9 ms·

MIT and newly formed company launch effort to build compact tokamak pilot plant

104 points by sien 9y ago

everyone 9y ago
Heres a big presentation about it from 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=KkpqA8yG9T4 I'm stoked that it is happening!
kaplun 9y ago
Go ENI! It's amazing how an Italian Oil and Gas company is working hard to collaborate with research with the aim of revolutionizing energy extraction. This is inspiring and giving hope on the future.
- jcfrei 9y ago
  Most oil and gas companies have rebranded themselves as "energy companies" and are fortunately starting to invest in alternative technologies. Norwegian Statoil is another great example: They are invested in offshore floating wind farms. These companies know the reliance on fossil fuels is ending.
- riffraff 9y ago
  The key is diversifying, ENI also just started the largest non-institutional supercomputer [0] to improve oil exploration, it's not like they are giving up on fossil, just hedging their position. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/eni-takes-on-total-and-bp-as-oil-majors-crank-up-computing-power https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/eni-takes...
vosper 9y ago
Fusion is still exciting, but with normal renewable (solar, wind) costs plummeting the way they are is there still such a compelling case for pouring money into fusion? This one aims to produce a working plant within 15 years. I'm not sure that any of the other efforts are closer to being viable (if they work at all). That's the kind of time frame in which we may master offshore wind and grid-attached storage like the Tesla batteries. Might not even need fusion at the point. (Except maybe for spacecraft, in the much more distant future)
- tinco 9y ago
  Solar and wind will never be enough to cover all energy demand. It is a common misconception, it is not even possible to reduce energy consumption to low enough that solar and wind would be sufficient. If we want to stop burning fuel, we must research nuclear. Of course it is unlikely that we would stop burning fuel any time soon, and that's why 15 years is unfortunately not an inconvenient timeline. If you're interested in the numbers behind this argument I highly recommend the book "Sustainable energy without the hot air".
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-usa https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-...
    - tinco 9y ago
      Right, as Musk said, we're going to need a mixture of nuclear and wind. If my calculations are correct you need about 500.000 windmills to cover electricity demand in the US. But electricity demand is only a small fraction of total energy use. How much energy do all cars in the US use? How much do tractors working the fields? How much do factories burning their own? How much do ships transporting goods? How much do planes flying around? How much do factories in China making our goods? Or mining operations in Indonesia or Congo mining our materials? If you look at the full picture of sustainable energy, you'll find that covering electricity use by spending a trillion dollars on a 100x100 mile wind farm is a cool idea and a step in the direction, but it's only a step. There's a whole journey ahead of us, and that's what that book teaches.
      - newnewpdro 9y ago
        Musk refers to Nuclear as a potential part of the transitional story. Your comment suggests Nuclear is a permanent part of the "mixture", and that there's not enough capacity for all the energy needs without it.
  - 9y ago
markvdb 9y ago
Cheap nuclear fusion energy would be a great human achievement. I do wonder about its effects on society though. Any reading containing well reasoned speculation on that? Here's what I can think of myself. * A cheaper, cleaner energy source might outcompete fossil fuel. Less air polution, yay! * Cheaper energy would significantly increase energy consumption. Think Jevons paradox[0]. The effect of that increased heat production on global warming can't be good... * Globally stabilising geopolitical effect. Less dependence on geographically confined scarce energy resources like Middle Eastern/Siberian/Venezuelan oil, Sahara sun, ... thanks to a globally available basic resource. Any other obvious effects I'm missing? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- iamgopal 9y ago
  Mini-Self Contained Electric Charging Stations, that can charge 100-200 cars simultaneously. Better recycling of material due to energy abundance. Less Waste on Energy Transport. Tons of light pollution. Did I say, Much better recycling technologies ?
- erikj 9y ago
  Fusion propulsion would be very beneficial to any space operations beyond the Earth's orbit. I think NASA have a project investigating this technology.
- mtgx 9y ago
  I'm not even sure fusion would compete with solar/batteries by the time it's practical to use it. In my mind the #1 benefit of fusion will be industrialized space travel within the solar system.
- Faaak 9y ago
  I'm dreaming here, but could we with "unlimited" power radiate this power into space ? I'm thinking about a heat pump which would make the Earth colder, and radiate the heat to space, effectively cooling Earth (that's how indians made ice in the past) ?
  - 9y ago
MayeulC 9y ago
This is yet another area where high temperature superconductors revolutionizes its engineering. I can't wait for more insights to be made in this domain: the way superconductors behave is actually becoming clearer and clearer from one year to another. Ambient temperature superconductors are the holy grail of the field, of course, but this project shows that even ~80 K superconductors can substantially reduce the size of magnets (cooling apparatus included), which can open doors to new applications. Exciting times... Oh, and I can't wait for ITER either. While the project was never meant to be commercially viable, it should offer some great insights into commercial fusion energy.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  I cannot help but think that ITER has been a harmful mistake. With at least 17 years to go before it is operational, it already seems obsolescent in some key technological areas, such as magnets, yet it keeps on going, sucking up funds that might be better applied elsewhere (though whether they would be is an open question.) The project reminds me of Britain's attempt to build the airliner of the future in the Bristol Brabazon [1], but which was obsolete by the time it flew. The biggest cost was probably in lost time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Brabazon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Brabazon
  - jmiserez 9y ago
    Your 17 years are off, experiment begin is in 2027: https://www.iter.org/construction/timeline https://www.iter.org/construction/timeline And even then, the time until “operational” is not spent idling, the project has sparked and funded lots of research in various domains. It’s like the space race, at some point you just have to start building something for there to be any actual progress.
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      Indeed, but I wonder if ITER has had a chilling effect on other such projects that could take advantage of newer technology to leapfrog it. In fact, some of the recent projects are looking more like the space race, which is an encouraging sign, and perhaps especially if it lights a fire under ITER - let's have a fusion race! The article cited 2035 as the date when ITER is expected to begin producing fusion energy. While preliminary R&D is necessary, it is all for (nearly) nothing unless and until it results in fusion at a scale that advances the state of the art.
Veedrac 9y ago
Tokamak Energy[1] seems to have taken a similar path with smaller, HTS-based reactors. I don't have the expertise to evaluate these projects but, judging from the statements of the people working with these new superconductors, fusion power might actually be 10 years away this time. [1] https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/
ScipioAfricanus 9y ago
It's hard to fully comprehend the impact of new energy sources on civilization. So much of what we do is only possible because we have the necessary energy at our disposal. When civilization finds new energy sources, most other technologies level up as well. Consider one of the biggest problems with desalinization systems: pumping water inland. The actual separation of salt from seawater isn't the most energy intensive part of the process. Desalinization works great for wealthy coastal communities. But a large nation like the US or China would never be able to fulfill the water demand of its people through desalinization alone because the cost of transporting coastal water inland would be prohibitive. Enter something like fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient on a per pound of fuel basis than fossil fuels and something like distributing water to everyone in the US from the coasts becomes possible.
- demxzy 9y ago
  Maybe we can reforest the Sahara which cheap transportation of water powered by fusion. Better climate control will also be probably possible
  - codesnik 9y ago
    I wonder if extra dissipated heat while doing this would contribute to global warming. But probably scale of adding heat directly to atmosphere isn't comparable to insulation effect of CO2
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
stevespang 9y ago
From the announcement: "This device will, if all goes according to plan . . . ." . . .just nother example of throwing hard earned money into the fantasy of fusion, it will never be realized . . .
tim333 9y ago
Also discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16550252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16550252
jdblair 9y ago
It's said that practical fusion energy is always 10 years in the future. I see this project innovates and projects instead 15 years in the future! In all seriousness, I'm happy to see new projects using current superconducting technology, I just wish we could build these things faster and iterate more quickly.
pfdietz 9y ago
According to the 2014 arxiv.org paper on the ARC reactor https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3540.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3540.pdf the concept (which would produce 190MW(e)) uses 90 tonnes of beryllium. According to the USGS, the current total world annual production of Be is 220 tonnes, and total global resource is estimated at 100,000 tonnes. The world uses ~20 TW of primary energy, so roughly 100,000 ARC reactors would be needed to supply the world, using about 100x as much Be as the estimated amount available for mining. Unless Be supplies can be drastically increased, this concept is at best a niche player.

104 points by sien 9y ago

Heres a big presentation about it from 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=KkpqA8yG9T4 I'm stoked that it is happening!

kaplun 9y ago

Go ENI! It's amazing how an Italian Oil and Gas company is working hard to collaborate with research with the aim of revolutionizing energy extraction. This is inspiring and giving hope on the future.

jcfrei 9y ago
Most oil and gas companies have rebranded themselves as "energy companies" and are fortunately starting to invest in alternative technologies. Norwegian Statoil is another great example: They are invested in offshore floating wind farms. These companies know the reliance on fossil fuels is ending.
riffraff 9y ago
The key is diversifying, ENI also just started the largest non-institutional supercomputer [0] to improve oil exploration, it's not like they are giving up on fossil, just hedging their position. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/eni-takes-on-total-and-bp-as-oil-majors-crank-up-computing-power https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/eni-takes...

vosper 9y ago

Fusion is still exciting, but with normal renewable (solar, wind) costs plummeting the way they are is there still such a compelling case for pouring money into fusion? This one aims to produce a working plant within 15 years. I'm not sure that any of the other efforts are closer to being viable (if they work at all). That's the kind of time frame in which we may master offshore wind and grid-attached storage like the Tesla batteries. Might not even need fusion at the point. (Except maybe for spacecraft, in the much more distant future)

tinco 9y ago
Solar and wind will never be enough to cover all energy demand. It is a common misconception, it is not even possible to reduce energy consumption to low enough that solar and wind would be sufficient. If we want to stop burning fuel, we must research nuclear. Of course it is unlikely that we would stop burning fuel any time soon, and that's why 15 years is unfortunately not an inconvenient timeline. If you're interested in the numbers behind this argument I highly recommend the book "Sustainable energy without the hot air".
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-usa https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-...
  - tinco 9y ago
    Right, as Musk said, we're going to need a mixture of nuclear and wind. If my calculations are correct you need about 500.000 windmills to cover electricity demand in the US. But electricity demand is only a small fraction of total energy use. How much energy do all cars in the US use? How much do tractors working the fields? How much do factories burning their own? How much do ships transporting goods? How much do planes flying around? How much do factories in China making our goods? Or mining operations in Indonesia or Congo mining our materials? If you look at the full picture of sustainable energy, you'll find that covering electricity use by spending a trillion dollars on a 100x100 mile wind farm is a cool idea and a step in the direction, but it's only a step. There's a whole journey ahead of us, and that's what that book teaches.
    - newnewpdro 9y ago
      Musk refers to Nuclear as a potential part of the transitional story. Your comment suggests Nuclear is a permanent part of the "mixture", and that there's not enough capacity for all the energy needs without it.
- 9y ago

markvdb 9y ago

Cheap nuclear fusion energy would be a great human achievement. I do wonder about its effects on society though. Any reading containing well reasoned speculation on that? Here's what I can think of myself. * A cheaper, cleaner energy source might outcompete fossil fuel. Less air polution, yay! * Cheaper energy would significantly increase energy consumption. Think Jevons paradox[0]. The effect of that increased heat production on global warming can't be good... * Globally stabilising geopolitical effect. Less dependence on geographically confined scarce energy resources like Middle Eastern/Siberian/Venezuelan oil, Sahara sun, ... thanks to a globally available basic resource. Any other obvious effects I'm missing? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

iamgopal 9y ago
Mini-Self Contained Electric Charging Stations, that can charge 100-200 cars simultaneously. Better recycling of material due to energy abundance. Less Waste on Energy Transport. Tons of light pollution. Did I say, Much better recycling technologies ?
erikj 9y ago
Fusion propulsion would be very beneficial to any space operations beyond the Earth's orbit. I think NASA have a project investigating this technology.
mtgx 9y ago
I'm not even sure fusion would compete with solar/batteries by the time it's practical to use it. In my mind the #1 benefit of fusion will be industrialized space travel within the solar system.
Faaak 9y ago
I'm dreaming here, but could we with "unlimited" power radiate this power into space ? I'm thinking about a heat pump which would make the Earth colder, and radiate the heat to space, effectively cooling Earth (that's how indians made ice in the past) ?
- 9y ago

MayeulC 9y ago

This is yet another area where high temperature superconductors revolutionizes its engineering. I can't wait for more insights to be made in this domain: the way superconductors behave is actually becoming clearer and clearer from one year to another. Ambient temperature superconductors are the holy grail of the field, of course, but this project shows that even ~80 K superconductors can substantially reduce the size of magnets (cooling apparatus included), which can open doors to new applications. Exciting times... Oh, and I can't wait for ITER either. While the project was never meant to be commercially viable, it should offer some great insights into commercial fusion energy.

mannykannot 9y ago
I cannot help but think that ITER has been a harmful mistake. With at least 17 years to go before it is operational, it already seems obsolescent in some key technological areas, such as magnets, yet it keeps on going, sucking up funds that might be better applied elsewhere (though whether they would be is an open question.) The project reminds me of Britain's attempt to build the airliner of the future in the Bristol Brabazon [1], but which was obsolete by the time it flew. The biggest cost was probably in lost time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Brabazon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Brabazon
- jmiserez 9y ago
  Your 17 years are off, experiment begin is in 2027: https://www.iter.org/construction/timeline https://www.iter.org/construction/timeline And even then, the time until “operational” is not spent idling, the project has sparked and funded lots of research in various domains. It’s like the space race, at some point you just have to start building something for there to be any actual progress.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    Indeed, but I wonder if ITER has had a chilling effect on other such projects that could take advantage of newer technology to leapfrog it. In fact, some of the recent projects are looking more like the space race, which is an encouraging sign, and perhaps especially if it lights a fire under ITER - let's have a fusion race! The article cited 2035 as the date when ITER is expected to begin producing fusion energy. While preliminary R&D is necessary, it is all for (nearly) nothing unless and until it results in fusion at a scale that advances the state of the art.

Veedrac 9y ago

Tokamak Energy[1] seems to have taken a similar path with smaller, HTS-based reactors. I don't have the expertise to evaluate these projects but, judging from the statements of the people working with these new superconductors, fusion power might actually be 10 years away this time. [1] https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/

ScipioAfricanus 9y ago

It's hard to fully comprehend the impact of new energy sources on civilization. So much of what we do is only possible because we have the necessary energy at our disposal. When civilization finds new energy sources, most other technologies level up as well. Consider one of the biggest problems with desalinization systems: pumping water inland. The actual separation of salt from seawater isn't the most energy intensive part of the process. Desalinization works great for wealthy coastal communities. But a large nation like the US or China would never be able to fulfill the water demand of its people through desalinization alone because the cost of transporting coastal water inland would be prohibitive. Enter something like fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient on a per pound of fuel basis than fossil fuels and something like distributing water to everyone in the US from the coasts becomes possible.

demxzy 9y ago
Maybe we can reforest the Sahara which cheap transportation of water powered by fusion. Better climate control will also be probably possible
- codesnik 9y ago
  I wonder if extra dissipated heat while doing this would contribute to global warming. But probably scale of adding heat directly to atmosphere isn't comparable to insulation effect of CO2
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

stevespang 9y ago

From the announcement: "This device will, if all goes according to plan . . . ." . . .just nother example of throwing hard earned money into the fantasy of fusion, it will never be realized . . .

tim333 9y ago

Also discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16550252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16550252

jdblair 9y ago

It's said that practical fusion energy is always 10 years in the future. I see this project innovates and projects instead 15 years in the future! In all seriousness, I'm happy to see new projects using current superconducting technology, I just wish we could build these things faster and iterate more quickly.

pfdietz 9y ago

According to the 2014 arxiv.org paper on the ARC reactor https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3540.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3540.pdf the concept (which would produce 190MW(e)) uses 90 tonnes of beryllium. According to the USGS, the current total world annual production of Be is 220 tonnes, and total global resource is estimated at 100,000 tonnes. The world uses ~20 TW of primary energy, so roughly 100,000 ARC reactors would be needed to supply the world, using about 100x as much Be as the estimated amount available for mining. Unless Be supplies can be drastically increased, this concept is at best a niche player.