5 ms·

The specific EAST reactor [1] mentioned in the article is a testbed that will enable new technologies to be used on the ITER project. The ITER project [2] is cu

The specific EAST reactor [1] mentioned in the article is a testbed that will enable new technologies to be used on the ITER project. The ITER project [2] is currently the largest fusion power research project underway (and the largest reactor under construction). ITER's goal is to provide research that enables new technologies to be used on the DEMO project. The DEMO project's goal [3] is to provide commercially available power plants utilizing nuclear fusion. From ITER's wikipedia page: >The goal of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful use. It is the latest and largest of more than 100 fusion reactors built since the 1950s. ITER's planned successor, DEMO, is expected to be the first fusion reactor to produce electricity in an experimental environment. DEMO's anticipated success is expected to lead to full-scale electricity-producing fusion power stations and future commercial reactors. And from DEMO's wikipedia page: >As a prototype commercial fusion reactor, DEMO could make fusion energy available by 2033. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Advanced_Superconducting_Tokamak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Advanced_Supercon... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
miemo 8y ago
but 2033 is only 15 years away, not 20
- Someone 8y ago
  I think calling 2033 highly unlikely would be an understatement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER: ”Initial plasma experiments are scheduled to begin in 2025, with full deuterium–tritium fusion experiments starting in 2035.” So, according to Wikipedia, DEMO will build on ITER’s results, but will produce energy before ITER’s first real fusion experiment starts.
  - martinw111 8y ago
    If global warming will be more significant then is predicted now I believe they will suddenly invest 100x more into this technology. This and nuclear plants are only reasonable way how to have available energy for some 'CO2 removal' projects...
    - proto-n 8y ago
      Is money more limiting than time though? Nine woman and a child analogy comes to mind.
      - zaarn 8y ago
        Fusion is notoriously underfunded. More money means you can buy better gear, hire more workers, complete projects faster and run multiple parallel sites to complete various goals at the same time. Of course there is some point where adding more funding will not advance the speed as much anymore but I doubt were even close to that point at the moment.
        fyfy18 8y ago
        Why is it so underfunded? The first country to build one will be taking a big step to reducing their dependence on other countries for energy. I can understand big oil exporters not wanting to push it too much (although it's unlikely to come into fruition for the current generation of politians), but for others isn't it a no brainer?
        zaarn 8y ago
        Historically, Fusion has been bad at predicting when it's going to be ready for prime time, that plus very early fusion experiments turned out to be a lot of duds. Just think of the Cold Fusion hype (on a side note; cold fusion does work, µCF replaces electrons with muons in the hydrogen atom which reduces the radius of the atomic nucleus such that fusion becomes possible at room temperature and far below but generating the necessary muons is a fools game) and the various other nuclear fusion failures. Fission on the other hand could report a lot of results and success and, at the time, seemed to be infallibly safe.
donkeyd 8y ago
Any idea on how much money we're spending on this? Also, I can imagine it's a joint project only partially because we can share the cost, I imagine another reason to work together is so that no one country gets this technology first.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  Several billions of Euros, with Europe paying the largest share, but the reactor is in France so we get much of the secondary benefit (i.e. scientists and engineers spending their salaries there, construction work). http://www.iter.org/faq http://www.iter.org/faq (several are relevant).
- elorant 8y ago
  Initial budget was €5bn. Current budget is four times that and with completion nowhere near estimates of the final cost are as high as $60bn. Go figure. If by "we" you mean US's share, that's 9% of total costs. China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the US are paying 9% each and EU is paying 46%.
  - donkeyd 8y ago
    With 'we' I meant every country that's involved, not just my own country. $60bn is actually surprisingly little for research that could change the future of energy production and possibly society as we know it. To put it into context, the Apollo program cost $200bn in today's money and a high speed train between LA and SF is projected to cost $100bn.
    - namdnay 8y ago
      And the war in Iraq $1 trillion :(
      - donkeyd 8y ago
        Yup. I purposefully didn't mention it, because it can lead to distracting political discussions, unfortunately.
lambdadmitry 8y ago
> The DEMO project's goal [3] is to provide commercially available power plants utilizing nuclear fusion That's not true unfortunately. Yep it's planned to be attached to the grid, but it won't be a production-ready power station. That will be PROTO [1]. Basically the whole schedule slipped more, US pulled out of ITER so they had to scale it down, then it was delayed, so as things stand now DEMO will still be a testbed. Some recent DEMO design notes can be found here [2]. A bit dated, but if anything an optimistic outlook can be found here [3] at page 8. Note that DEMO is though to "resolve" some issues still. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTO_(fusion_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTO_(fusion_reactor) [2]: http://www.firefusionpower.org/NAS_EU_DEMO_Federici.pdf http://www.firefusionpower.org/NAS_EU_DEMO_Federici.pdf [3]: https://fire.pppl.gov/eu_demo_Stork_FZK%20.pdf https://fire.pppl.gov/eu_demo_Stork_FZK%20.pdf
8bitsrule 8y ago
Since the 1970s it's been customary to report that fusion power will happen "in about 25 years". So, traditionally, 2043.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

miemo 8y ago

but 2033 is only 15 years away, not 20

Someone 8y ago
I think calling 2033 highly unlikely would be an understatement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER: ”Initial plasma experiments are scheduled to begin in 2025, with full deuterium–tritium fusion experiments starting in 2035.” So, according to Wikipedia, DEMO will build on ITER’s results, but will produce energy before ITER’s first real fusion experiment starts.
- martinw111 8y ago
  If global warming will be more significant then is predicted now I believe they will suddenly invest 100x more into this technology. This and nuclear plants are only reasonable way how to have available energy for some 'CO2 removal' projects...
  - proto-n 8y ago
    Is money more limiting than time though? Nine woman and a child analogy comes to mind.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Fusion is notoriously underfunded. More money means you can buy better gear, hire more workers, complete projects faster and run multiple parallel sites to complete various goals at the same time. Of course there is some point where adding more funding will not advance the speed as much anymore but I doubt were even close to that point at the moment.
      - fyfy18 8y ago
        Why is it so underfunded? The first country to build one will be taking a big step to reducing their dependence on other countries for energy. I can understand big oil exporters not wanting to push it too much (although it's unlikely to come into fruition for the current generation of politians), but for others isn't it a no brainer?
        zaarn 8y ago
        Historically, Fusion has been bad at predicting when it's going to be ready for prime time, that plus very early fusion experiments turned out to be a lot of duds. Just think of the Cold Fusion hype (on a side note; cold fusion does work, µCF replaces electrons with muons in the hydrogen atom which reduces the radius of the atomic nucleus such that fusion becomes possible at room temperature and far below but generating the necessary muons is a fools game) and the various other nuclear fusion failures. Fission on the other hand could report a lot of results and success and, at the time, seemed to be infallibly safe.

donkeyd 8y ago

Any idea on how much money we're spending on this? Also, I can imagine it's a joint project only partially because we can share the cost, I imagine another reason to work together is so that no one country gets this technology first.

Symbiote 8y ago
Several billions of Euros, with Europe paying the largest share, but the reactor is in France so we get much of the secondary benefit (i.e. scientists and engineers spending their salaries there, construction work). http://www.iter.org/faq http://www.iter.org/faq (several are relevant).
elorant 8y ago
Initial budget was €5bn. Current budget is four times that and with completion nowhere near estimates of the final cost are as high as $60bn. Go figure. If by "we" you mean US's share, that's 9% of total costs. China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the US are paying 9% each and EU is paying 46%.
- donkeyd 8y ago
  With 'we' I meant every country that's involved, not just my own country. $60bn is actually surprisingly little for research that could change the future of energy production and possibly society as we know it. To put it into context, the Apollo program cost $200bn in today's money and a high speed train between LA and SF is projected to cost $100bn.
  - namdnay 8y ago
    And the war in Iraq $1 trillion :(
    - donkeyd 8y ago
      Yup. I purposefully didn't mention it, because it can lead to distracting political discussions, unfortunately.

lambdadmitry 8y ago

> The DEMO project's goal [3] is to provide commercially available power plants utilizing nuclear fusion That's not true unfortunately. Yep it's planned to be attached to the grid, but it won't be a production-ready power station. That will be PROTO [1]. Basically the whole schedule slipped more, US pulled out of ITER so they had to scale it down, then it was delayed, so as things stand now DEMO will still be a testbed. Some recent DEMO design notes can be found here [2]. A bit dated, but if anything an optimistic outlook can be found here [3] at page 8. Note that DEMO is though to "resolve" some issues still. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTO_(fusion_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTO_(fusion_reactor) [2]: http://www.firefusionpower.org/NAS_EU_DEMO_Federici.pdf http://www.firefusionpower.org/NAS_EU_DEMO_Federici.pdf [3]: https://fire.pppl.gov/eu_demo_Stork_FZK%20.pdf https://fire.pppl.gov/eu_demo_Stork_FZK%20.pdf

8bitsrule 8y ago

Since the 1970s it's been customary to report that fusion power will happen "in about 25 years". So, traditionally, 2043.