4 ms·

Well, it is all contingent on someone getting high temperature superconductors to work on an industrial reliability level. If they manage, we will have power pr

by 317070 5y ago

Well, it is all contingent on someone getting high temperature superconductors to work on an industrial reliability level. If they manage, we will have power producing fusion (though probably not economically viable). It is a big if, though. Fusion has always been 20 years away, as it was always contingent on some science panning out, but the universe has not been in our favour so far. It is 20 years away, with some decent but <50% probability.

DrBazza 5y ago
Isn't REBCO tape the thing that is going to save fusion?
- 317070 5y ago
  Yes, but turning the tape in a supermagnet that is reliable and doesn't burn itself to pieces on every quench event is non-trivial.
vkou 5y ago
> Well, it is all contingent on someone getting high temperature superconductors to work on an industrial reliability level. Is that really the only path-critical bottleneck that needs to be solved? Has everything else been figured out?
- _0ffh 5y ago
  No it's more complicated. High temperature superconductors are neither strictly necessary nor sufficient on their own, but I'm sure they'd help quite a bit.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Far from it. That old power station will sit idle for a long, long time... unless they build a solar farm around it. Seriously, there will never, ever be one solitary erg of commercially competitive energy from any process dependent on heating by neutron irradiation. Every cent going into work on those is, in effect, stolen from work on viable technologies that can have any impact on global climate disruption—mainly solar, wind, geothermal, and storage; and digs fusion deeper into an already tens-of-$billions-deep hole it can never climb out of. The only reasons spending on neutronic fusion continues are secondary—employing hot-neutron physicists so enough are ready when weapons work comes up, hi-temp superconductor industrialization, plasma fluid dynamics praxis, hot-neutron-tolerant metallurgy. At the end of it all they will shrug and say, "We guessed wrong", and not even apologize; instead: "... but we have this other great idea!"
willyt 5y ago
If you listen to the omega-tau episodes on fusion and ITER the 20 years thing is discussed quite a bit, it’s a question of money, not time. The technology is known to be possible but the experiments that need to be made to confirm how to do the engineering to build a working and reliable plant are big and very expensive so the constraint is getting governments to spend £100bn (or whatever) that it will cost to do this work. E.g ITER could be finished already and they could be starting on a prototype plant for energy generation if they didn’t have to struggle to justify funding for every little thing to all the various governments funding the project.
- Stevvo 5y ago
  For ITER money has little to do with it. The problem is mostly politics. For example, take the Vacuum vessel. Currently there is only one section on-site. The other sections are in various stages of completion in different countries around the world when they are due to be on-site already. Instead of one contractor manufacturing each of the nearly identical sections they are each being made in separate member countries for political reasons. The governments involved don't have a problem with spending the money, but they want a return on that investment so they look for that return in jobs and contracts for their engineering firms. The international collaboration isn't working. If ITER was only an EU project, it could probably be complete already.
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    The reasons you give look quite OK to me. As a international, huge project I can understand government who want to participate and make sure they get to understand the knowledge in the project by having firsthand experience. I'd say it's more a question on how we evaluate the fact an international organization is working or not. Is it "delivering the project's goal" or "making sure all participants get the most out of the project".
    - Stevvo 5y ago
      That's an interesting take on it. I expect if you posed that question to the DG he would tell you the answer is "both". He is simultaneously a scientist/engineer and a politician.
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
Check out the papers from the MIT SPARC folks. Getting the magnets working is not the bottleneck at all. REBCO and similar commercially available products are physically robust. Seriously, two grad students set a new field record doing nothing more complicated than spooling the stuff into a spiral. In terms of engineering, the diverter, and a wall that can last years are far, far, more difficult than the magnets.

by 317070 5y ago

DrBazza 5y ago

Isn't REBCO tape the thing that is going to save fusion?

317070 5y ago
Yes, but turning the tape in a supermagnet that is reliable and doesn't burn itself to pieces on every quench event is non-trivial.

vkou 5y ago

> Well, it is all contingent on someone getting high temperature superconductors to work on an industrial reliability level. Is that really the only path-critical bottleneck that needs to be solved? Has everything else been figured out?

_0ffh 5y ago
No it's more complicated. High temperature superconductors are neither strictly necessary nor sufficient on their own, but I'm sure they'd help quite a bit.
ncmncm 5y ago
Far from it. That old power station will sit idle for a long, long time... unless they build a solar farm around it. Seriously, there will never, ever be one solitary erg of commercially competitive energy from any process dependent on heating by neutron irradiation. Every cent going into work on those is, in effect, stolen from work on viable technologies that can have any impact on global climate disruption—mainly solar, wind, geothermal, and storage; and digs fusion deeper into an already tens-of-$billions-deep hole it can never climb out of. The only reasons spending on neutronic fusion continues are secondary—employing hot-neutron physicists so enough are ready when weapons work comes up, hi-temp superconductor industrialization, plasma fluid dynamics praxis, hot-neutron-tolerant metallurgy. At the end of it all they will shrug and say, "We guessed wrong", and not even apologize; instead: "... but we have this other great idea!"

willyt 5y ago

If you listen to the omega-tau episodes on fusion and ITER the 20 years thing is discussed quite a bit, it’s a question of money, not time. The technology is known to be possible but the experiments that need to be made to confirm how to do the engineering to build a working and reliable plant are big and very expensive so the constraint is getting governments to spend £100bn (or whatever) that it will cost to do this work. E.g ITER could be finished already and they could be starting on a prototype plant for energy generation if they didn’t have to struggle to justify funding for every little thing to all the various governments funding the project.

Stevvo 5y ago
For ITER money has little to do with it. The problem is mostly politics. For example, take the Vacuum vessel. Currently there is only one section on-site. The other sections are in various stages of completion in different countries around the world when they are due to be on-site already. Instead of one contractor manufacturing each of the nearly identical sections they are each being made in separate member countries for political reasons. The governments involved don't have a problem with spending the money, but they want a return on that investment so they look for that return in jobs and contracts for their engineering firms. The international collaboration isn't working. If ITER was only an EU project, it could probably be complete already.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  The reasons you give look quite OK to me. As a international, huge project I can understand government who want to participate and make sure they get to understand the knowledge in the project by having firsthand experience. I'd say it's more a question on how we evaluate the fact an international organization is working or not. Is it "delivering the project's goal" or "making sure all participants get the most out of the project".
  - Stevvo 5y ago
    That's an interesting take on it. I expect if you posed that question to the DG he would tell you the answer is "both". He is simultaneously a scientist/engineer and a politician.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

Check out the papers from the MIT SPARC folks. Getting the magnets working is not the bottleneck at all. REBCO and similar commercially available products are physically robust. Seriously, two grad students set a new field record doing nothing more complicated than spooling the stuff into a spiral. In terms of engineering, the diverter, and a wall that can last years are far, far, more difficult than the magnets.