4 ms·

Obviously the tech is really awesome, but I was curious how the projected power level compares (500 megawatts) Comparison to existing powerplants: http://www.w

by Flammy 13y ago

Obviously the tech is really awesome, but I was curious how the projected power level compares (500 megawatts) Comparison to existing powerplants: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=500+megawatts http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=500+megawatts TL;DR: We already have significantly bigger plants. ('average' coal and nuclear plant produces about twice as much power)

tnorthcutt 13y ago
Well, yes, but this is a test reactor. It wouldn't make much sense to build a "production scale" reactor just for (initial) testing.
pilom 13y ago
For those curious, the Three Gorges Dam in China is the largest powerplant in the world and has a maximum power rating of 22,500 MW (22.5 GW).
- cwal37 13y ago
  To be fair, Three Gorges (like any large hydro) is comprised of many turbines, 32 700MW turbines in this case. To counter, the biggest nuclear power plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, has 7 generating units which are each above 1 GW. Two of those units are at ~1.3GW, nearly double a Three Gorges turbine. For more perspective, the smallest nuke in the States is Fort Calhoun which has a single reactor at 502MW.
drjesusphd 13y ago
But there's only a few hundred years' worth of uranium and coal remaining (and we better not be burning the latter for that long for greenhouse reasons). There is millions' of years worth of fusion fuel on Earth. The fact that it's "only" half a coal plant is hardly a criticism.
- prewett 13y ago
  Well, $20 billion and counting for half a coal plant is a bit of a problem... And actually, it's not half a coal plant, because the half coal plant is net + 500 MW, and since ITER isn't supposed to reach the ignition point, the output is 500 MW, but the input is > 500 MW. If fusion requires wonder-of-the-world kind of technology to not even break even, it makes me somewhat pessimistic. (However, I still say, more power to them, fund them, let's see where this goes)
  - drjesusphd 13y ago
    > since ITER isn't supposed to reach the ignition point, the output is 500 MW, but the input is > 500 MW. Actually, it's supposed to reach about 10x breakeven, but there can be reasonable debate on how possible that is. Ignition is something different, when the fusion power itself keeps the plasma hot enough to sustain it. This is unlikely for ITER. But your point is valid. It won't actually function as a power plant. > If fusion requires wonder-of-the-world kind of technology to not even break even, it makes me somewhat pessimistic. (However, I still say, more power to them, fund them, let's see where this goes) I agree, and I too think it's well worth it. I'm certainly not suggested we rely entirely on fusion research for getting us through the upcoming energy crisis, but it will be essential if we ever want long-term (centuries) sustainable industrial growth.
vlasev 13y ago
I wouldn't compare it to existing plants but to something more like the Chicago pile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

by Flammy 13y ago

tnorthcutt 13y ago

Well, yes, but this is a test reactor. It wouldn't make much sense to build a "production scale" reactor just for (initial) testing.

pilom 13y ago

For those curious, the Three Gorges Dam in China is the largest powerplant in the world and has a maximum power rating of 22,500 MW (22.5 GW).

cwal37 13y ago
To be fair, Three Gorges (like any large hydro) is comprised of many turbines, 32 700MW turbines in this case. To counter, the biggest nuclear power plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, has 7 generating units which are each above 1 GW. Two of those units are at ~1.3GW, nearly double a Three Gorges turbine. For more perspective, the smallest nuke in the States is Fort Calhoun which has a single reactor at 502MW.

drjesusphd 13y ago

But there's only a few hundred years' worth of uranium and coal remaining (and we better not be burning the latter for that long for greenhouse reasons). There is millions' of years worth of fusion fuel on Earth. The fact that it's "only" half a coal plant is hardly a criticism.

prewett 13y ago
Well, $20 billion and counting for half a coal plant is a bit of a problem... And actually, it's not half a coal plant, because the half coal plant is net + 500 MW, and since ITER isn't supposed to reach the ignition point, the output is 500 MW, but the input is > 500 MW. If fusion requires wonder-of-the-world kind of technology to not even break even, it makes me somewhat pessimistic. (However, I still say, more power to them, fund them, let's see where this goes)
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  > since ITER isn't supposed to reach the ignition point, the output is 500 MW, but the input is > 500 MW. Actually, it's supposed to reach about 10x breakeven, but there can be reasonable debate on how possible that is. Ignition is something different, when the fusion power itself keeps the plasma hot enough to sustain it. This is unlikely for ITER. But your point is valid. It won't actually function as a power plant. > If fusion requires wonder-of-the-world kind of technology to not even break even, it makes me somewhat pessimistic. (However, I still say, more power to them, fund them, let's see where this goes) I agree, and I too think it's well worth it. I'm certainly not suggested we rely entirely on fusion research for getting us through the upcoming energy crisis, but it will be essential if we ever want long-term (centuries) sustainable industrial growth.

vlasev 13y ago

I wouldn't compare it to existing plants but to something more like the Chicago pile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1