10 ms·

Helion Energy achieves fusion milestone

71 points by danboarder 5y ago

Arnt 5y ago
"We directly convert fusion energy into electricity" — how does that work?
- ben_w 5y ago
  Back when I was looking at fusors (I still have ideas, but no time), there was a suggestion of converting the high-energy charged particles from the fusion into energy by decelerating them in an electric field and then collecting the charge as the speed approached zero; the exact reverse of a particle accelerator putting energy in.
  - sennight 5y ago
    Directly coupling the two processes like that would certainly have some interesting failure modes with regard to potential and phase. If this results in DC power distribution... elephants everywhere will rejoice as Westinghouse's reign of terror ends.
    - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
      Power transfer from large scale Renewables projects have already precipited HVDC [0]. There isn't an absolutely AC/DC dicotomy as it was in Edison's feud. It all comes down to using the right solution for the right problem. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#/media/File:HVDC_Europe.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#/m...
      - sennight 5y ago
        Well feeding an HVDC line with something that doesn't already naturally generate AC (like a wind turbine) would be a better fit. But it would be a little strange to not fully exploit the other thing that distinguished the DC system from AC: distributed generation vs centralized generation. What was once necessary due to transmission inefficiency is now desirable due to transmission inefficiency :) (among other things). I guess I'll have to wait a little longer for the breadbox sized fusion reactor, though I wouldn't turn up my nose to a residential fission option.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    > (I still have ideas, but no time), You do have the money?
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Easily, fusors are Highschool-project cheap.
      - willis936 5y ago
        That's the headline, but you'd need about $10k of kit if you're handy at digging through trash to put one together.
  - Symmetry 5y ago
    Yeah. This is something you can do only when the outputs of a fusion reaction are mostly charged particles moving quickly. If most of the energy comes out in neutrons, as in deuterium-tritium fusion which most fusion reactor attempts are using, you have to run the resulting energy through a heat engine to produce electricity.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      Which is why Helion is going for direct conversion, given their mostly aneutronic design.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    I don't think that idea can be made to practically work, due to space charge limits.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I don’t doubt something will cause problems, given this is 1-20 megavolts at (for a gigawatt reactor) 50-1000 amps, but I’m not sure what issue you’re describing here. Can you elaborate?
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        Space charge is the accumulated effect of the charge of ions or electrons altering the electric field. It limits current flow in vacuum tubes, and also limits the current density (and hence thrust density) of ion engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_charge#Space-charge-limited_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_charge#Space-charge-limi...
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > This releases energy, and the plasma expands, pushing back on the magnetic field. The change in field induces current and thus electricity to power electrical loads (Figure 1).
- twic 5y ago
  Various ideas, i don't know what Helion are planning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion Touched on here: https://www.euro-fusion.org/news/alternative-fusion-concepts-helion-energy/ https://www.euro-fusion.org/news/alternative-fusion-concepts... The diagram from Helion on that page makes it look basically like a two-stroke petrol engine: a magnetic field compresses the plasma, which then fuses, and the energy pushes back against the field, doing work. I'm not sure my intuitions about lawnmower engines really carry over to fusion reactors like that, though.
  - choeger 5y ago
    Well, of course they do. If 20th century SciFi literature has taught me anything then that there is nothing in high-energy physics that cannot be explained by a metaphor to some good old combustion device or, in exceptional cases, a hydraulic system.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  As I understand it, they inject two plasmoids into the central solenoid, then compress the merged plasma by increasing the magnetic field there. After a short burn, the magnetic field there is reduced, with the (now hotter) plasma pushing against it. In this last step energy can be withdraw from the magnet and recovered.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    The last step is the one I'm wondering about. You can't just put an electric cable near a 7T magnetic field.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      I think you use an opening switch to divert the current in the magnet into an external load. And yes all the conductors in the magnet experience strong forces; some 60% of the mass of ARC is the stainless steel support needed to resist JxB forces.
himinlomax 5y ago
The article uses degrees celsius, foot, watt, nanometer, square foot, kilo electron-volt, miles per hour, teslas ...
- _Microft 5y ago
  Beside temperature for which one could also state the thermal energy for instead, I would only object to the imperial units. All others are needed to describe different physical properties and part of, or derived from the standard unit system („SI units“).
  - isaacimagine 5y ago
    What about neither? > 1 glass of [fuel] is enough to power a house for 826 years… We talking 8 ounces? What if I'm extra thirsty?
    - Tade0 5y ago
      Also: we're talking imperial or US customary fluid ounces?
      - CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
        African or European swallows?
    - medstrom 5y ago
      To some people I know, a "glass of water" means a small glass about 200 ml, to others it's 500+ ml. Also, how much power does one "house" draw? But it's moot, the point is not that you should take away "826 years" from the article, just "a very long time". Perhaps they should have written "hundreds of years" instead of creating a false sense of precision.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      Then you can power a bigger house.
bluepanda928752 5y ago
The only fusion project which has a chance of producing excess heat at Q>2 within a decade is the MIT SPARC, using proven plasma physics and scaling the size/cost down dramatically with high-field HTS magnets (think ITER but sooner and >10x cheaper). Why is this definite solution to climate apocalypse being developed within the framework of MIT startup accelerator instead of Manhattan Project while most of the publicity goes to unproven designs which are orders of magnitude from being anywhere close to Q>1 is beyond me MIT SPARC overview presentation/recent progress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8uYNhevRtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8uYNhevRtk Journal of Plasma Physics issue with several papers about it: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-plasma-physics/issue/8E169A054A534DBA94F6BBF4C3DB88A4 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-plasma-ph...
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Definite solution? It's a definite non-solution, even if the plasma physics is more nailed down. The ARC reactor (fully scaled up SPARC with tritium breeding blanket) would have a power density 40x worse than a PWR primary reactor vessel, and supplying the world's primary energy demand with them would require 100x more beryllium than the USGS estimated resource (not reserve) of that element.
  - bluepanda928752 5y ago
    Not sure why lower power density might be a show-stopper here. Beryllium angle is interesting, haven't thought about that
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      The cost of the reactor will be proportional to its size, so the cost/power will be inversely proportional to the power density. Lawrence Lidsky (who was also at MIT) (and also a similar argument from Pfirsch and Schmitter in Germany) famously pointed out back in the 1980s that DT fusion reactors will inherently have terrible power density compared to fission reactors, and this will render them noncompetitive. Despite putative rebuttals at the time, nothing we've seen since contradicts their devastating argument. http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trouble-With-Fusion_MIT_Tech_Review_1983.pdf http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trou... https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987oepn.book.....P/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987oepn.book.....P/abstra... Note that Helion wants to go with D-3He, and use direct conversion for at least some of the energy recovery. This might be the only hope for making fusion compete. But of course you need 3He; making it with DD fusion requires even more aggressive plasma physics. ARC at least isn't quite as absurd as a tokamak the size of ITER, which has a gross fusion power density another order of magnitude lower.
baybal2 5y ago
I haven't heard about this company before, on one hand it sound more authentic than the outright cold fusion scam infesting the "trendy tech" scene. On other hand there are other things screaming fraud: 1. “We directly convert fusion energy into electricity, which means that we don’t require “ignition” and can produce net electricity at much lower net energy [Q] values. Our challenges now are primarily engineering challenges rather than science challenges.” Bullshit, if they get net energy gain, then there must be a self-sustaining fusion even for a microsecond, even if they are using pulsed operation. Second, a near 99% certain "engineering solution" to fusion is ITER — the bigger you build a tokamak, the more stable is the fusion plasma. ITER is this "build it big enough" solution. They don't address unsolved science challenges facing every fusion reactor: material science to withstand the neutron flux, removal of "nuclear ashes," working long term cooling solution, which will not require overhaul, or coolant replacement every few days. 2. One of the key obstacles for many fusion power proposals is that using them will require upgrades to the existing power grid. Helion claims it is side-stepping this issue. “Helion’s fusion electricity generators are compact, use small amounts of fuel, and can run 24/7. Therefore, one of the key benefits of Helion’s power facilities is that they can directly plug into existing transmission infrastructure and replace current fossil-fuel-based power generation without significant investment in additional infrastructure. Grid-level transmission infrastructure is a requirement of large-scale, gigawatt-class power associated with traditional fusion approaches,” Bullshit, what will make it harder for a fusion reactor outputting steam to just turn the same turbine as a fossil fuel power plant? On other hand, they will require way more power conversion equipment to output the high voltage 3 phase AC coming from regular generators. If a company like this is challenged by such a triviality as electric power conversion, you really should challenge their engineering acumen. 4. “Fusion is an abundant source of zero-carbon baseload power, but unlike fission, fusion cannot produce a runaway chain reaction. If something goes wrong, fusion simply stops. Fusion also does not produce any long-term waste and cannot be weaponized,” said the Helion rep. A thermal explosion of the reactor casing if the cooling channels are breached/rot/rust, with ejection of neutron activated isotopes may well be possible. Short lived isotopes of light elements are more radioactive, predominantly non-metals, more volatile, and have higher biological affinity than heavier elements. Short term waste may not be killing you over 100 years, but may well kill you in a few days. This may well be worse than conventional reactor meltdown. 5. FRC devices confine plasma on closed magnetic field lines in the form of a self-stable torus. Together with the spheromak they are considered part of the compact toroid class of fusion devices. FRC devices normally have a plasma that is more elongated than spheromaks. “An FRC is a stable, self-contained plasma which can be accelerated and super-heated to 100 M°C+. Further, FRCs are high Beta, which enables direct electricity recapture and require no particle beams, lasers, superconductors, or antimatter,” said the Helion rep. Spheromacs been a research subject of USA's, and USSR's national thermonuclear research programs for decades, and been independently concluded as a dead end development by both sides despite the great enthusiasm about inherent advantages. High, or low Beta will make little difference to the fact that they will invariably need to dissipate double digit percentage of the power output as heat. Having few coils for direct energy capture would probably only mean few percents difference to the net energy output, and I believe will just make the whole thing more complicated, and harder to control. 6. “Our facilities can operate continuously no matter the weather or time of day, which is ideal for baseload power. Moreover, they are compact and can produce 50 MW of power in a 20,000 square foot space. Bullshit, try to put a conventional powerplant capable of producing 50MW of electricity into half an acre. Even if you remove the biggest part, the boiler, and the support equipment to run it, there is no chance you can physically fit the cooling stacks to dissipate around 150MW of waste heat, turbines, generators, transformers, offices, water treatment plant into 0.5 acres. 7. “Modern gigahertz-class fiber optic triggering, monitoring, and field programmable gate array (FPGA) processing allow the reliable, synchronous, and efficient operation of Helion’s fusion system. At the generator scale, the ability to provide reliable and throttle-able power allows Helion to load-follow existing renewable generation, eliminating the need for new power management or storage technologies,” This is pure technobabble. This man either doesn't know what he is talking about, or knows, but pretends that he doesn't.
f154hfds 5y ago
I just finished reading The Wright Brothers by David McCullough. A fascinating aspect of the book is how no one expected two unknowns to solve a problem governments had been pouring money into [1] with no success. Every one of the high profile players of the time were failures. You may be quick to point out that fusion is different from airplanes - requiring vastly more money and resources. Except that that's also the same argument people thought was true about airplanes in 1900! Anyway, all of this to say if history is our guide than I have my doubts about ITER and the rest of the high profile projects. If fusion is to ever make headway I think it will be from some little known cheap operation in a way no one expects. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Langley#Aviation_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Langley#Aviation_work
- willis936 5y ago
  This is exactly why moonshot projects such as this exist. Even though toroidal MCF machines clearly are the most conservative choice and funding levels aren't nearly as high as is necessary to build a reactor in the near future, society says "what's a few million dollars to keep on turning over rocks? There might be a shiny coin under one."
- kilroy123 5y ago
  The simple "airplane" they flew was enormously less of a technical challenge than a fusion reactor. The days of easy, made-in-the-garage inventions are way over. Nuclear fusion reactors will not be created in some garage. We need serious government money funding many labs and groups or a massive Manhattan project. We're talking about making a miniature star in a box.
  - arcbyte 5y ago
    Says someone who will never create an easy, made-in-the-garage invention. Attitude is everything
    - csb6 5y ago
      Attitude is not everything. It matters, but there are material factors in the world that are hard constraints no matter how you approach the problem. For example, you cannot simply create a fusion reactor by “really wanting it” and “being smart” and “thinking outside the box”. You have to have all of those traits, plus extensive knowledge of physics and access to rare, expensive materials/tools in order to make a solution due to the tremendous temperatures and complex reactions happening. The Wright Brothers had comparatively few obstacles in terms of physics. They did not need to acquire a material able to withstand 100 million degrees of heat, for instance. They did not need to understand the mechanics of a fusion reaction, which is orders of magnitude more complex than the mechanics of the Wright Brothers’ aircraft in flight. Many useful inventions can be created with few resources. Creativity matters. But acting like attitude and elbow grease is “everything” is naive, especially in the context of nuclear fusion research.
leptoniscool 5y ago
Solar power is already cheaper than coal. The sun is the ultimate fusion power source.
peter_d_sherman 5y ago
Strange Idea: Perhaps Fusion Reactors have not only a possibility to be the future energy source for Earth -- but the additional possibility as a future method for transmuting elements -- into other elements. Put a little bit of Element X (which is not one of the main, energy-generating reactants) into the fusion mix -- get Element Y out of the mix, Z minutes later... Of course, some of the future challenges to this would include: How to get Element Y, which is now 100 million degrees Celsius, out of the mix, and cool it down... But, we'll leave those challenges to future Scientists! <g> Currently, the five main branches of Chemistry are: physical, analytical, biochemical, organic, and inorganic. Well why not a sixth, future one? Why not -- (wait for it!) -- "Fusion Reactor Chemistry" <g> ? You know, dealing with all kinds of elemental transmutation (and other Chemistry/Chemical Reaction related subjects!) -- that in the future become possible in Fusion Reactors...

71 points by danboarder 5y ago

Arnt 5y ago

"We directly convert fusion energy into electricity" — how does that work?

ben_w 5y ago
Back when I was looking at fusors (I still have ideas, but no time), there was a suggestion of converting the high-energy charged particles from the fusion into energy by decelerating them in an electric field and then collecting the charge as the speed approached zero; the exact reverse of a particle accelerator putting energy in.
- sennight 5y ago
  Directly coupling the two processes like that would certainly have some interesting failure modes with regard to potential and phase. If this results in DC power distribution... elephants everywhere will rejoice as Westinghouse's reign of terror ends.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    Power transfer from large scale Renewables projects have already precipited HVDC [0]. There isn't an absolutely AC/DC dicotomy as it was in Edison's feud. It all comes down to using the right solution for the right problem. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#/media/File:HVDC_Europe.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#/m...
    - sennight 5y ago
      Well feeding an HVDC line with something that doesn't already naturally generate AC (like a wind turbine) would be a better fit. But it would be a little strange to not fully exploit the other thing that distinguished the DC system from AC: distributed generation vs centralized generation. What was once necessary due to transmission inefficiency is now desirable due to transmission inefficiency :) (among other things). I guess I'll have to wait a little longer for the breadbox sized fusion reactor, though I wouldn't turn up my nose to a residential fission option.
- the-dude 5y ago
  > (I still have ideas, but no time), You do have the money?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Easily, fusors are Highschool-project cheap.
    - willis936 5y ago
      That's the headline, but you'd need about $10k of kit if you're handy at digging through trash to put one together.
- Symmetry 5y ago
  Yeah. This is something you can do only when the outputs of a fusion reaction are mostly charged particles moving quickly. If most of the energy comes out in neutrons, as in deuterium-tritium fusion which most fusion reactor attempts are using, you have to run the resulting energy through a heat engine to produce electricity.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Which is why Helion is going for direct conversion, given their mostly aneutronic design.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  I don't think that idea can be made to practically work, due to space charge limits.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I don’t doubt something will cause problems, given this is 1-20 megavolts at (for a gigawatt reactor) 50-1000 amps, but I’m not sure what issue you’re describing here. Can you elaborate?
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      Space charge is the accumulated effect of the charge of ions or electrons altering the electric field. It limits current flow in vacuum tubes, and also limits the current density (and hence thrust density) of ion engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_charge#Space-charge-limited_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_charge#Space-charge-limi...
chriswarbo 5y ago
> This releases energy, and the plasma expands, pushing back on the magnetic field. The change in field induces current and thus electricity to power electrical loads (Figure 1).
twic 5y ago
Various ideas, i don't know what Helion are planning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion Touched on here: https://www.euro-fusion.org/news/alternative-fusion-concepts-helion-energy/ https://www.euro-fusion.org/news/alternative-fusion-concepts... The diagram from Helion on that page makes it look basically like a two-stroke petrol engine: a magnetic field compresses the plasma, which then fuses, and the energy pushes back against the field, doing work. I'm not sure my intuitions about lawnmower engines really carry over to fusion reactors like that, though.
- choeger 5y ago
  Well, of course they do. If 20th century SciFi literature has taught me anything then that there is nothing in high-energy physics that cannot be explained by a metaphor to some good old combustion device or, in exceptional cases, a hydraulic system.
pfdietz 5y ago
As I understand it, they inject two plasmoids into the central solenoid, then compress the merged plasma by increasing the magnetic field there. After a short burn, the magnetic field there is reduced, with the (now hotter) plasma pushing against it. In this last step energy can be withdraw from the magnet and recovered.
- Arnt 5y ago
  The last step is the one I'm wondering about. You can't just put an electric cable near a 7T magnetic field.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    I think you use an opening switch to divert the current in the magnet into an external load. And yes all the conductors in the magnet experience strong forces; some 60% of the mass of ARC is the stainless steel support needed to resist JxB forces.

himinlomax 5y ago

The article uses degrees celsius, foot, watt, nanometer, square foot, kilo electron-volt, miles per hour, teslas ...

_Microft 5y ago
Beside temperature for which one could also state the thermal energy for instead, I would only object to the imperial units. All others are needed to describe different physical properties and part of, or derived from the standard unit system („SI units“).
- isaacimagine 5y ago
  What about neither? > 1 glass of [fuel] is enough to power a house for 826 years… We talking 8 ounces? What if I'm extra thirsty?
  - Tade0 5y ago
    Also: we're talking imperial or US customary fluid ounces?
    - CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
      African or European swallows?
  - medstrom 5y ago
    To some people I know, a "glass of water" means a small glass about 200 ml, to others it's 500+ ml. Also, how much power does one "house" draw? But it's moot, the point is not that you should take away "826 years" from the article, just "a very long time". Perhaps they should have written "hundreds of years" instead of creating a false sense of precision.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Then you can power a bigger house.

bluepanda928752 5y ago

The only fusion project which has a chance of producing excess heat at Q>2 within a decade is the MIT SPARC, using proven plasma physics and scaling the size/cost down dramatically with high-field HTS magnets (think ITER but sooner and >10x cheaper). Why is this definite solution to climate apocalypse being developed within the framework of MIT startup accelerator instead of Manhattan Project while most of the publicity goes to unproven designs which are orders of magnitude from being anywhere close to Q>1 is beyond me MIT SPARC overview presentation/recent progress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8uYNhevRtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8uYNhevRtk Journal of Plasma Physics issue with several papers about it: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-plasma-physics/issue/8E169A054A534DBA94F6BBF4C3DB88A4 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-plasma-ph...

pfdietz 5y ago
Definite solution? It's a definite non-solution, even if the plasma physics is more nailed down. The ARC reactor (fully scaled up SPARC with tritium breeding blanket) would have a power density 40x worse than a PWR primary reactor vessel, and supplying the world's primary energy demand with them would require 100x more beryllium than the USGS estimated resource (not reserve) of that element.
- bluepanda928752 5y ago
  Not sure why lower power density might be a show-stopper here. Beryllium angle is interesting, haven't thought about that
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    The cost of the reactor will be proportional to its size, so the cost/power will be inversely proportional to the power density. Lawrence Lidsky (who was also at MIT) (and also a similar argument from Pfirsch and Schmitter in Germany) famously pointed out back in the 1980s that DT fusion reactors will inherently have terrible power density compared to fission reactors, and this will render them noncompetitive. Despite putative rebuttals at the time, nothing we've seen since contradicts their devastating argument. http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trouble-With-Fusion_MIT_Tech_Review_1983.pdf http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trou... https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987oepn.book.....P/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987oepn.book.....P/abstra... Note that Helion wants to go with D-3He, and use direct conversion for at least some of the energy recovery. This might be the only hope for making fusion compete. But of course you need 3He; making it with DD fusion requires even more aggressive plasma physics. ARC at least isn't quite as absurd as a tokamak the size of ITER, which has a gross fusion power density another order of magnitude lower.

baybal2 5y ago

I haven't heard about this company before, on one hand it sound more authentic than the outright cold fusion scam infesting the "trendy tech" scene. On other hand there are other things screaming fraud: 1. “We directly convert fusion energy into electricity, which means that we don’t require “ignition” and can produce net electricity at much lower net energy [Q] values. Our challenges now are primarily engineering challenges rather than science challenges.” Bullshit, if they get net energy gain, then there must be a self-sustaining fusion even for a microsecond, even if they are using pulsed operation. Second, a near 99% certain "engineering solution" to fusion is ITER — the bigger you build a tokamak, the more stable is the fusion plasma. ITER is this "build it big enough" solution. They don't address unsolved science challenges facing every fusion reactor: material science to withstand the neutron flux, removal of "nuclear ashes," working long term cooling solution, which will not require overhaul, or coolant replacement every few days. 2. One of the key obstacles for many fusion power proposals is that using them will require upgrades to the existing power grid. Helion claims it is side-stepping this issue. “Helion’s fusion electricity generators are compact, use small amounts of fuel, and can run 24/7. Therefore, one of the key benefits of Helion’s power facilities is that they can directly plug into existing transmission infrastructure and replace current fossil-fuel-based power generation without significant investment in additional infrastructure. Grid-level transmission infrastructure is a requirement of large-scale, gigawatt-class power associated with traditional fusion approaches,” Bullshit, what will make it harder for a fusion reactor outputting steam to just turn the same turbine as a fossil fuel power plant? On other hand, they will require way more power conversion equipment to output the high voltage 3 phase AC coming from regular generators. If a company like this is challenged by such a triviality as electric power conversion, you really should challenge their engineering acumen. 4. “Fusion is an abundant source of zero-carbon baseload power, but unlike fission, fusion cannot produce a runaway chain reaction. If something goes wrong, fusion simply stops. Fusion also does not produce any long-term waste and cannot be weaponized,” said the Helion rep. A thermal explosion of the reactor casing if the cooling channels are breached/rot/rust, with ejection of neutron activated isotopes may well be possible. Short lived isotopes of light elements are more radioactive, predominantly non-metals, more volatile, and have higher biological affinity than heavier elements. Short term waste may not be killing you over 100 years, but may well kill you in a few days. This may well be worse than conventional reactor meltdown. 5. FRC devices confine plasma on closed magnetic field lines in the form of a self-stable torus. Together with the spheromak they are considered part of the compact toroid class of fusion devices. FRC devices normally have a plasma that is more elongated than spheromaks. “An FRC is a stable, self-contained plasma which can be accelerated and super-heated to 100 M°C+. Further, FRCs are high Beta, which enables direct electricity recapture and require no particle beams, lasers, superconductors, or antimatter,” said the Helion rep. Spheromacs been a research subject of USA's, and USSR's national thermonuclear research programs for decades, and been independently concluded as a dead end development by both sides despite the great enthusiasm about inherent advantages. High, or low Beta will make little difference to the fact that they will invariably need to dissipate double digit percentage of the power output as heat. Having few coils for direct energy capture would probably only mean few percents difference to the net energy output, and I believe will just make the whole thing more complicated, and harder to control. 6. “Our facilities can operate continuously no matter the weather or time of day, which is ideal for baseload power. Moreover, they are compact and can produce 50 MW of power in a 20,000 square foot space. Bullshit, try to put a conventional powerplant capable of producing 50MW of electricity into half an acre. Even if you remove the biggest part, the boiler, and the support equipment to run it, there is no chance you can physically fit the cooling stacks to dissipate around 150MW of waste heat, turbines, generators, transformers, offices, water treatment plant into 0.5 acres. 7. “Modern gigahertz-class fiber optic triggering, monitoring, and field programmable gate array (FPGA) processing allow the reliable, synchronous, and efficient operation of Helion’s fusion system. At the generator scale, the ability to provide reliable and throttle-able power allows Helion to load-follow existing renewable generation, eliminating the need for new power management or storage technologies,” This is pure technobabble. This man either doesn't know what he is talking about, or knows, but pretends that he doesn't.

f154hfds 5y ago

I just finished reading The Wright Brothers by David McCullough. A fascinating aspect of the book is how no one expected two unknowns to solve a problem governments had been pouring money into [1] with no success. Every one of the high profile players of the time were failures. You may be quick to point out that fusion is different from airplanes - requiring vastly more money and resources. Except that that's also the same argument people thought was true about airplanes in 1900! Anyway, all of this to say if history is our guide than I have my doubts about ITER and the rest of the high profile projects. If fusion is to ever make headway I think it will be from some little known cheap operation in a way no one expects. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Langley#Aviation_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Langley#Aviation_work

willis936 5y ago
This is exactly why moonshot projects such as this exist. Even though toroidal MCF machines clearly are the most conservative choice and funding levels aren't nearly as high as is necessary to build a reactor in the near future, society says "what's a few million dollars to keep on turning over rocks? There might be a shiny coin under one."
kilroy123 5y ago
The simple "airplane" they flew was enormously less of a technical challenge than a fusion reactor. The days of easy, made-in-the-garage inventions are way over. Nuclear fusion reactors will not be created in some garage. We need serious government money funding many labs and groups or a massive Manhattan project. We're talking about making a miniature star in a box.
- arcbyte 5y ago
  Says someone who will never create an easy, made-in-the-garage invention. Attitude is everything
  - csb6 5y ago
    Attitude is not everything. It matters, but there are material factors in the world that are hard constraints no matter how you approach the problem. For example, you cannot simply create a fusion reactor by “really wanting it” and “being smart” and “thinking outside the box”. You have to have all of those traits, plus extensive knowledge of physics and access to rare, expensive materials/tools in order to make a solution due to the tremendous temperatures and complex reactions happening. The Wright Brothers had comparatively few obstacles in terms of physics. They did not need to acquire a material able to withstand 100 million degrees of heat, for instance. They did not need to understand the mechanics of a fusion reaction, which is orders of magnitude more complex than the mechanics of the Wright Brothers’ aircraft in flight. Many useful inventions can be created with few resources. Creativity matters. But acting like attitude and elbow grease is “everything” is naive, especially in the context of nuclear fusion research.

leptoniscool 5y ago

Solar power is already cheaper than coal. The sun is the ultimate fusion power source.

peter_d_sherman 5y ago

Strange Idea: Perhaps Fusion Reactors have not only a possibility to be the future energy source for Earth -- but the additional possibility as a future method for transmuting elements -- into other elements. Put a little bit of Element X (which is not one of the main, energy-generating reactants) into the fusion mix -- get Element Y out of the mix, Z minutes later... Of course, some of the future challenges to this would include: How to get Element Y, which is now 100 million degrees Celsius, out of the mix, and cool it down... But, we'll leave those challenges to future Scientists! <g> Currently, the five main branches of Chemistry are: physical, analytical, biochemical, organic, and inorganic. Well why not a sixth, future one? Why not -- (wait for it!) -- "Fusion Reactor Chemistry" <g> ? You know, dealing with all kinds of elemental transmutation (and other Chemistry/Chemical Reaction related subjects!) -- that in the future become possible in Fusion Reactors...