4 ms·

will this produce net positive energy?

by ssijak 3y ago

rollcat 3y ago
Not yet, it's still very much an R&D project in an R&D field. Also don't worry, you wouldn't miss it - the very moment we have net positive fusion at industrial scale, it will be the news of the century.
gary_0 3y ago
That's the goal of the project, and they're already close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 So far the NIF in California is the only reactor I'm aware of that has achieved ignition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition#2021_and_2022_ignition_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition#2021_and_2022_... But AFAIK there are no Tokamak reactors planned that will be able to run continuously and produce useful power. These are all experimental reactors that will be self-sustaining for only a few seconds here and there.
- fanf2 3y ago
  NIF is not a Tokamak, it does inertial laser confinement fusion. (No magnets, not a torus.)
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "But AFAIK there are no "Tokamak reactors planned that will be able to run continuously and produce useful power. These are all experimental reactors that will be self-sustaining for only a few seconds here and there. " But are there at least theoretical concepts, on how one could build a tokamak reactor that can run continiously? In other words, is the main disadvantage of the Tokamak solved in any way? If not, why is the Stellerator design not getting more attention?
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > But AFAIK there are no Tokamak reactors planned that will be able to run continuously and produce useful power DEMO, but don't expect to see it any time soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant#Time...
willis936 3y ago
JT-60SA will not burn nuclear fuel (tritium), but it is expected to set triple product records that would be Q>1 if it were using tritium. There is a lot of engineering needed to make a machine handle the large increase in amount neutron radiation when going from D-D to D-T. It adds time, money, and complexity.
gosub100 3y ago
I dont mean to throw shade on fusion, but just wanted to point out that even if they get to "net positive", they're still not going to be making electricity with it. The best steam turbines are only about 35% efficient, so even if your power plant produces 105% of the energy you put into it, you're only getting (at most) 35% of the 5% output. Yeah it's "free energy", which is cool, but you'd only get 1.75% of the total capacity of your power plant(!) in profit, not counting other losses/costs such as cooling the magnets or the myriad other costs to run the thing. I dont know the number, so I'll guess you'd need to get to 150% or higher to rival even a small conventional power plant.

will this produce net positive energy?

by ssijak 3y ago

will this produce net positive energy?

Not yet, it's still very much an R&D project in an R&D field. Also don't worry, you wouldn't miss it - the very moment we have net positive fusion at industrial scale, it will be the news of the century.

gary_0 3y ago

That's the goal of the project, and they're already close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 So far the NIF in California is the only reactor I'm aware of that has achieved ignition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition#2021_and_2022_ignition_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition#2021_and_2022_... But AFAIK there are no Tokamak reactors planned that will be able to run continuously and produce useful power. These are all experimental reactors that will be self-sustaining for only a few seconds here and there.

fanf2 3y ago
NIF is not a Tokamak, it does inertial laser confinement fusion. (No magnets, not a torus.)
hutzlibu 3y ago
"But AFAIK there are no "Tokamak reactors planned that will be able to run continuously and produce useful power. These are all experimental reactors that will be self-sustaining for only a few seconds here and there. " But are there at least theoretical concepts, on how one could build a tokamak reactor that can run continiously? In other words, is the main disadvantage of the Tokamak solved in any way? If not, why is the Stellerator design not getting more attention?
rsynnott 3y ago
> But AFAIK there are no Tokamak reactors planned that will be able to run continuously and produce useful power DEMO, but don't expect to see it any time soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant#Time...

willis936 3y ago

JT-60SA will not burn nuclear fuel (tritium), but it is expected to set triple product records that would be Q>1 if it were using tritium. There is a lot of engineering needed to make a machine handle the large increase in amount neutron radiation when going from D-D to D-T. It adds time, money, and complexity.

gosub100 3y ago

I dont mean to throw shade on fusion, but just wanted to point out that even if they get to "net positive", they're still not going to be making electricity with it. The best steam turbines are only about 35% efficient, so even if your power plant produces 105% of the energy you put into it, you're only getting (at most) 35% of the 5% output. Yeah it's "free energy", which is cool, but you'd only get 1.75% of the total capacity of your power plant(!) in profit, not counting other losses/costs such as cooling the magnets or the myriad other costs to run the thing. I dont know the number, so I'll guess you'd need to get to 150% or higher to rival even a small conventional power plant.