4 ms·

Tokamak Energy makes breakthrough in efficient powering of nuclear fusion

40 points by johnshades 5y ago

acchow 5y ago
Thanks in advance HN for explaining what's really going on here.
- lambdatronics 5y ago
  This seems like a pretty low-level detail that doesn't warrant being heralded as a "breakthrough." They apparently have a new, more efficient power electronics to supply electric current to the superconducting coils. The electronics are situated inside the cryostat, so they are also cooled to very low temperatures apparently (few degrees Kelvin). The article is really vague, though.
ncmncm 5y ago
The Tokamak hype machine is in overdrive. But no commercially viable power will ever be generated with a Tokamak. Such a reactor would be much more expensive to operate than a fission plant, and fission plants get less competitive every year. We may hope that the plasma physicists employed on these projects are learning things that will later be applicable to actually-practical fusion. It seems like a Good Thing to be keeping plasma physicists employed, but I hope the crash when reality catches up to the projects does not leave them suddenly unemployed, as has often happened to (particularly) aeronautical and electrical engineers over the past 60 years.
- freemint 5y ago
  I think the improvement they made is orthogonal to the Tokamak Vs Stellarator issue do an improvement for magnet cooling in one is gonna help the other too.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Two economically uncompetitive systems is no better than one such and one even more such.
    - freemint 5y ago
      You are aware that those all a research designs, designs optimized to probe the parameter space of reactors efficiently not produce energy efficiently. Huge difference. If everything is designed for energy ROI it wouldn't be a research reactor and have better efficiency today
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        The point is, even after they work out all the kinks, it will still be dead-end tech. They will just have wasted a lot of money that, e.g., could have more productively been handed to me to spend wherever I liked. A fraction of the money goes to support plasma fluid-dynamics physicists, which is not a waste, except insofar as they work on that and not something that has a future.
sfink 5y ago
All I could glean from the article was that they halved their own previous energy costs for cooling the superconducting magnets. Which is pretty cool if you need some really powerful superconducting magnets and you have to keep them going for long periods of time. They'd probably be great for levitating frogs. I don't know if these magnets would be useful for MRIs. Like the fMRIs that you need to keep going for a while or something. I hope so; more people having sex in fMRI machines can only be a good thing. Just because the mental image is so amusing. I didn't see any hint that this was particularly significant for commercial fusion. Instead of generating X amount of power and consuming Y for magnets plus Z for other stuff, where Y+Z >> X, now you're using Y/2 for magnets, and Y/2+Z >> X. Yay?
- stevesimmons 5y ago
  >... more people having sex in fMRI machines can only be a good thing The British Medical Journal actually published a serious article on this, back in December 1999, complete with cross-sectional images. https://www.bmj.com/content/319/7225/1596 https://www.bmj.com/content/319/7225/1596 I remember it well as my MBA back then had a Healthcare Management elective. Assessment included a short presentation on a recent advances in medical technology. So this was what I talked on.
- willis936 5y ago
  Commercial fusion's biggest barrier isn't neutron flux density or embrittlement; it's cap ex. When articles come out about plasma performance improvements people come out to say that fusion machines will never be afforable. When articles come out about cost reduction people come out to say that fusion machines will never work. None of these comments add any insight into the feasibility of solving the problems.
- Nikbul 5y ago
  Let's play further down. Let's say Y+Z = 2X, and Y=Z. So now Y/2+Z=1.5X Makes a break even or even net positive point a lot closer
Bellamy 5y ago
> Once commercialized, fusion energy will be clean, low-cost, secure, abundant, and safe. Safe?
- fragmede 5y ago
  Yes - fusion and fission are different. They both have the scary word "nuclear", but they're opposite nuclear reactions, and the fundamental level for that reaction is that fission is not safe and fusion is.
- flqn 5y ago
  Fusion has no possibility of an uncontrollable runaway reaction

40 points by johnshades 5y ago

acchow 5y ago

Thanks in advance HN for explaining what's really going on here.

lambdatronics 5y ago
This seems like a pretty low-level detail that doesn't warrant being heralded as a "breakthrough." They apparently have a new, more efficient power electronics to supply electric current to the superconducting coils. The electronics are situated inside the cryostat, so they are also cooled to very low temperatures apparently (few degrees Kelvin). The article is really vague, though.

ncmncm 5y ago

The Tokamak hype machine is in overdrive. But no commercially viable power will ever be generated with a Tokamak. Such a reactor would be much more expensive to operate than a fission plant, and fission plants get less competitive every year. We may hope that the plasma physicists employed on these projects are learning things that will later be applicable to actually-practical fusion. It seems like a Good Thing to be keeping plasma physicists employed, but I hope the crash when reality catches up to the projects does not leave them suddenly unemployed, as has often happened to (particularly) aeronautical and electrical engineers over the past 60 years.

freemint 5y ago
I think the improvement they made is orthogonal to the Tokamak Vs Stellarator issue do an improvement for magnet cooling in one is gonna help the other too.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Two economically uncompetitive systems is no better than one such and one even more such.
  - freemint 5y ago
    You are aware that those all a research designs, designs optimized to probe the parameter space of reactors efficiently not produce energy efficiently. Huge difference. If everything is designed for energy ROI it wouldn't be a research reactor and have better efficiency today
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The point is, even after they work out all the kinks, it will still be dead-end tech. They will just have wasted a lot of money that, e.g., could have more productively been handed to me to spend wherever I liked. A fraction of the money goes to support plasma fluid-dynamics physicists, which is not a waste, except insofar as they work on that and not something that has a future.

sfink 5y ago

All I could glean from the article was that they halved their own previous energy costs for cooling the superconducting magnets. Which is pretty cool if you need some really powerful superconducting magnets and you have to keep them going for long periods of time. They'd probably be great for levitating frogs. I don't know if these magnets would be useful for MRIs. Like the fMRIs that you need to keep going for a while or something. I hope so; more people having sex in fMRI machines can only be a good thing. Just because the mental image is so amusing. I didn't see any hint that this was particularly significant for commercial fusion. Instead of generating X amount of power and consuming Y for magnets plus Z for other stuff, where Y+Z >> X, now you're using Y/2 for magnets, and Y/2+Z >> X. Yay?

stevesimmons 5y ago
>... more people having sex in fMRI machines can only be a good thing The British Medical Journal actually published a serious article on this, back in December 1999, complete with cross-sectional images. https://www.bmj.com/content/319/7225/1596 https://www.bmj.com/content/319/7225/1596 I remember it well as my MBA back then had a Healthcare Management elective. Assessment included a short presentation on a recent advances in medical technology. So this was what I talked on.
willis936 5y ago
Commercial fusion's biggest barrier isn't neutron flux density or embrittlement; it's cap ex. When articles come out about plasma performance improvements people come out to say that fusion machines will never be afforable. When articles come out about cost reduction people come out to say that fusion machines will never work. None of these comments add any insight into the feasibility of solving the problems.
Nikbul 5y ago
Let's play further down. Let's say Y+Z = 2X, and Y=Z. So now Y/2+Z=1.5X Makes a break even or even net positive point a lot closer

Bellamy 5y ago

> Once commercialized, fusion energy will be clean, low-cost, secure, abundant, and safe. Safe?

fragmede 5y ago
Yes - fusion and fission are different. They both have the scary word "nuclear", but they're opposite nuclear reactions, and the fundamental level for that reaction is that fission is not safe and fusion is.
flqn 5y ago
Fusion has no possibility of an uncontrollable runaway reaction