7 ms·

Fusion energy hurdle swept aside

40 points by jot 17y ago

lutorm 17y ago
"One of many fusion hurdles swept aside", would be a less sensationalist headline... It seems they aren't even at break-even yet, so it's not like we can start building power plants this decade...
- gjm11 17y ago
  Not only are they not at breakeven yet. Unless I've misunderstood badly, they haven't even got fusion occurring yet.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    Fusion's been occurring in other reactor designs since the 50's -- just not specifically in this particular reactor. High School kids have achieved fusion in their basement with Farnsworth Fusor type designs. It's not especially hard. Breakeven, though, is a lot tougher.
    - Retric 17y ago
      We have passed "break even" conditions in a reactor for D-T for a few seconds. The real test is getting useful amounts of net energy generation which requires about 5x break even for several minutes. IMO, ITER's design should get to that point, but I don't think fusion is going to cost less than solar let alone coal for a long time. PS: Using lasers to create fusion has always been more about simulating bombs than it was creating useful amounts of energy.
      - DaniFong 17y ago
        You have achieve breakeven more broadly -- over the entire pulse, or over the electricity you pull from the grid, or perhaps most properly, including all of the material and labor costs as compared to just taking heat from the fusion reactor in the sky with wind turbines and solar collectors. As for the simulation of bombs vs power, I think it depends on who you ask; scientists or DOE project managers? It's interesting, after having left a PhD program in plasma physics (for fusion power,) I have a very different sense of the commercially plausible. All we're really using the fusion for is to create heat, and there are many ways to get heat inexpensively (solar, geothermal, coal, natural gas) that don't involve temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees, that don't require superconducting coils, liquid helium cooling systems, ultra-high precision machined tungsten tiles, structural materials that are vaguely defined, completely unsourced, untested at the correct neutron fluxes, and rely upon rare earth elements, liquid lithium systems from which we're supposed to do tritium recovery (lithium is really reactive, tritium bubbles up and is explosive and diffuses through walls and embrittles them), liquid lithium walls on the inside of the chamber; high vacuum vacuum pumps, giant particle beams and incredibly non-linear and poorly understood science. You're comparing that to coal and mirrors and holes drilled in the ground and wind, all of which ultimately go into some kind of turbine (which is half or most of the expense!) The benefit of fusion just doesn't seem worth it for anything other than military applications or interstellar spacecraft. And really, we've got a lot to worry about before then...
        Retric 17y ago
        As I recall the actual limitations where two fold, it's a research device so they did not want the extra radiation produced from an actual DT reaction so they stuck with DD. And it was cheaper to build it as a pulsed device and let it cool down, vs having an active cooling system. From what I can tell the problem over the last 25 years with fusion is people keep saying what is the least amount of money we can spend and still make something useful. But, actually building a fusion reactor costs ~20 billion so we have been stuck prototypes when we need to shoot for the moon. EDIT: Taking JET's design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus) and building a 10GW reactor would actually be easier than trying to build a 1GW reactor with the same basic design. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 "During deuterium (D–D fuel) plasma experiments in 1998 plasma conditions were achieved which would, if the D–D fuel were replaced with a 1:1 mix of deuterium and tritium (D–T fuel), have exceeded break-even"
        DaniFong 17y ago
        I would like to argue that prototypes have been what's called for. We don't even have a clear idea of what a commercial fusion reactor would look like. The cooling and tritium production issues, the structural materials, and the lifetimes required of the super cooling and superconducting systems, are massive problems that haven't really been solved yet. It's possible that replacing D-D with D-T would have yielded break-even for a few seconds, (I've heard that claim before too) but I'm very skeptical; increasing the internal heat generation is sure to change the plasma conditions: for example, there would be a lot of adiabatic expansion, which, even restrained against the tokamak fields, is liable to have a variety of unstable modes.
        Retric 17y ago
        I feel that with a modular design that includes remote handling capability you could test things out a lot faster on a full scale device. As to internal heating issues, I don't think there is much problem extrapolating from Q0.7 at JET to Q1.2 at JT-60. Large Plasma devices are "the sexy" but IMO it's just another engineering problem at this point. And you don't design large scale power plants to sit at the outer edge of their capabilities 24x7. So yes, the highest energy pulses are unable after a few seconds, but we have built steady state fusion reactors they just operate further from their limits. PS: Finding T is a problem, but "just build it bigger" and suddenly D-D (or 75%D - 25%T etc) becomes reasonable. Edit: I am suggesting building building something with 4x ITER's budget which should give you ~8x the plasma volume and a lower surface area to volume ratio etc. We can also pump of the field strength etc. But you are limited to how much heat the wall can take so the plasma conditions don't need to be as efficient.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Just to clarify: by "they" I meant the NIF folks who are trying to make fusion happen using lasers. Other people have of course had fusion (well below breakeven) for ages.
jackfoxy 17y ago
I hope some good science and engineering are coming out of this, because American taxpayers have been pouring money down the fusion rat-hole for over 40 years. From my ignorant layman's perspective, I just don't see recovering more usable energy than the energy put in happening. It's been "30 years away" for the past 40 years. Not everything is a matter of time. I'm not saying man's ingenuity won't figure it out, but the only place nuclear fusion takes place in nature is in stars, and that's powered by the pressure of a huge amount of mass, which can never be recreated on Earth. There has never been a goal-oriented technology project that has lasted this long, spent this much treasure, and produced so few results. Even brilliant people can engage in wishful thinking.
- jcdreads 17y ago
  Imagine a single thermonuclear explosion: one big enough to destroy a large city. The bomb doesn't weigh that much compared to the amount of energy released. A gigantic amount of energy comes from a small amount of mass. The c2 in Einstein's formula is the speed of light squared; it's a really huge number. As for the wisdom of the NIF as public policy, that's something on which reasonable people can (and do) disagree. I'd only point out that the first government to master the goal of break-even fusion (getting more energy out of the reaction than is put in to trigger the reaction) will gain a _ridiculous_ economic advantage over the rest of the world, to say nothing of the non-economic benefits of energy independence. It's the kind of big bet that rich nations can (and in my opinion should) take.
  - jackfoxy 17y ago
    That is a decent rational, except that whichever rich nation makes the breakthrough (assuming it occurs) will not have a monopoly on the technology (unless it involves mining He-3 from the moon), in which case the rich nation that invested in lunar mining technology will have quite a jump. It's pretty hard to keep big engineering secrets. As soon as the feasibility is proven, the fast followers will jump on the bandwagon.
  - delackner 17y ago
    Would their advantage really be all that big? Modern nuclear fission reactors can produce tons of energy and you can reprocess the fuel, providing what seems to me like energy independence available today.
bioweek 17y ago
I've always wondered why we can't just blow up hydrogen bombs in a giant underground chamber and extract energy from the heat produced.
- delackner 17y ago
  Much safer to just run a nuclear reactor. But I wonder... would a fission explosion-based reactor even be possible, let alone more efficient? I don't think so...
  - bioweek 17y ago
    A nuclear reactor uses fission. My idea uses fusion triggered by fission (look up how hydrogen bombs work). Fusion is much more efficient that fission which is why my idea has merit.
- blasdel 17y ago
  Guess what? That's exactly what the NIF plant in question is: http://wingolog.org/archives/2010/01/31/nukular http://wingolog.org/archives/2010/01/31/nukular
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

40 points by jot 17y ago

"One of many fusion hurdles swept aside", would be a less sensationalist headline... It seems they aren't even at break-even yet, so it's not like we can start building power plants this decade...

gjm11 17y ago
Not only are they not at breakeven yet. Unless I've misunderstood badly, they haven't even got fusion occurring yet.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  Fusion's been occurring in other reactor designs since the 50's -- just not specifically in this particular reactor. High School kids have achieved fusion in their basement with Farnsworth Fusor type designs. It's not especially hard. Breakeven, though, is a lot tougher.
  - Retric 17y ago
    We have passed "break even" conditions in a reactor for D-T for a few seconds. The real test is getting useful amounts of net energy generation which requires about 5x break even for several minutes. IMO, ITER's design should get to that point, but I don't think fusion is going to cost less than solar let alone coal for a long time. PS: Using lasers to create fusion has always been more about simulating bombs than it was creating useful amounts of energy.
    - DaniFong 17y ago
      You have achieve breakeven more broadly -- over the entire pulse, or over the electricity you pull from the grid, or perhaps most properly, including all of the material and labor costs as compared to just taking heat from the fusion reactor in the sky with wind turbines and solar collectors. As for the simulation of bombs vs power, I think it depends on who you ask; scientists or DOE project managers? It's interesting, after having left a PhD program in plasma physics (for fusion power,) I have a very different sense of the commercially plausible. All we're really using the fusion for is to create heat, and there are many ways to get heat inexpensively (solar, geothermal, coal, natural gas) that don't involve temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees, that don't require superconducting coils, liquid helium cooling systems, ultra-high precision machined tungsten tiles, structural materials that are vaguely defined, completely unsourced, untested at the correct neutron fluxes, and rely upon rare earth elements, liquid lithium systems from which we're supposed to do tritium recovery (lithium is really reactive, tritium bubbles up and is explosive and diffuses through walls and embrittles them), liquid lithium walls on the inside of the chamber; high vacuum vacuum pumps, giant particle beams and incredibly non-linear and poorly understood science. You're comparing that to coal and mirrors and holes drilled in the ground and wind, all of which ultimately go into some kind of turbine (which is half or most of the expense!) The benefit of fusion just doesn't seem worth it for anything other than military applications or interstellar spacecraft. And really, we've got a lot to worry about before then...
      - Retric 17y ago
        As I recall the actual limitations where two fold, it's a research device so they did not want the extra radiation produced from an actual DT reaction so they stuck with DD. And it was cheaper to build it as a pulsed device and let it cool down, vs having an active cooling system. From what I can tell the problem over the last 25 years with fusion is people keep saying what is the least amount of money we can spend and still make something useful. But, actually building a fusion reactor costs ~20 billion so we have been stuck prototypes when we need to shoot for the moon. EDIT: Taking JET's design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus) and building a 10GW reactor would actually be easier than trying to build a 1GW reactor with the same basic design. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 "During deuterium (D–D fuel) plasma experiments in 1998 plasma conditions were achieved which would, if the D–D fuel were replaced with a 1:1 mix of deuterium and tritium (D–T fuel), have exceeded break-even"
        DaniFong 17y ago
        I would like to argue that prototypes have been what's called for. We don't even have a clear idea of what a commercial fusion reactor would look like. The cooling and tritium production issues, the structural materials, and the lifetimes required of the super cooling and superconducting systems, are massive problems that haven't really been solved yet. It's possible that replacing D-D with D-T would have yielded break-even for a few seconds, (I've heard that claim before too) but I'm very skeptical; increasing the internal heat generation is sure to change the plasma conditions: for example, there would be a lot of adiabatic expansion, which, even restrained against the tokamak fields, is liable to have a variety of unstable modes.
        Retric 17y ago
        I feel that with a modular design that includes remote handling capability you could test things out a lot faster on a full scale device. As to internal heating issues, I don't think there is much problem extrapolating from Q0.7 at JET to Q1.2 at JT-60. Large Plasma devices are "the sexy" but IMO it's just another engineering problem at this point. And you don't design large scale power plants to sit at the outer edge of their capabilities 24x7. So yes, the highest energy pulses are unable after a few seconds, but we have built steady state fusion reactors they just operate further from their limits. PS: Finding T is a problem, but "just build it bigger" and suddenly D-D (or 75%D - 25%T etc) becomes reasonable. Edit: I am suggesting building building something with 4x ITER's budget which should give you ~8x the plasma volume and a lower surface area to volume ratio etc. We can also pump of the field strength etc. But you are limited to how much heat the wall can take so the plasma conditions don't need to be as efficient.
- gjm11 17y ago
  Just to clarify: by "they" I meant the NIF folks who are trying to make fusion happen using lasers. Other people have of course had fusion (well below breakeven) for ages.

jackfoxy 17y ago

I hope some good science and engineering are coming out of this, because American taxpayers have been pouring money down the fusion rat-hole for over 40 years. From my ignorant layman's perspective, I just don't see recovering more usable energy than the energy put in happening. It's been "30 years away" for the past 40 years. Not everything is a matter of time. I'm not saying man's ingenuity won't figure it out, but the only place nuclear fusion takes place in nature is in stars, and that's powered by the pressure of a huge amount of mass, which can never be recreated on Earth. There has never been a goal-oriented technology project that has lasted this long, spent this much treasure, and produced so few results. Even brilliant people can engage in wishful thinking.

jcdreads 17y ago
Imagine a single thermonuclear explosion: one big enough to destroy a large city. The bomb doesn't weigh that much compared to the amount of energy released. A gigantic amount of energy comes from a small amount of mass. The c2 in Einstein's formula is the speed of light squared; it's a really huge number. As for the wisdom of the NIF as public policy, that's something on which reasonable people can (and do) disagree. I'd only point out that the first government to master the goal of break-even fusion (getting more energy out of the reaction than is put in to trigger the reaction) will gain a _ridiculous_ economic advantage over the rest of the world, to say nothing of the non-economic benefits of energy independence. It's the kind of big bet that rich nations can (and in my opinion should) take.
- jackfoxy 17y ago
  That is a decent rational, except that whichever rich nation makes the breakthrough (assuming it occurs) will not have a monopoly on the technology (unless it involves mining He-3 from the moon), in which case the rich nation that invested in lunar mining technology will have quite a jump. It's pretty hard to keep big engineering secrets. As soon as the feasibility is proven, the fast followers will jump on the bandwagon.
- delackner 17y ago
  Would their advantage really be all that big? Modern nuclear fission reactors can produce tons of energy and you can reprocess the fuel, providing what seems to me like energy independence available today.

bioweek 17y ago

I've always wondered why we can't just blow up hydrogen bombs in a giant underground chamber and extract energy from the heat produced.

delackner 17y ago
Much safer to just run a nuclear reactor. But I wonder... would a fission explosion-based reactor even be possible, let alone more efficient? I don't think so...
- bioweek 17y ago
  A nuclear reactor uses fission. My idea uses fusion triggered by fission (look up how hydrogen bombs work). Fusion is much more efficient that fission which is why my idea has merit.
blasdel 17y ago
Guess what? That's exactly what the NIF plant in question is: http://wingolog.org/archives/2010/01/31/nukular http://wingolog.org/archives/2010/01/31/nukular

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]