3 ms·

The theoretical problem with fusion energy isn't neutron activation; if you could generate electricity you could easily amortize the cost of disposal of any ind

The theoretical problem with fusion energy isn't neutron activation; if you could generate electricity you could easily amortize the cost of disposal of any induced radioactivity over the lifetime of the plan. But no known projected fusion reactor is anywhere close to even being financial viable with todays technology. Iter won't demonstrate actual D-T fusion until 2035 and it is too small to project what the economics of a takomak power plant would look like. To make fusion viable you have to generate a substantial surplus of power that can be converted into usable energy. Nothing in that video touches on that subject at all. The most he can say is that it is possible D-He3 can reach scientific breakeven, which of course, is no where close to net power generation. It is strange to see claims about Q > 10 using D-T fusion being possible and then immediately pivot to talking about being excited about Q > 1 using D-He3. If you can build a fusion reactor that could produce Q > 10 why would you bother pursuing Q > 1? The 'benefits' of direct electrical generation from D-He3 are not relevant if you can't even produce net positive energy in the first place. Electrical generation is a solved problem; if you can produce net energy you can produce heat that can power a turbine. If the most you can do is talk about how Q > 1 is possible it seems unlikely you are going to start producing electricity any time soon.

_0w8t 4y ago
Heat to electricity conversion ratio with a realistic Tokamak design will have 30% efficiency at best, accounting for other losses will require Q at least 5. But even that may be too low so to play safe the latest Tokamaks target at least 10 or more. But Helion hopes that with their design where the theoretical efficiency of electricity generation is 100%, they do not need such high Q allowing one to be excited about Q > 1. Their models predicts Q around 5. The problem is the model uncertainty. If the real Q will be just 2, I very much doubt that they can limit the total losses below 50%. But even if they can get net gain in power per pulse, they are too optimistic about neutron flux and its consequences. Again, model uncertainty is big. So overall there is very little room for unexpected in their design so I am very skeptical based just on that alone.

_0w8t 4y ago

Heat to electricity conversion ratio with a realistic Tokamak design will have 30% efficiency at best, accounting for other losses will require Q at least 5. But even that may be too low so to play safe the latest Tokamaks target at least 10 or more. But Helion hopes that with their design where the theoretical efficiency of electricity generation is 100%, they do not need such high Q allowing one to be excited about Q > 1. Their models predicts Q around 5. The problem is the model uncertainty. If the real Q will be just 2, I very much doubt that they can limit the total losses below 50%. But even if they can get net gain in power per pulse, they are too optimistic about neutron flux and its consequences. Again, model uncertainty is big. So overall there is very little room for unexpected in their design so I am very skeptical based just on that alone.