sure whether it would be interesting for you.

I don't know about the cost of power plant. But if I remember back then in 1990's. The price of Intel 486 processor is $400 to $500. Now it cost nothing ($400 if you consider it antique ). Perhaps the cost of power plant will dramatically decrease? Or it's not the case with power plant.

 

[Czcibor]

I don't know about the cost of power plant. But if I remember back then in 1990's. The price of Intel 486 processor is $400 to $500. Now it cost nothing ($400 if you consider it antique ). Perhaps the cost of power plant will dramatically decrease? Or it's not the case with power plant.

I'd say it's not the case for anything except electronics.

Progress more realistically:
Fuel efficiency:

Thermal power plants:

(I picked up those indicators, because I could easily found data)

 

[Czcibor]

Fuel efficiency for aircraft:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/media/2005-12_nlr_aviation_fuel_efficiency.pdf

 

[Stephanus]

I'd say it's not the case for anything except electronics.

Except electronics! Yes, yes, it's clear now for me!
Thanks.
Okay, can I ask a personal opinion?. I'm dreaming about a bright future in human civilization. One of the important key is the energy.
A Russian scientist, I think, I forgot the name that once set the level of civilization.
The level of civilization is determined by how the civilization uses/consumes energy.
Level 0, just like on us, now.
Level 1, just like at Star Trek
Level 2, just like Star Wars
Level 3, ...?
It seems that energy plays a very important role in civilization.
What do you think of the future of fusion power for human civilization in the NEAR future? Is it going to be cheap if in operation at all?

 

[mfb]

1 kg of deuterium is much more expensive than 7000 kg of sea water as you have to separate it from protium ("regular hydrogen"). Still negligible compared to the cost of fusion reactors.

Power plants are not semiconductors, their price does not go down like that. You can make a billion transistors in parallel (scaled up from a million a while ago), but not a billion power plants.

Kardashev scale

 

[Stephanus]

[..]Power plants are not semiconductors, their price does not go down like that. You can make a billion transistors in parallel (scaled up from a million a while ago), but not a billion power plants.

A billion power plants parallel production!
LOL, Okay, okay I've got the point.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know about the cost of power plant. But if I remember back then in 1990's. The price of Intel 486 processor is $400 to $500. Now it cost nothing ($400 if you consider it antique ). Perhaps the cost of power plant will dramatically decrease? Or it's not the case with power plant.

No. A computer chip is a piece of technology, not a building. The cost of buildings and non-technology products do not follow Moore's Law, never have and never will. The materials and labor that go into them always get more expensive over time, not less.

Fundamentally, I see no reason why a fusion plant should be less expensive than a fission plant, especially since fusion is proving to so difficult to make happen (unlike fission, which was immediately commercially deployable). So the economics works like this:

1. If the fuel for fusion power were free and the plant cost the same to build, fusion power would cost 14% less than fission power.

That's not a very compelling promise for something we've been waiting for decades for and spending enormous sums of money for without success.

What do you think of the future of fusion power for human civilization in the NEAR future? Is it going to be cheap if in operation at all?

For the above reasons, I think fusion power is near totally irrelevant for the near and long term future of civilization. And if it ever gets in operation at all will not be any cheaper than fission power.

Remember: pretty much the only thing we know for sure about fusion power is that it is a lot more difficult to do than fission power.

 

[Stephanus]

[..]Remember: pretty much the only thing we know for sure about fusion power is that it is a lot more difficult to do than fission power.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[russ_watters]

Quick additional explanation and caveat to this:

No. A computer chip is a piece of technology, not a building. The cost of buildings and non-technology products do not follow Moore's Law, never have and never will. The materials and labor that go into them always get more expensive over time, not less.

A nuclear plant is somewhat of a piece of technology and the first fusion plants will be technological marvels as well. But the vast majority of the of the construction will be mundane: men pouring concrete and welding or bolting-together steel.

That said, the first plant will be unique, so at leaste the second, third and fourth should be less expensive. But after a few, the price will level off and go back up.

 

[Czcibor]

You meant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

It seems that energy plays a very important role in civilization.

I'd just say, that in last years development looked in the following way:
-you use roughly the same amount of energy;
-thanks to using it more efficiently you produce higher GDP.

What do you think of the future of fusion power for human civilization in the NEAR future? Is it going to be cheap if in operation at all?

I've heard that is joked that nuclear fusion is that is supposed to be workable in next 20 years, and that was being said for over last 30 years ;)

I see 3 realistic scenarios:
a) still unworkable at reasonable price
b) works fine but free neutrons produced by fusion irradiate the reactor, which means that nuclear waste has to be stored. Technically - no big deal, politically - same Greens/Luddites protesting as usual.
c) Works fine - energy might be a bit cheaper.

Why?
- roughly counting 1/3 of energy bill in the USA is cost of energy distribution (building and maintaining cables), that would be unchanged;
(source: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/electricity-distribution/ )
-those power plants are going to be really expensive, so one would build them only if expecting to get money from his investment back. And he would only get it back if the energy price would not be drastically lower...

So my hopes in near future are somewhat limited.

 

[Stephanus]

That said, the first plant will be unique, so at leaste the second, third and fourth should be less expensive. But after a few, the price will level off and go back up.

Okay, okay. Electronics are much different than buildings.

 

[mfb]

Quick additional explanation and caveat to this:
A nuclear plant is somewhat of a piece of technology and the first fusion plants will be technological marvels as well. But the vast majority of the of the construction will be mundane: men pouring concrete and welding or bolting-together steel.

That said, the first plant will be unique, so at leaste the second, third and fourth should be less expensive. But after a few, the price will level off and go back up.

The first one will certainly be more expensive than the 10th one and that more expensive than the 100th (in case we build 100), because you don't have benefits from mass production, you want larger safety margins everywhere and you don't know many clever ways to save money yet.

 

[Stephanus]

Wow, what a nice graph you send me. Thanks.

You meant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Yes, yes. I just remember that the name sounds like Kim Kardashian, but forget the actual name is.

There's a peak in US graph in 1970's for oil needs but descends later. Why is that? Fission plant?
They say France is 100% fission dependent, yet the oil needs do not descend. Why is that? Transportation?

I've heard that is joked that nuclear fusion is that is supposed to be workable in next 20 years, and that was being said for over last 30 years ;)

Yeah, fusion is the energy of the future! And in the future, fusion is STILL the energy of the future

b) works fine but free neutrons produced by fusion irradiate the reactor, which means that nuclear waste has to be stored. Technically - no big deal, politically - same Greens/Luddites protesting as usual.

I have this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management
It looks like the waste is much less dangerous then fission power plant.

Waste management
The large flux of high-energy neutrons in a reactor will make the structural materials radioactive. The radioactive inventory at shut-down may be comparable to that of a fission reactor, but there are important differences.

The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tends to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 500 years the material would have the same radiotoxidity as coal ash

Additionally, the choice of materials used in a fusion reactor is less constrained than in a fission design, where many materials are required for their specific neutron cross-sections. This allows a fusion reactor to be designed using materials that are selected specifically to be "low activation", materials that do not easily become radioactive.Vanadium, for example, would become much less radioactive than stainless steel. Carbon fiber materials are also low-activation, as well as being strong and light, and are a promising area of study for laser-inertial reactors where a magnetic field is not required.

In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities for safe long-term waste storage.

So my hopes in near future are somewhat limited.

Hmhh...

 

[Czcibor]

There's a peak in US graph in 1970's for oil needs but descends later. Why is that? Fission plant?
They say France is 100% fission dependent, yet the oil needs do not descend. Why is that? Transportation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

USA supported (saved?) Israel during Yom Kippur War, so Arab countries retaliated by slashing production to increase prices.

Later - better technologies and regulations intended to stop CO2 emissions.

My guess is that anyway, regardless of politics the economy would become more fuel efficient, just the demand for energy would not be just flat.

France? Political decision. Plus I think that they had their own nuclear program that was dreamt to stop communist single-handed helped to provide technology and enough engineers.

It looks like the waste is much less dangerous then fission power plant.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking here about technological factors, but about psychological ones. In case of fission that was the problem. People who protest against nuclear energy are not good enough at math, to appreciate that according to wiki page that you quoted, nuclear garbage would have shorter half lives.One more thing - concerning of potential impact on economy of nuclear fussion, you may look about a different one that's now happening in the USA:
politics:
http://business.financialpost.com/n...-the-altered-balance-of-power?__lsa=ae89-a392
business:
http://chemistrytoenergy.com/sites/chemistrytoenergy.com/files/shale-gas-full-study.pdfYes, shale gas. So it might give you rough idea, how such energy driven tech revolution may look like.

 

[Stephanus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

USA supported (saved?) Israel during Yom Kippur War, so Arab countries retaliated by slashing production to increase prices.

oOo, that's why. Yes, I remember something about oil crisis, and OPEC and Henry Kissinger all in the 70's. The 80's belonged to Reagan, Berlin Wall, Gulf War. I didn't know that Kissinger was the negotiator. So it was all started by "Yom Kippur". Just didn't realize that the peak and drop was caused by this.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...-the-altered-balance-of-power?__lsa=ae89-a392
http://chemistrytoenergy.com/sites/chemistrytoenergy.com/files/shale-gas-full-study.pdf
Yes, shale gas. So it might give you rough idea, how such energy driven tech revolution may look like.

Shale gas? Wow that's new, at least for me. Thanks for your article.

 

[lavinia]

So the economics works like this:

1. If the fuel for fusion power were free and the plant cost the same to build, fusion power would cost 14% less than fission power.

That's not a very compelling promise for something we've been waiting for decades for and spending enormous sums of money for without success.

For the above reasons, I think fusion power is near totally irrelevant for the near and long term future of civilization. And if it ever gets in operation at all will not be any cheaper than fission power.

Remember: pretty much the only thing we know for sure about fusion power is that it is a lot more difficult to do than fission power.

Russ a question: I have read that the Chinese are going to mine the Moon for Helium 3 for fusion energy. Why are they doing this? Why don't they just built a bunch of nuclear reactors? Are there other goals to this project?

 

[mfb]

I have read that the Chinese are going to mine the Moon for Helium 3 for fusion energy.

Where did you read that?
That might be a concept, but I doubt they'll do that in the next decades. There are not even the fusion reactors available that could use the helium.

Related discussion

 

[Stephanus]

Russ a question: I have read that the Chinese are going to mine the Moon for Helium 3 for fusion energy. Why are they doing this? Why don't they just built a bunch of nuclear reactors? Are there other goals to this project?

An interesting puzzle. D-T haven't worked yet, and I hear D-T is the "easiest" way to produce fusion power.

 

[lavinia]

Where did you read that?
That might be a concept, but I doubt they'll do that in the next decades. There are not even the fusion reactors available that could use the helium.

Related discussion

I agree that there are no fusion reactors today which makes the whole thing even more perplexing. Why even plan for it?

here are some stories, maybe apochryphal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/25141597
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/moon-power-chinas-pursuit-of-lunar-helium-3/
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408558/mining-the-moon/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dacious-plan-to-mine-the-surface-of-the-moon/
http://www.mining.com/china-is-taking-lunar-mining-seriously-65595/
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-moon-pie-sky-china-experts.html

 

[BWV]

given that 150K TwH of sunlight hits the Earth every day and PV cells are a semiconductor technology that has a Moore's law dynamic there will likely not be much of a need for fusion power in a couple of decades (when it will still be a decade or two away)

fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be. Its a complete waste spending significant resources on it

 

[rootone]

It's not that fusion can't be done, the problem is getting it to be economically viable.
In the end this translates into a problem of scale, we just didn't build a big enough reactor yet.
Plans exist that will try address that problem of scale and which don't need any new physics.
https://www.iter.org/
This is actually under construction btw, more than just a plan.

 

[BWV]

Just corporate welfare for physicists. More fruitful to harness the big fusion reactor we are orbiting

 

[rootone]

Just corporate welfare for physicists. More fruitful to harness the big fusion reactor we are orbiting

I agree that ITER might not produce the desired result, and that improved methods of solar energy collection could well be more economically realistic.
However I don't agree with the idea of it being some kind of corporate vanity project, I doubt that the Chinese would be a major player if this were the case.

 

[Stephanus]

given that 150K TwH of sunlight hits the Earth every day and PV cells are a semiconductor technology that has a Moore's law dynamic there will likely not be much of a need for fusion power in a couple of decades (when it will still be a decade or two away)

fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be. Its a complete waste spending significant resources on it

But, does Moore's law still have effect on PV cells. For the price perhaps, but not for the energy intake. No matter how much you Moore-ing PV cell, the input energy is still the same as the energy that is received by 1 metre x 1 metre square of rectangular area on soil. While in fossil fuel, it's the concentration of millions of years sun light that is focussed on a single molecule hydrocarbon.

 

[BWV]

yes but the efficiency of converting that light is still very low

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg

 

[russ_watters]

yes but the efficiency of converting that light is still very low

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg

True -- but it isn't improving with a Moore's law like rate. In fact, it is pretty stagnant.

Furthermore, the cost of the panels themselves is not anymore the largest cost of the solar installation. Other costs, like physical construction, electrical wiring and inverters/switchgear are a greater cost and are mature (not changing much at all).

 

[mfb]

Photovoltaics has 100% efficiency as natural absolute upper limit. A more realistic limit is something like 50% for large-scale use - that is a factor 3 compared to current commercial devices. There is still room for improvement, but not that much. Moore's law would help to include more structure into the cells, this is not relevant for solar cells.

Dismissing a possible source of cheap power completely based on incorrect assumptions about photovoltaics is ... questionable.

 

[BWV]

It's a rough and in exact analogy to Moores law, but the thing that really matters is cost per KWh, which is declining rapidly as production scales combined with perhaps a doubling or tripling of efficiency. No one really doubts that 20 years from now, Solar Pv will be far cheaper and more efficient than it is today where it already is at about grid parity. The issue with fusion is no one has any idea if it will be a viable source of energy in 20, 50 or 100 years. No one has come close to generating more power from fusion than is input into the reaction, let alone at an economical cost. The most optimistic projections of working fusion plants 20 or 30 years from now propose capitalized power costs of 2-3 cents per KWh - currently where combined cycle gas is in the U.S. and where solar will be in a few years. There are higher and better uses for the tens of billions of dollars it will take to gamble on these speculative projects.

 

[gleem]

2012 energy usage for the world was estimated at 424 TWH/day. Current PV cells produce about 18 W/sq ft. To meet that demand would currently require 4.67 10¹² sq ft of cells. A current but cheap 135 w 20% efficient panel is about 7.5 sq ft and costs around 200 USD. This gives 622 billion panels at a cost of 124 T USD. (US GDP = $17 T). I think more efficient panel are a ways off and will cost more. Installation cost will increase too. Along with inverters, charge controllers and storage batteries ( the technology of which must also improve). will surely double the cost of materials. So with the installation cost land acquisition cost we're talking about a chunk of change.

A typical totally independent household installation with 100% yearly irradiation using about 50 KW H/day would currently require 9 KW array to generate at least 50 KWH of electricity plus at least enough storage capacity for the low light hours. It would use on average 4000 AH per day (12V storage system) and need a battery bank delivering at least 166 A on average for 24 hours . Typical large capacity storage batteries have a max AH rating around 250 AH at cost around 500 USD. You would need twice the capacity to store 4000 Ah to maximize battery like so you would need 32 such batteries almost equal to the cost of the PV array. In real life most would need more PV cells and storage due to clouds, seasonal variation of the declination of the sun and length of the day.

One final note the Ivanpah Thermal Electric Solar Generator in California is currently only able to reach about 40% of its one million MWH /yr capacity after 15 month of operation. It cost 2.2B USD and uses 4000 acres of prime solar territory in the Mohave desert. You would have thought estimating the capacity would have been a no brainer, so much for estimates.

So I'm thinking efficiency in energy usage.

 

[BWV]

No one energy source will ever generate 100% of global power, but the area requirements you describe are not unachievable - rooftops could be a third or more of the area notwithstanding future increases in efficiency
(http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60593.pdf)

Solar is not ready for prime time yet, it will be another generation before it can generate a meaningful percentage of global electricity, but its problems are dwarfed by those in developing viable fusion reactors

 

[rootone]

As far as I know the ITER project is the first actual attempt so far to build a fusion reactor at an economically viable scale.
It is based entirely on known physics and engineering knowledge gleaned as a result of earlier experimental reactors, it's no shot in the dark based on guesswork.
We can't say that fusion is not economically viable end-of, because the whole point of the project is to prove that it is (or isn't) viable.
Designed to produce 500 megawatts of output power while needing 50 megawatts to operate it's comparable to a small-medium size fission plant.
It's not intended as a commercial generating station though, rather as a proven prototype on which commercial designs could be based.

I'm certainly not opposed to improving the effectiveness of solar collection methods, but if economically viable fusion reactors are achievable then why not do so?
Do both, - each has it's own unique advantages, and best area of applicability, and they both pose less environmental hazard than much of currently existing power plants.

 

[mfb]

It's a rough and in exact analogy to Moores law, but the thing that really matters is cost per KWh, which is declining rapidly as production scales combined with perhaps a doubling or tripling of efficiency.

Yes it is declining, but in no way comparable to the millionfold increase in number of transistors Moore's law gave in the last decades.

No one really doubts that 20 years from now, Solar Pv will be far cheaper and more efficient than it is today where it already is at about grid parity.

You have to make very optimistic calculations to get grid parity today:
- assume that solar power is always needs exactly as produced, so storage does not matter. This assumption is highly unrealistic, and storages are expensive
- compare the production costs to electricity price households pay, instead of comparing the production costs to production costs of other power sources. This means you have to ignore the costs for the grid infrastructure - exactly the point you need more with photovoltaics to balance load and production. You also ignore taxes.
- assume that subsidies continue to flow as they do now but do not account for them. Germany alone (!) invested more than 100 billion euros in photovoltaics already, and commited to invest at least 100 billions more. That is ten times the costs of ITER.

The issue with fusion is no one has any idea if it will be a viable source of energy in 20, 50 or 100 years.

That's exactly why we should investigate it.

capitalized power costs of 2-3 cents per KWh - currently where combined cycle gas is in the U.S. and where solar will be in a few years.

This is speculation.

20 billion euros, distributed over 3 billion people and 10 years, is 60 cents per average person and year. $0.62 per US citizen, taking into account the actual distribution of the costs and the current exchange rate (and the very crude total cost estimate). I'd happily spend twice that amount to have a second ITER.
As comparison: 200 billions over 20 years for 80 million in Germany are 125 euros per year for photovoltaics.

 

[gleem]

One wonder how implementation of fusion will unfold. Fission reactors where suppose to provide clean, almost limitless energy when introduced. Not much was talked about the inherent hazards of a fission reactor or waste disposal. We eventually settled on a technology that only used 4% of the fuel in the rods was used before they where "poisoned" and had to be replaced loosing 96% of the promised energy. Reactor safety was (is?) not totally understood.

What promises for fusion will go unfulfilled, or overstated. Will we just create another "mess" to clean up?

 

[rootone]

... Will we just create another "mess" to clean up?

Apart from the fact they are both 'nuclear', a fusion reactor is an entirely different technology to a fission reactor.
Fusion reactors produce no appreciable amount of waste by products at all.
(What it does produce is Helium which is in fact rather useful stuff)

 

[gleem]

Fusion reactors produce no appreciable amount of waste by products at all.
(What it does produce is Helium which is in fact rather useful stuff)

Not directly but It will make lots of neutrons which will activate the containment vessel. ITER is suppose to obtain data on this issue. ITER is a breeder for tritium so it is not just a simple "Sun in a bottle". How long will the bottle last? Sure I say go for it but don't put all your energy concerns "eggs" in one basket for now. I am doubtful I will see ITER go on line in my lifetime and I am doubtful that most of you will see a viable commercial reactor in yours.

 

[mfb]

The vessel will become activated. It is studied how that effect can be mitigated. Medium lifetimes are the most problematic. Anything living shorter than about a year (half-life) can be stored until it is decayed, everything living billions of years has a tiny activity and no relevant heat production, and can be stored underground forever.

Fusion power plants won't work completely without problematic waste, but they do not produce all the problematic (trans)actinides fission power plants generate and the amount will be significantly smaller.

 

[mheslep]

... PV cells are a semiconductor technology that has a Moore's law dynamic .. it

Moore's law derives from ever increasing circuit density and complexity on a given size of semiconductor. PV cells have no such connection. Neither does the storage technology required for when the big fusion reactor in sky lights the other side of our sphere.

 

[mheslep]

...but they do not produce all the problematic (trans)actinides fission power plants generate and the amount will be significantly smaller.

Not necessarily so for all fission, but for thermal spectrum U235 fission which happens to be the dominate form of fission reactor at the moment. It need not be so. The Russians are currently operation two fast reactors that burn actinides, and the U.S. has a couple startups with low volume waste designs.

 

[Burnerjack]

What I see is little to no change from the consumer's point of view. If Fusion were indeed made exceptionally cheap, massive build out effort to ensue, increased efforts to break distribution bottlenecks. All made possible by a wider profit margin. The price for delivered power will remain at what the market will bear. However, much change in the balance of delivered energy as far as point of use fuels vs. grid supplied energy goes. Morale of the story: Investor Benefit. Cleaner environment.

 

[mheslep]

The price for delivered power will remain

In the US, some 2/3 to 3/4 of the price of grid delivered electric power is due to construction and maintenance of the grid. In this sense the promises of "too cheap to meter" was never true. So even zero fuel cost to the utility would not much reduce the cost to deliver residential power.

 

[mfb]

The infrastructure price can go down if losses become less important. Probably not a large effect, but large enough to be considered.

 

[Iain53]

I'm not in a position to critique the pros and cons of competing technologies such as Edit: link removed
but I would think that there needs to be a shift from the approach that's been used in the past. Large, continental power grids are far too complex and vulnerable, I like the idea of developing power sources that are much smaller and thus much safer. Local generation and consumption makes more sense than multibillion dollar, huge plants, whether conventional or nuclear.