7 ms·

ITER Live: Start of Machine Assembly

20 points by RainforestCx 6y ago

mrtksn 6y ago
I recall multiple conflicting stories about how this is the future and how this is waste of money on a ill conceived giga-project. I also recall a skunk works reactor that takes radically different approach (smaller reactors, instead of big) and was supposed to have results if few years. [2014]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8458339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8458339 Then there are new stories about skunk works being on track. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/lockheeds-skunk-works-building-bigger-fusion-reactor https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/lockheeds-skunk-works...
- maccam94 6y ago
  IIRC, when ITER was conceived, it wasn't a waste of money. They just chose a conservative development path that was expensive but very likely achievable. Technology and theories have since advanced that might leapfrog it, but the project has still contributed a great deal to our understanding of fusion and the engineering required to produce it. Relevant talk by one of the MIT professors working with Commonwealth Fusion Systems: Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion? - Prof. Dennis Whyte (2016) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 Timeline (in case you want to skip over some parts): 00:01:00 - introducing Dennis Whyte, MIT department head for nuclear science 00:04:24 - presentation starts 00:06:00 - identifies breakthrough with REBCO magnets 00:07:25 - explains deuterium-tritium fusion 00:12:30 - basic metrics for reactor performance 00:17:15 - energy output of other previous fusion experiments 00:19:00 - examines ITER and the problems of its approach 00:22:00 - problems solved by high energy magnetic fields 00:28:15 - full scale reactor concept, teardown of REBCO magnets 00:37:00 - design limits and margins 00:39:00 - fixes plasma instabilities found in weaker magnetic chambers 00:40:00 - maintainability, lifespan, component replacement 00:45:00 - solution to neutron damage and energy capture 00:50:30 - cost and profitability 00:54:00 - full graph of field strength vs reactor scale (and thus funding requirements) 01:01:50 - Q&A 01:30:00 - question about the biggest risks A more recent (2019) talk with more numbers and even more confidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM
  - sgift 6y ago
    > Technology and theories have since advanced that might leapfrog it With "might" being the operative word. As long as none of these new approaches has achieved viable fusion (so, more power out than in) I think it's not a bad idea to just continue with the less radical plan that will probably work, even if it is slower.
    - xorcist 6y ago
      ITER is research. There are numerous engineering problems yet to be solved, plasma physics, materials science, you name it. Research projects are always a "waste of money" in some way so that particular criticism is neither surprising nor very helpful.
- BenoitP 6y ago
  My take on it is that 'it takes two to tango'. Massive investments in ITER send a very strong signal to the market/innovators. And IMHO other initiatives would not have gotten funded if it were not for the trophee of getting it to work before ITER does. Sort of like the space race between the USA and the USSR.
- jjk166 6y ago
  The power a fusion reactor produces is proportional to its plasma's volume, the losses are proportional to the surface area. We've known since the 50s that if you keep making a tokamak bigger, it'll eventually produce net power, but bigger reactors are also much more expensive to build. Thus you want to make the smallest reactor that will actually work, which is easier said than done. Stronger magnets shrink the necessarry reactor whereas plasma instabilities you didn't notice before require it to be larger. With the trend in magnet advances of the late 20th century, it looked like any breakeven reactor was going to be big, which in turn meant it would take a lot of time to build. Work on ITER's design began in 1988 and they designed it to use the magnets they expected to have available in 20 years. However less than 2 years earlier, high temperature superconductors were discovered. An incredible amount of progress has been made in that field in the intervening decades that ITER could never take advantage of. This does not mean ITER is useless; it was always meant to be an intermediate stage before a real demonstration plant was built. At the time, it was imagined that this viable commercial reactor would be truly enormous, but now with the much better magnets perhaps it could be the same size or even smaller than ITER. The lessons learned from ITER, such as how to protect the walls of the reactor, will still apply. While some may suggest that ITER should have been scrapped and a new project started that incorporated high temperature superconductors, the fact is there's always going to be technological progress between a project's start and completion, at some point you just have to build something. There are many proposals out there for smaller reactor concepts which use different approaches. Much of ITER's criticism comes from those who think these small reactors would make extreme progress if they had access to ITER's funding. This belief is unfounded. Tokamaks like ITER are within spitting distance of breakeven, all other concepts are many orders of magnitude away. ITER gets a ton of funding because it has a very good justification for needing that funding, it's a truly massive machine; the only reason to look at small reactors is that they don't need crazy funding to test. Were ITER to lose its funding there's no reason to believe it would be rerouted to these alternative experiments which have not justified that level of investment. Most of these small reactor concepts are not very promising as routes to real power plants. That's not to say they are not worth investigating, there could be crossover and the technology may find other applications. The skunkworks concept seems especially suspect: it goes against all established principles of fusion reactor design, and that it's being done by skunkworks shields it from any rigorous academic scrutiny - though what numbers they have published suggest they've made little more than a toy thus-far. Realistically, only other tokamaks and maybe stellerators have a serious shot at beating the ITER development line to producing a viable powerplant baring some unforeseen paradigm shift, which is always a possibility but never a good horse to bet on. It is worth noting that ITER has had some serious delays and cost overruns. This has been true of most large scale international science collaborations of the era such as the ISS and the LHC. While I certainly wouldn't complain if the process was more efficient, the fact remains that real progress is being made.
DiabloD3 6y ago
All the while, we have the new company formed out of the work of the SAFIRE project that uses self-organizing plasma fields that makes traditional tokamaks look entirely stoneage. Not only are they doing fusion at a tiny fraction of the power, they're doing it with a much much much smaller system that is producing heavier elements out of thin air while having started as just a "sun in a bottle" research system to understand how the Sun interacts with the electromagnetic field of the galaxy (and why the 1960s nuclear fusion model of the Sun explains nothing of the past 50-60 years of observations published since). They did it on basically a shoestring budget, too.
- Zealotux 6y ago
  I really wanted to believe in the SAFIRE project, but it looks like an embarrassing scam, unfortunately: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmVdPgkudC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmVdPgkudC8 Really hope I get proved wrong in the next years.
  - DiabloD3 6y ago
    Yeah, I don't get the point of those kinds of Youtube videos. If they think its a "scam", they should publish a paper on the inability to replicate of the results. Instead its just some weird reaction video by some rando on Youtube that has not cited his sources. The irony of this is, he accuses them of doing the same thing EU proponents have accused modern Cosmology of doing: filtering out anything that doesn't fit their narrative, even when its established science in another field for the past few decades. The SAFIRE guys aren't cosmologists, they're approaching the problem of the Sun the same way a plasma physicist would. Literally, they are following in the footsteps of Hannes Alfvén (the guy that got the Nobel for magneto-hydrodynamics), and Kristian Birkeland (nominated for a Nobel seven times due to his work in this field), and continuing their work. The people who claim that plasma physics has no place in space, in solar/planet interactions, in galactic/star interactions, etc are, frankly, insulting both the Nobel committee and the work of NASA for the past 30+ years. They're on the same delusion spectrum that flat earthers are on, just not quite to that extreme. I'm not saying SAFIRE is right, but SAFIRE isn't even saying they're right. They've literally asked for other labs to replicate their results because they've found a novel way of replicating the Sun's activity in their lab, and they need to rule out measurement error in ways they haven't already. They are seeking replication and validation, something scammers don't do.
waynenilsen 6y ago
How far behind? How much over budget?
inputmice 6y ago
Does this mean we are only 10 years away from fusion?
- swebs 6y ago
  No, ITER will not be used as a power plant. Think of it as an experimental device like the LHC. The findings from ITER will be used to build DEMO which will be able to output power continuously. And DEMO's findings will be used to create PROTO, a commercial power plant. Sometime after 2050. Maybe longer. And if you want to be really technical, we've had fusion reactors for decades, but ITER should be the first one that produces more energy than it consumes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTO_(fusion_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTO_(fusion_reactor)

20 points by RainforestCx 6y ago

I recall multiple conflicting stories about how this is the future and how this is waste of money on a ill conceived giga-project. I also recall a skunk works reactor that takes radically different approach (smaller reactors, instead of big) and was supposed to have results if few years. [2014]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8458339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8458339 Then there are new stories about skunk works being on track. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/lockheeds-skunk-works-building-bigger-fusion-reactor https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/lockheeds-skunk-works...

maccam94 6y ago
IIRC, when ITER was conceived, it wasn't a waste of money. They just chose a conservative development path that was expensive but very likely achievable. Technology and theories have since advanced that might leapfrog it, but the project has still contributed a great deal to our understanding of fusion and the engineering required to produce it. Relevant talk by one of the MIT professors working with Commonwealth Fusion Systems: Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion? - Prof. Dennis Whyte (2016) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 Timeline (in case you want to skip over some parts): 00:01:00 - introducing Dennis Whyte, MIT department head for nuclear science 00:04:24 - presentation starts 00:06:00 - identifies breakthrough with REBCO magnets 00:07:25 - explains deuterium-tritium fusion 00:12:30 - basic metrics for reactor performance 00:17:15 - energy output of other previous fusion experiments 00:19:00 - examines ITER and the problems of its approach 00:22:00 - problems solved by high energy magnetic fields 00:28:15 - full scale reactor concept, teardown of REBCO magnets 00:37:00 - design limits and margins 00:39:00 - fixes plasma instabilities found in weaker magnetic chambers 00:40:00 - maintainability, lifespan, component replacement 00:45:00 - solution to neutron damage and energy capture 00:50:30 - cost and profitability 00:54:00 - full graph of field strength vs reactor scale (and thus funding requirements) 01:01:50 - Q&A 01:30:00 - question about the biggest risks A more recent (2019) talk with more numbers and even more confidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM
- sgift 6y ago
  > Technology and theories have since advanced that might leapfrog it With "might" being the operative word. As long as none of these new approaches has achieved viable fusion (so, more power out than in) I think it's not a bad idea to just continue with the less radical plan that will probably work, even if it is slower.
  - xorcist 6y ago
    ITER is research. There are numerous engineering problems yet to be solved, plasma physics, materials science, you name it. Research projects are always a "waste of money" in some way so that particular criticism is neither surprising nor very helpful.
BenoitP 6y ago
My take on it is that 'it takes two to tango'. Massive investments in ITER send a very strong signal to the market/innovators. And IMHO other initiatives would not have gotten funded if it were not for the trophee of getting it to work before ITER does. Sort of like the space race between the USA and the USSR.
jjk166 6y ago
The power a fusion reactor produces is proportional to its plasma's volume, the losses are proportional to the surface area. We've known since the 50s that if you keep making a tokamak bigger, it'll eventually produce net power, but bigger reactors are also much more expensive to build. Thus you want to make the smallest reactor that will actually work, which is easier said than done. Stronger magnets shrink the necessarry reactor whereas plasma instabilities you didn't notice before require it to be larger. With the trend in magnet advances of the late 20th century, it looked like any breakeven reactor was going to be big, which in turn meant it would take a lot of time to build. Work on ITER's design began in 1988 and they designed it to use the magnets they expected to have available in 20 years. However less than 2 years earlier, high temperature superconductors were discovered. An incredible amount of progress has been made in that field in the intervening decades that ITER could never take advantage of. This does not mean ITER is useless; it was always meant to be an intermediate stage before a real demonstration plant was built. At the time, it was imagined that this viable commercial reactor would be truly enormous, but now with the much better magnets perhaps it could be the same size or even smaller than ITER. The lessons learned from ITER, such as how to protect the walls of the reactor, will still apply. While some may suggest that ITER should have been scrapped and a new project started that incorporated high temperature superconductors, the fact is there's always going to be technological progress between a project's start and completion, at some point you just have to build something. There are many proposals out there for smaller reactor concepts which use different approaches. Much of ITER's criticism comes from those who think these small reactors would make extreme progress if they had access to ITER's funding. This belief is unfounded. Tokamaks like ITER are within spitting distance of breakeven, all other concepts are many orders of magnitude away. ITER gets a ton of funding because it has a very good justification for needing that funding, it's a truly massive machine; the only reason to look at small reactors is that they don't need crazy funding to test. Were ITER to lose its funding there's no reason to believe it would be rerouted to these alternative experiments which have not justified that level of investment. Most of these small reactor concepts are not very promising as routes to real power plants. That's not to say they are not worth investigating, there could be crossover and the technology may find other applications. The skunkworks concept seems especially suspect: it goes against all established principles of fusion reactor design, and that it's being done by skunkworks shields it from any rigorous academic scrutiny - though what numbers they have published suggest they've made little more than a toy thus-far. Realistically, only other tokamaks and maybe stellerators have a serious shot at beating the ITER development line to producing a viable powerplant baring some unforeseen paradigm shift, which is always a possibility but never a good horse to bet on. It is worth noting that ITER has had some serious delays and cost overruns. This has been true of most large scale international science collaborations of the era such as the ISS and the LHC. While I certainly wouldn't complain if the process was more efficient, the fact remains that real progress is being made.

DiabloD3 6y ago

All the while, we have the new company formed out of the work of the SAFIRE project that uses self-organizing plasma fields that makes traditional tokamaks look entirely stoneage. Not only are they doing fusion at a tiny fraction of the power, they're doing it with a much much much smaller system that is producing heavier elements out of thin air while having started as just a "sun in a bottle" research system to understand how the Sun interacts with the electromagnetic field of the galaxy (and why the 1960s nuclear fusion model of the Sun explains nothing of the past 50-60 years of observations published since). They did it on basically a shoestring budget, too.

Zealotux 6y ago
I really wanted to believe in the SAFIRE project, but it looks like an embarrassing scam, unfortunately: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmVdPgkudC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmVdPgkudC8 Really hope I get proved wrong in the next years.
- DiabloD3 6y ago
  Yeah, I don't get the point of those kinds of Youtube videos. If they think its a "scam", they should publish a paper on the inability to replicate of the results. Instead its just some weird reaction video by some rando on Youtube that has not cited his sources. The irony of this is, he accuses them of doing the same thing EU proponents have accused modern Cosmology of doing: filtering out anything that doesn't fit their narrative, even when its established science in another field for the past few decades. The SAFIRE guys aren't cosmologists, they're approaching the problem of the Sun the same way a plasma physicist would. Literally, they are following in the footsteps of Hannes Alfvén (the guy that got the Nobel for magneto-hydrodynamics), and Kristian Birkeland (nominated for a Nobel seven times due to his work in this field), and continuing their work. The people who claim that plasma physics has no place in space, in solar/planet interactions, in galactic/star interactions, etc are, frankly, insulting both the Nobel committee and the work of NASA for the past 30+ years. They're on the same delusion spectrum that flat earthers are on, just not quite to that extreme. I'm not saying SAFIRE is right, but SAFIRE isn't even saying they're right. They've literally asked for other labs to replicate their results because they've found a novel way of replicating the Sun's activity in their lab, and they need to rule out measurement error in ways they haven't already. They are seeking replication and validation, something scammers don't do.

waynenilsen 6y ago

How far behind? How much over budget?

inputmice 6y ago

Does this mean we are only 10 years away from fusion?

swebs 6y ago
No, ITER will not be used as a power plant. Think of it as an experimental device like the LHC. The findings from ITER will be used to build DEMO which will be able to output power continuously. And DEMO's findings will be used to create PROTO, a commercial power plant. Sometime after 2050. Maybe longer. And if you want to be really technical, we've had fusion reactors for decades, but ITER should be the first one that produces more energy than it consumes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTO_(fusion_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTO_(fusion_reactor)