25 ms·
Is nuclear fusion poised to deliver?
- dekhn 10y agoProbably not poised. At best ITER might show some interesting results, but it's not a cost effective way to build a power plant.
- neaden 10y agoWhile I would of course be very happy if a workable fusion system ever becomes practical I think there is almost no chance of it happening in my lifetime. Every time there is some positive news like this going back 50 years it turns out that we are still "20 years away".
- scrumper 10y agoExciting times. I'll be watching this, but I'm very curious to see what happens with stellarator designs which appear to be much easier to operate (if massively harder to build).
- ythn 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
- johansch 10y ago"Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?" (brilliant title, given what follows) http://calmerthanyouare.org/2015/03/19/betteridges-law.html http://calmerthanyouare.org/2015/03/19/betteridges-law.html "In other words, it appears as if roughly a quarter of all headlines which end in a question mark can be answered by the word no. You can go ahead and call that Linander’s law of headlines, if you will." Don't miss the data: https://gist.github.com/matslina/64601f39ef12bd653be6 https://gist.github.com/matslina/64601f39ef12bd653be6
- paulddraper 10y agoVery many of those YES headlines were followed by favorable articles (like this one), but concretely, I would answer NO. Even their own supportive authors felt it wasn't clear enough to qualify for a statement.
- johansch 10y agoI also did a manual inspection of the data and ended up mostly agreeing with the author of the post.
- gbrown_ 10y ago> “We are convinced we can deliver hundreds of megawatts through Iter,” up to 10 times more energy than is put in, says David Campbell, the director of science and operations at Iter (which means “the way” in Latin). That doesn't sound great to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... I'm all for fusion but I think we're some way off it being a staple energy source.
- regularfry 10y agoITER isn't supposed to be a full-scale production plant. It's a reactor specifically to prove that power generation is feasible. DEMO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO) is the plan for making a practical power station after ITER is done.
- gbrown_ 10y agoYes sorry my comment was in response to the tone of "poised to deliver?".
- deelowe 10y agoWouldn't that put it on the same level as fission? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#/media/File:EROI_-_Ratio_of_Energy_Returned_on_Energy_Invested_-_USA.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...
- maxerickson 10y agoIt actually doesn't matter. It just has to be energy positive and cost competitive. Take the case of fully tracked wholesale cost of fusion power at $0.01 a kw-h. Would you buy more expensive power just because it had a better EROI?
- gbrown_ 10y ago> It actually doesn't matter. It just has to be energy positive and cost competitive. Very true.
- poelzi 10y ago5 years ago, I would have thought that ITER is a step in the right direction. After studying alternative physical model and looking into more logical sun models that explain more while require less assumptions, I came to the conclusion that ITER is the wrong way to go. Dense Plasma Focus is way more promising for hot fusion direction while still not optimal.
- libeclipse 10y agoWhat're your credentials?
- DickingAround 10y agoOr reasoning?
- baldfat 10y agoNot the poster but Tokamaks reactors makes energy for maybe 50 minutes at a time before it has to be shut down. This is due to it's 2D magnetic fields. While Stellarator reactors use 3D magnetic fields in a modulus loop which can have a continuous energy output.
- poelzi 10y agobeta factor is bad. stellerator is better, but still wrong approach to fusion. It really depends on the physical model you use - I don't think in the Standard Model anymore - it's falsified and there are better models out there.
- jcadam 10y agoI'll believe it when I see it. Fusion power is in that bin of technologies/capabilities that are always 20 years away, which includes things like cures for aging and manned missions to Mars. ...or maybe I've just become too cynical.
- paulddraper 10y agoAging is a very complex and poorly understood process. Mars has hard physics limitations, though the real limitation is political will. I'd rank in probability cure aging < fusion < man on Mars
- tbihl 10y agoI would argue that the probability of viable fusion rises faster with funding than does ending the aging process, if we assume that they're both possible. It sounds like fusion is largely a materials problem, where it seems like more funding would let us try more things more quickly (assuming some current underutilization of people who are capable or nearly capable (with some small amount of education and training)), whereas with human body processes, ethical concerns make it largely a black box for more complex functions like aging. Someone please correct me if I'm way off base here.
- regularfry 10y agoThe reason it's always 20 years away is because it's chronically under-funded, and always has been.
- ethbro 10y agoSounds like the space program for landing on the moon, until it became a national goal.
- mikeash 10y agoI don't recall any timelines like that for a cure for aging. Mars has, but on the other hand, the technology has existed for Mars for a long time, it just never happens because organizations don't want to spend the huge amount of money it would cost. Fusion is different, since it still requires fundamental technological breakthroughs, not just piles of money (although we're getting closer to the "piles of money" phase now).
- NikolaeVarius 10y ago"Give it another 20 years" - Said every year since 1980
- deelowe 10y agoWhile funding fell through the floor and came no where near what the recommendation was when those models were developed. Those "in another 20 years predictions" are simple adjusted time lines based on the current level of funding. Source: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fus...
- dv_dt 10y agoIt's not a failure of the model, and it's unknown if the science failed (as it didn't get a chance to be fully explored), but it's a social/economic/governmental failure. Probably for the same reasons that we are failing to address climate change - in large part, the entrenched interests of existing energy companies.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- vslira 10y agoParaphrasing Musashi: Respect nuclear fusion power, without relying on it.
- FrancoDiaz 10y agoThis is a very laymen, simplistic comment, but it sounds like the engineering complexities for industrialization need a little help from AI. I know nothing about AI/machine learning, but if these processes could be unleashed to simplify the engineering processes then maybe cold fusion could be cost effective. Humans are just very slow and the complexity is almost overwhelming.
- audunw 10y agoThe stellerator would not have been possible to design without massive amounts of computer power for simulations. Not AI exactly, but it certainly seems like we need near-AI level computing power.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y agoso.... you want AI to design nuclear reactors.... very dangerous nuclear reactors that are regulated by men who spend their days calling people and asking for more money on top of their taxes. no one knows how or why the decisions were made in the design, so how are they supposed to know how or why to require maintenance? how does it even work at all? or are we letting AI run congress now too?
- noahdesu 10y agoThis is certainly the case, but not necessarily AI. Huge supercomputers are used to run physics simulations to assist with material design processes at national labs [0]. I cannot imagine that some of that work is related to dealing with material at the extremes where fusion would be pushing the state of the art. Genetic algorithms have been used for exploring large design spaces, as well [1]. It's all really cool stuff. [0]: https://lanl.gov/org/padste/adeps/materials-science-technology/ https://lanl.gov/org/padste/adeps/materials-science-technolo... [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=genetic+algorithm+design+antenna&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=genetic+algorithm...
- arethuza 10y agoAn alternative approach to generating power from fusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER "A typical design called for a 4 m thick steel alloy blast-chamber, 30 m (100 ft) in diameter and 100 m (300 ft) tall,[10] to be embedded in a cavity dug into bedrock in Nevada." It involves dropping H-bombs into holes in the ground - but at least we know those work... :-)
- stcredzero 10y agoWe also have good idea about Thorium reactors. There's plenty of it around, and good reasons to think they'd be safer than our current reactors.
- dogma1138 10y agoThorium reactors have no advantage over any other molten salt reactor. The novelty in thorium isn't the fissile material but then reactor design which isn't novel either it just not a breeder reactor so no one is going to spend billions if when push comes to shove it can't be used to make nukes on the way.
- stcredzero 10y agoThorium reactors have no advantage over any other molten salt reactor. More plentiful fuel?
- dogma1138 10y agoAnd a considerably more expensive fuel cycle with breeding being questionable at best. And you then either have to chose if you are going to irradiate the thorium when you make your fuel without purification which will introduce u232 into the mix which undergoes gamma decay making the thorium fuel very dangerous to handle, or purify it and end up with u233 in the mix which effectively makes thorium a dual use fuel now so all weapon related restrictions apply.
- DennisP 10y ago
- sgt101 10y agoI saw a guy called Dennis Whyte from MIT give a shockingly bullish fusion presentation a few weeks ago. His view is that new superconductors make a compact (as in jet size) reactor that does better than break even and is operable feasible in five years. He seemed to know his stuff
- drjesusphd 10y agoAs the head of one of the most advanced plasma physics labs in the world, I think it is safe to assume Prof. Whyte knows his stuff.
- zeristor 10y agoFrom the video it seemed to be down to the new students coming up with new ideas, and using new technology. DISRUPT!!!
- Intermernet 10y agoThis is one of the main goals of running these labs, and ideally the main goal of universities in general. Training new minds with the knowledge of the leaders in the fields. It's not disruption, it's evolution and progress.
- drjesusphd 10y agoToo late to edit. Grammar of my comment is ambiguous/incorrect: Dennis Whyte is the leader of said lab, not me ;).
- seiferteric 10y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4
- iaw 10y agoTen years ago I was in a set of lectures by one of the ITER consultants. There were a handful of challenges left (e.g. material degradation after long-term neutron bombardment) but it wasn't science fiction then. The only question was if they could get the funding to finish the last research hurdles.
- baldfat 10y agoI have more hope in the German fusion reactor that was constructed in 2015. It would provide continus energy output and not the 50 minutes or so outburst of energy of the ITER reactor. http://newswise.com/articles/pppl-and-max-planck-physicists-confirm-the-precision-of-magnetic-fields-in-the-most-advanced-stellarator-in-the-world http://newswise.com/articles/pppl-and-max-planck-physicists-... "Stellarators confine the hot, charged gas, otherwise known as plasma, that fuels fusion reactions in twisty -- or 3D -- magnetic fields, compared with the symmetrical -- or 2D --fields that the more widely used tokamaks create. The twisty configuration enables stellarators to control the plasma with no need for the current that tokamaks must induce in the gas to complete the magnetic field. Stellarator plasmas thus run little risk of disrupting, as can happen in tokamaks, causing the internal current to abruptly halt and fusion reactions to shut down."
- dogma1138 10y agoNone of them are self sustaining or energy positive as of yet. Fusion works but stellar fusion is effectively powered by gravity, no one knows yet if it will be viable on smaller scales hence why while a lot of process has been made no one has a made sufficient progress to claim they have a working reactor. You can initiate fusion in your garage making it energy positive even by a small margin is what we haven't really managed to break.
- baldfat 10y ago> You can initiate fusion in your garage making it energy positive even by a small margin is what we haven't really managed to break That is WORLD changing right there. No we don't have fusion, but the sustaining part has come down to possibly just needing Lithium. Now if you look at where we have come from we are getting closer to where we actually will get more energy out and that will be a game changer.
- dogma1138 10y agoLithium is for Aneutronic fusion, while this is being researched it's a completely different fusion mechanism than the hydrogen plasma these reactors fuse. I made a few comments about this in a previous thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12877466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12877466
- sonium 10y agoIf you have ever wondered about why one goes through the difficulties of the tritium fuel cycle: It's really politically motivated, so none of the participating countries has to rely on an external fuel supply.
- edem 10y agoCan this thing blow up? I mean is there an equivalent in fusion technology to a meltdown in fission tech?
- dtech 10y agoTheoretically yes, every star is a self-sustaining fusion reactor. However, in practice not because fusion requires much more delicate conditions to work then fission. A breach in the reactor chamber would cause the plasma to quickly expand and cool down, which means the necessary conditions for fusion disappear. Basically fission can cause a self-sustaining chain reaction once started, while fusion requires very specific artificial conditions to be maintained.
- fdej 10y agoMore precisely, stellar fusion is self-sustaining because of the immense gravitational pressure. You need around 1/10 the mass of the sun for this to be possible. In the current economic situation, it would be difficult to get funding for a fusion reactor that large.
- hackerboos 10y agoSo Spiderman 2 is wrong then? https://youtu.be/7OMa51hJOhY?t=42 https://youtu.be/7OMa51hJOhY?t=42
- visarga 10y ago> Is nuclear fusion poised to deliver? No. Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
- transfire 10y agoIf you are depending on ITER to do it, then forget about it. ITER is a money sink. It was designed to suck up as much fusion research money as possible to slow the progress of fusion development. Don't take my word for it. Go to their website, study the annual reports and time lines, the ever consistent delays, and the mammoth budget and budget overruns. Then go read about the (far too few) more promising experiments in other labs achieved with shoe-string budgets.
- bbarn 10y agoHow do they deal with weather on complex installations this size? I have to imagine some of the equipment they're installing isn't meant to be wet?
- amelius 10y agoMy guess is that they first build the concrete support for the instruments, then make a roof, and then bring in the actual instruments. Much like an ordinary building, I suppose.
- codecamper 10y ago18 billion USD for a fusion reactor. installed utility solar is right now about $1.50 / watt. The subsidy is 1/3 that. So $0.50 / watt. $18 billion would incentivize 36 billion watts. 36 GW of fully installed utility solar is about half of all the PV solar installed in the world in 2016. 36GW vs 3GW (iter's 500MW * 6 because the panels provide maybe just 4 hours per day) I realize fusion may be long term important, so well spent. Just hope people are remembering we've got that big fusion ball in the sky.
- superuser2 10y agoI expect my lights to turn on when it's dark or cloudy outside. Fusion facilitates that, solar doesn't (unless we also get breakthroughs in battery tech).
- marssaxman 10y agoLighting takes very little power once you switch to LEDs. I replaced all the bulbs in my house a couple of years back, and the total draw - were we to turn all interior and exterior lights on at once - would come in at around 250 watts. This is effectively negligible - the refrigerator alone uses at least twice that much. In any case, the real answer is not solar by itself, but solar plus other sustainable sources like wind and hydro.
- DrScump 10y agoYou aren't counting real estate costs, environmental impact, etc.
- ommunist 10y agoFission provides.
- wolfv 10y agoThe article fails to mention the elephant in the room: damage from high-speed neutrons. From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-small-fusion-energy-start-ups-conquer-the-problems-that-killed-the-giants/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-small-fusion-... Deuterium-tritium fusion releases most of its energy as high-speed neutrons, which damage steel parts and gradually turn them radioactive. In contrast, much simpler Molten-salt-fueled reactors can burn current stock piles of spent fuel rods. Safely generating electricity while reducing nuclear waste. References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_Salt_Reactor#Molten-salt_fueled_reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_Salt_Reactor#Molten-salt... http://transatomicpower.com/white_papers/TAP_White_Paper.pdf http://transatomicpower.com/white_papers/TAP_White_Paper.pdf The molten salt reactor (MSR) in generation IV: Overview and perspectives http://www.daretothink.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/serp1401.pdf http://www.daretothink.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/serp14...