6 ms·

Sigh, mainstream atomic batteries would be so cool... :-( But: >>"experimental fusion-power plant" Last I read, General Fusion talks about a quite serious pr

Sigh, mainstream atomic batteries would be so cool... :-( But: >>"experimental fusion-power plant" Last I read, General Fusion talks about a quite serious prototype for their steam driven power plant in 2014. They seem to have many of the possible show stoppers already solved. Of course, if the GF approach works they are a few years away from a working system. But before ITER goes online for testing... (The readiness of the other contenders in alternative fusion -- Polywell, Tri Alpha, etc -- are harder to evaluate.) Edit: GF aims to start building a full size prototype in 2014. I'd call that a win for Asimov :-) http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/04/general-fusion-will-start-building-full.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/04/general-fusion-will-start-b...

aetherson 12y ago
Nobody has come within several orders of magnitude of net-energy-positive (by which I mean for the whole process, not narrowly "more energy than was actually absorbed by the fusing particles") fusion so far. The idea that General Fusion is going to this year is fantasy. And even your article suggests that they hope to start building a full size prototype in 2014, but they don't expect to finish until 2017.
- sergiosgc 12y ago
  Britain's JET is not orders of magnitude below net-positive output. I don't have the exact number here, but I believe they are near the 75% mark. The US NIF facility reached net-positive for a brief period last year [1]. ITER is projected to be net-positive at about 10x. The tech is not here, but it isn't orders of magnitude away either. [1] http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24429621 http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24429621
  - aetherson 12y ago
    Read this article: http://www.fusenet.eu/node/585 http://www.fusenet.eu/node/585 They approximate that the actual energy input into the process at NIF (as opposed to "absorbed by the particles") was 422 MJ in for 14 kJ out. That's roughly 4 orders of magnitude.
    - sergiosgc 12y ago
      I can easily concede that NIF results are too recent and still under scrutiny. However, JET's peak output was 65% of input, and these are results solid enough to justify scaling JET up with the ITER project. 65% is on the same order of magnitude, not four orders of magnitude away. Reference:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power I know it was for a short period, but 0.5 seconds is enough to prove the concept, and this was the objective then. They did another experiment at a quarter of the output for five seconds, and both were limited by the design of the tokamak not targeting long runs (it's a scientific reactor).
      - aetherson 12y ago
        I know this is now a pretty dead thread, but just FYI: you're again looking at the comparison of power output to "power absorbed by the particles to be fused," not power output to overall system power input. All the fusion people are so far from being energy positive to overall system power input, and so far from even trying to get to that milestone, that it's a little hard to find articles that talk about the power input to the whole system. But, to use wikipedia, here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus Note that they talk about Q. JET claims a Q of approximately 0.7. Q=1 is what you're talking about -- more energy out of the particles than is absorbed by the particles. Q=5 is potentially self-sustaining -- because, in this case, only 20% of the energy out is in a form that can create more fusion reactions. The article suggests Q=10 as the minimum for overall power output. My guess is that Q=10 is wildly optimistic for that.
- BugBrother 12y ago
  You're not contradicting that they are starting a prototype of the real thing. That is, as you make a point of, quite new. If that (and/or Polywell et al) will really work out is a bit early to say. The GF people claim to have solved the basic problems, bent a lot of metal already and are getting serious investments.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
"mainstream atomic batteries would be so cool" Disposing of the regular kind is hard enough.
dalke 12y ago
The article justifies the correctness of "experimental fusion-power plant" by pointing to ITER. My objection is that ITER is not an experimental fusion-power plant. While there are other contenders, I'll point out that link you gave says "full-size prototype reactor" and "Pumped through a heat exchanger, that hot lead will help generate steam just like a conventional thermal power plant". It does not say this is a power reactor, nor does it say if there will be net positive energy, nor if most of the energy for the steam will come from conventional power used to generate the plasma in the first place. Asimov wrote "And [sic] experimental fusion-power plant or two will already exist in 2014". That's not going to exist by the end of this year. I call it a failed prediction.
- BugBrother 12y ago
  They will start to build a (full size iirc) prototype of a net energy fusion reactor this year. It is not exactly what Asimov predicted, but if the GF power plants works and is economical, it is closer to actual fusion power plants than what was predicted (the parts of real reactors could be made in factories, in a way that Ford would recognize; it could scale up quickly to lots of places. No one really thought that likely even a dozen years ago).
  - dalke 12y ago
    That could well be. However, the link you gave doesn't say that it will be a prototype of a net energy fusion reactor, only that it will be a fusion reactor, and that they haven't yet achieved net energy, though they had hoped to do so by last year. "Getting it to work repeatedly and cost effectively for power production, that’s harder." I presume you know this information from elsewhere. I judge based only on the information I read in that link.
    - BugBrother 12y ago
      >>However, the link you gave doesn't say that it will be a prototype of a net energy fusion reactor Uhhh? Are you trolling me? See the TITLE of the article: "General Fusion will start building a full size prototype fusion reactor as early as this year" From the first paragraph: "Possibly later this year, General Fusion [website] will begin work on a full-size prototype reactor." Even the link is "general-fusion-will-start-building-full.html" :-) For added support, go check the website of GF: http://www.generalfusion.com/slides/#gallery1 http://www.generalfusion.com/slides/#gallery1 Look at "where we are going", second image from the top. "Full Scale, Net Gain Prototype In the next phase of development, General Fusion will be constructing a full scale prototype system. The prototype will be designed for single pulse testing, demonstrating full net energy gain on each pulse, a world first." Click the arrow -- it says "GOAL: Fusion energy released is 6x the piston energy input" (I upvoted you for successful trolling. But please stop that.)

aetherson 12y ago

Nobody has come within several orders of magnitude of net-energy-positive (by which I mean for the whole process, not narrowly "more energy than was actually absorbed by the fusing particles") fusion so far. The idea that General Fusion is going to this year is fantasy. And even your article suggests that they hope to start building a full size prototype in 2014, but they don't expect to finish until 2017.

sergiosgc 12y ago
Britain's JET is not orders of magnitude below net-positive output. I don't have the exact number here, but I believe they are near the 75% mark. The US NIF facility reached net-positive for a brief period last year [1]. ITER is projected to be net-positive at about 10x. The tech is not here, but it isn't orders of magnitude away either. [1] http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24429621 http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24429621
- aetherson 12y ago
  Read this article: http://www.fusenet.eu/node/585 http://www.fusenet.eu/node/585 They approximate that the actual energy input into the process at NIF (as opposed to "absorbed by the particles") was 422 MJ in for 14 kJ out. That's roughly 4 orders of magnitude.
  - sergiosgc 12y ago
    I can easily concede that NIF results are too recent and still under scrutiny. However, JET's peak output was 65% of input, and these are results solid enough to justify scaling JET up with the ITER project. 65% is on the same order of magnitude, not four orders of magnitude away. Reference:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power I know it was for a short period, but 0.5 seconds is enough to prove the concept, and this was the objective then. They did another experiment at a quarter of the output for five seconds, and both were limited by the design of the tokamak not targeting long runs (it's a scientific reactor).
    - aetherson 12y ago
      I know this is now a pretty dead thread, but just FYI: you're again looking at the comparison of power output to "power absorbed by the particles to be fused," not power output to overall system power input. All the fusion people are so far from being energy positive to overall system power input, and so far from even trying to get to that milestone, that it's a little hard to find articles that talk about the power input to the whole system. But, to use wikipedia, here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus Note that they talk about Q. JET claims a Q of approximately 0.7. Q=1 is what you're talking about -- more energy out of the particles than is absorbed by the particles. Q=5 is potentially self-sustaining -- because, in this case, only 20% of the energy out is in a form that can create more fusion reactions. The article suggests Q=10 as the minimum for overall power output. My guess is that Q=10 is wildly optimistic for that.
BugBrother 12y ago
You're not contradicting that they are starting a prototype of the real thing. That is, as you make a point of, quite new. If that (and/or Polywell et al) will really work out is a bit early to say. The GF people claim to have solved the basic problems, bent a lot of metal already and are getting serious investments.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

"mainstream atomic batteries would be so cool" Disposing of the regular kind is hard enough.

dalke 12y ago

The article justifies the correctness of "experimental fusion-power plant" by pointing to ITER. My objection is that ITER is not an experimental fusion-power plant. While there are other contenders, I'll point out that link you gave says "full-size prototype reactor" and "Pumped through a heat exchanger, that hot lead will help generate steam just like a conventional thermal power plant". It does not say this is a power reactor, nor does it say if there will be net positive energy, nor if most of the energy for the steam will come from conventional power used to generate the plasma in the first place. Asimov wrote "And [sic] experimental fusion-power plant or two will already exist in 2014". That's not going to exist by the end of this year. I call it a failed prediction.

BugBrother 12y ago
They will start to build a (full size iirc) prototype of a net energy fusion reactor this year. It is not exactly what Asimov predicted, but if the GF power plants works and is economical, it is closer to actual fusion power plants than what was predicted (the parts of real reactors could be made in factories, in a way that Ford would recognize; it could scale up quickly to lots of places. No one really thought that likely even a dozen years ago).
- dalke 12y ago
  That could well be. However, the link you gave doesn't say that it will be a prototype of a net energy fusion reactor, only that it will be a fusion reactor, and that they haven't yet achieved net energy, though they had hoped to do so by last year. "Getting it to work repeatedly and cost effectively for power production, that’s harder." I presume you know this information from elsewhere. I judge based only on the information I read in that link.
  - BugBrother 12y ago
    >>However, the link you gave doesn't say that it will be a prototype of a net energy fusion reactor Uhhh? Are you trolling me? See the TITLE of the article: "General Fusion will start building a full size prototype fusion reactor as early as this year" From the first paragraph: "Possibly later this year, General Fusion [website] will begin work on a full-size prototype reactor." Even the link is "general-fusion-will-start-building-full.html" :-) For added support, go check the website of GF: http://www.generalfusion.com/slides/#gallery1 http://www.generalfusion.com/slides/#gallery1 Look at "where we are going", second image from the top. "Full Scale, Net Gain Prototype In the next phase of development, General Fusion will be constructing a full scale prototype system. The prototype will be designed for single pulse testing, demonstrating full net energy gain on each pulse, a world first." Click the arrow -- it says "GOAL: Fusion energy released is 6x the piston energy input" (I upvoted you for successful trolling. But please stop that.)