Is fusion sh.t?
Is fusion sh.t?
Slightly provocative title perhaps, but as a science nerd (and occasional scientist) I’ve always been told how wonderful a fusion powered world would be. However, this is a sceptical look at fusion power and it’s made me stop and think.
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/ ... confusion/
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/ ... confusion/
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
Depends very much in how long the reactors last for before they have to be scrapped.
You can't beat the power density with anything renewable, but the lifetime cost and waste depends on how long the lifetime of the equipment is. IIRC, if the reactor doesn't last for ~30 years, it's not worth building.
You can't beat the power density with anything renewable, but the lifetime cost and waste depends on how long the lifetime of the equipment is. IIRC, if the reactor doesn't last for ~30 years, it's not worth building.
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
In terms of power density it's worth noting that the power density of the core of the Sun is less than you'd get in a well run compost heap.
The challenge of fusion is to do orders of magnitude better than the Sun.
The challenge of fusion is to do orders of magnitude better than the Sun.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
- Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
My compost heap could go supernove !!11! ![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
WOULD CUSTOMERS PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SITTING ON THE COUNTER BY THE BACON SLICER - AS WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BEHIND IN OUR ORDERS.
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
I hadn’t cottoned onto the nuclear weapons proliferation aspects of fusion reactors, but I’ve previously heard most of the other issues he raised.
I don’t get the power density argument (usually used as a counter to renewables), given the amount of land happily used world wide for bio fuels. (Which are fricken stupid.)
I don’t get the power density argument (usually used as a counter to renewables), given the amount of land happily used world wide for bio fuels. (Which are fricken stupid.)
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
Unfortunately not - but if it was the size of the Sun it would make that corner of the garden mostly unusable.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8275
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
Not even our sun would go supernova.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
It's not the strongest driving factor, but it does make a difference in certain economic cases.bjn wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:27 amI hadn’t cottoned onto the nuclear weapons proliferation aspects of fusion reactors, but I’ve previously heard most of the other issues he raised.
I don’t get the power density argument (usually used as a counter to renewables), given the amount of land happily used world wide for bio fuels. (Which are fricken stupid.)
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
Probably needs more browns.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
I'm quoting myself in the ISF as I think the link to the 2013 IET article has now been broken.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:18 amDepends very much in how long the reactors last for before they have to be scrapped.
You can't beat the power density with anything renewable, but the lifetime cost and waste depends on how long the lifetime of the equipment is. IIRC, if the reactor doesn't last for ~30 years, it's not worth building.
jimbob wrote:And on the prospects for nuclear fusion - the IET (former IEE) magazine had an article on this recently
The thrust of the article is that achieving break-even is the easy part - once that happens, the real engineering challenges will have to be solved...
“We could actually build a reactor now, but it would not be economic because whilst the neutrons give up their energy and produce the heat we need to generate steam, they also damage the materials we have available now. The physics of fusion is now well mostly understood and resolved, but what is not resolved is the engineering consequences of generating these neutrons.
“You could build a reactor now with today's materials, but it wouldn't be economic because you would have to build a new reactor or remove and replace to core of the machine within two years. This includes everything inside the plasma chamber; ten billions dollar’s worth of plant.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
That would be a "yes" then.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
I do wonder if the stellerator will overcome some of these problems - especially the parasitic energy demand presumably the core problem of almost all the energy being ejected as neutrons is the same as for tokamaks though
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH!
Time reduced from 30 years in the future to 29 years in the future.
First reduction since 1978.
Time reduced from 30 years in the future to 29 years in the future.
First reduction since 1978.
-
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
JET gets a new record - 59MJ. Obvs, still a long way to go.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8275
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Is fusion sh.t?
They've successfully created as much energy as is in 1.6 litres of petrol and after ~25 years are able to run the thing for 5 seconds.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
When you spend billions on some generating kit, you want GWs out of it. On average, continuously.FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:23 pmJET gets a new record - 59MJ. Obvs, still a long way to go.
Here they have achieved about 11MW for about 5 seconds. They achieved 22MJ in 1997, with a somewhat higher peak power, but running for only a couple of seconds. After 25 years, they only just over doubled what they could do. They remain several orders of magnitude away from where they need to be.
We deduce progress is utterly glacial. Sometimes you achieve a breakthrough and progress speeds up. But there's no sign of that.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
This is the stupidest possible take on this story.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:49 pmWhen you spend billions on some generating kit, you want GWs out of it. On average, continuously.FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:23 pmJET gets a new record - 59MJ. Obvs, still a long way to go.
Here they have achieved about 11MW for about 5 seconds. They achieved 22MJ in 1997, with a somewhat higher peak power, but running for only a couple of seconds. After 25 years, they only just over doubled what they could do. They remain several orders of magnitude away from where they need to be.
We deduce progress is utterly glacial. Sometimes you achieve a breakthrough and progress speeds up. But there's no sign of that.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Apparently quite a few of us are suffering from the same stupidity, as you have noted on another thread.
That so many people should fall into the same utterly foolish error, would seem to merit some kind of a careful explanation of our error, rather than just ad hom.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
It's explained in the BBC news story.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:09 pmApparently quite a few of us are suffering from the same stupidity, as you have noted on another thread.
That so many people should fall into the same utterly foolish error, would seem to merit some kind of a careful explanation of our error, rather than just ad hom.
JET is not, and was never supposed to be, a viable power plant. It's currently run as a research experiment for testing materials and technologies for the next generation of experimental reactors. Complaining that it doesn't reach breakeven is like complaining that one of shpalman's semiconductor devices reported in a paper can't run Windows.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
A real world and related example - the Chicago Pile (wiki cliky) was experimental, did 200W at most, and generally ran at 0.5 W. That's is a lot of expense and work for something that could only light a couple of light bulbs, at best. That didn't stop the experiment leading to useful fission reactors being a thing.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:11 pmIt's explained in the BBC news story.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:09 pmApparently quite a few of us are suffering from the same stupidity, as you have noted on another thread.
That so many people should fall into the same utterly foolish error, would seem to merit some kind of a careful explanation of our error, rather than just ad hom.
JET is not, and was never supposed to be, a viable power plant. It's currently run as a research experiment for testing materials and technologies for the next generation of experimental reactors. Complaining that it doesn't reach breakeven is like complaining that one of shpalman's semiconductor devices reported in a paper can't run Windows.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Nor was it my intention to suggest so. The billions of pounds I mention is for a future commercial generator based on these principles, not JET itself. I was very aware as I wrote of it of the history of the 0.5W pile, which demonstrated a principle that quickly led to demonstrators of tens of MW, and thence to commercial generators of hundreds of MW. Exponential growth in performance. Whereas in fusion apparently we only achieved a doubling in 25 years, so it would appear by that UKAEA story.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:11 pmJET is not, and was never supposed to be, a viable power plant. It's currently run as a research experiment for testing materials and technologies for the next generation of experimental reactors. Complaining that it doesn't reach breakeven is like complaining that one of shpalman's semiconductor devices reported in a paper can't run Windows.
The BBC article, (which I had not read at that point, only the UKAEA that FlammableFlower's linked) suggests that taking 25 years to get from 2s to 5s of operation is in fact a big breakthrough. If you can do 5s, as JET did it, then you should be able to do 5hrs with supercooled magnets. Which apparently the 2s achieved 25 years ago did not suggest. It is unusual for a "breakthrough" to be this non-obvious.
Though getting longer runs is only part of the battle, as the rest of the BBC article explains.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
They would still be thermal generation systems, with all the associated capital costs of building all the plumbing to boil water, spin turbines and cool the hot waste water down. There are reasons coal power is becoming increasingly uneconomic, and that’s a main one. The same holds for fission reactors.