Nuclear Fusion

[pendell]

As seen in The Guardian

The dream of nuclear fusion is on the brink of being realised, according to a major new US initiative that says it will put fusion power on the grid within 15 years.

The project, a collaboration between scientists at MIT and a private company, will take a radically different approach to other efforts to transform fusion from an expensive science experiment into a viable commercial energy source. The team intend to use a new class of high-temperature superconductors they predict will allow them to create the world’s first fusion reactor that produces more energy than needs to be put in to get the fusion reaction going.

Bob Mumgaard, CEO of the private company Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which has attracted $50 million in support of this effort from the Italian energy company Eni, said: “The aspiration is to have a working power plant in time to combat climate change. We think we have the science, speed and scale to put carbon-free fusion power on the grid in 15 years.”

...

A newly available superconducting material – a steel tape coated with a compound called yttrium-barium-copper oxide, or YBCO – has allowed scientists to produce smaller, more powerful magnets. And this potentially reduces the amount of energy that needs to be put in to get the fusion reaction off the ground.

“The higher the magnetic field, the more compactly you can squeeze that fuel,” said Wilson.

The planned fusion experiment, called Sparc, is set to be far smaller – about 1/65th of the volume – than that of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project, an international collaboration .

Advertisement

Here's hoping.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Lord Torath]

Lockheed-Martin's prototype is due out in 2 years, if you trust their announcement three years back:

Has anyone heard anything about Lockeed-Martin's "Fusion in a 40' Shipping Container" lately? Several years back they were talking about having a prototype ready in five years, but I don't remember hearing anything about it since.

No, but their PR stunt was only 3 years ago, so they still have another couple of years before we can toss it into the bin with the other tech overpromises (we may need a bigger bin, this one's getting kinda full).

[wumpus]

Extrapolating (see: https://www.xkcd.com/605/) from current solar, wind, and battery tech, I'm wondering what the chances of anybody being willing to build commercial fusion plants once they are built. Don't forget that fusion means lots of neutrons flying around (this mean you: Pons and Fleischmann) and expect plenty of radioactive materials when it is time to decommission the plant (and possibly just in routine maintenance). Between cellphone and car manufacturer beating paths to anyone who can build a better battery, I suspect that simply storing all that power will be possible before fusion is available.

If we really needed a high-energy source of carbon free power we could have gone with fission pretty much since the 1950s. People (France and Japan excepted, until recently) choose fear and coal instead, and we've been paying for that ever since. Plenty of designs feature passive cooling (Chernobyl and Fukushima* proved that idiot-proofing is necessary) and glassification showed how to handle nuclear waste (turn it into obsidian [erosion proof] and stack it in a desert/coal mine somewhere). By now, it is no longer clear that the cost to build a fission nuclear industry would be significantly cheaper than fusion, and much more expensive than solar and wind.

* to be honest, I can't see decades of 400MW worth of coal ash spread around in a flood being any safer than the radiation emitted. Coal sucks.

[Chen]

I think this one may be more apt: https://xkcd.com/678/

[monomer]

Nuclear fusion has been 15 years away for the last 50 years. This is another case where I'll believe when I see it.

At least there is an actual Stellerator prototype built (and it didn't break when they turned the magnets on), which should see fusion by 2021. Whether or not it will actually be net positive energy is yet to be seen, but this is definitely something to keep an eye on.

[gomipile]

Here's an article I read a few years ago. I wish I could pick apart the logic, but it's pretty solid:
https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/...-never-happen/

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Here's an article I read a few years ago. I wish I could pick apart the logic, but it's pretty solid:
https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/...-never-happen/

I mostly agree - he is definitely absolutely correct on the topic of fission: it just makes no sense as investment, since it takes too long to build and can't beat the price of wind.

He is also correct, as far as I am aware, on his assumptions and extrapolations about the tokamak design - it has been known for quite some time that it will never be commercially viable.

But his extrapolation to saying that, therefore, no design of fusion can ever be competitive is not true. Take the skunk works project that Lord Torath quoted me quoting him above, and note how that design has nothing in common with the usual coal-powered turbine plant the article is describing.

Yes, banks don't care about the technology underpinning the money request. But if that design calls for not much more than a wind plant, they will listen, even if it turns out its powered by rodents in slingshots.

Grey Wolf

[HandofShadows]

Lockheed-Martin's prototype is due out in 2 years, if you trust their announcement three years back:

Weil, we havn't heard anything from then since then and that makes me think thing didn't go as they planned. This technology would be a huge step to solving SO many problems we ahve caused for ourselves. .

[Chen]

Weil, we havn't heard anything from then since then and that makes me think thing didn't go as they planned. This technology would be a huge step to solving SO many problems we ahve caused for ourselves. .

Wind and solar resolve a lot of those problems at cheaper price, as was shown in the article above. The technology isn't what is holding us back from having cleaner power.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Weil, we havn't heard anything from then since then and that makes me think thing didn't go as they planned. This technology would be a huge step to solving SO many problems we ahve caused for ourselves. .

Again, give them the five years they asked for, at least. It'll probably won't come to anything, yes, because that's how these things usually work out, but Skunk Works has delivered on their seemingly-impossible promises before. What you can't expect them is to deliver ahead of time.

Wind and solar resolve a lot of those problems at cheaper price, as was shown in the article above. The technology isn't what is holding us back from having cleaner power.

Yes, it is. For example, the technology to move electricity around is definitely putting the breaks on the expansion of wind power. Wind is always blowing somewhere, but if you can't balance the load because the cabling was never designed to be that smart, you can't use wind.

Coal, fission & the like have now taken refuge on the idea that we must have a baseload generation. It's nonsense, but it is true as long as we can't perform country (or eventually planet)-wide load balancing.

But "portable" fusion generators would help a heck of a lot with that.

Grey Wolf

[thorgrim29]

I don't see how you'd go about powering a megalopolis like Shanghai for example with wind and solar though

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't see how you'd go about powering a megalopolis like Shanghai for example with wind and solar though

What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?
~The Quarterly Review, March, 1825.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what else to tell you. It is perfectly plausible to do so. There is plenty of energy available in wind and sun to power those places.

GW

[pendell]

Again, give them the five years they asked for, at least. It'll probably won't come to anything, yes, because that's how these things usually work out, but Skunk Works has delivered on their seemingly-impossible promises before. What you can't expect them is to deliver ahead of time.

Just checked in Business World

Dr.Tom McGuire leads the Lockheed team. His compact reactor is a big improvement on the existing designs of tokamak reactors. Dr. Mc Guire’s model has a different field design. Therefore, it is more energy-efficient.

That marks a big improvement over the gargantuan ITER. Dr. Mcguire’s brain child — a 100MW reactor can cater to the needs of power 80,000 homes. It will have a shell of about seven metres diameter, and will weigh less than 1,000 tonnes.

Dr McGuire’s design is still on the drawing board. Lockheed Martin’s top management has unveiled plans to have a working prototype running in five years and the first operational reactors in ten years. For success in this venture, Lockheed is scouting for more Fusion experts. They will augment Dr. McGuire’s team.

So it's going to be a minimum of five years before we have a prototype, and I think that's a best case estimate ; project slippage, cost overruns etc. might make it as much as 10.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Jasdoif]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what else to tell you. It is perfectly plausible to do so. There is plenty of energy available in wind and sun to power those places.

I like to think of it as similar to how farming has been able to support the nutritional energy needs of urban centers for centuries.

[monomer]

Here's an article I read a few years ago. I wish I could pick apart the logic, but it's pretty solid:
https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/...-never-happen/

His title is flawed. It should be more along the lines of "Why a Tokomak-style reactor will never be used for commercial power production." His premise is that Wind and PV are so much cheaper than fusion, that a Tokomak fusion commercial power plant would never be funded, which I can agree with.

There are many other sectors that could use a high-powered, compact reactor outside of commercial energy production, though, such as the military (especially the navy) or space. I can also imagine a small city-state or arcology that wouldn't want to be dependent on outside power generation and they just don't have enough useable land. To say fusion will never happen is just incredibly short- and narrow-minded.

[Gnoman]

There's a failure in his core argument. The main thing killing nuclear and coal plants (at least in the US) is not solar and wind, but plants burning cheap and clean natural gas.

[2D8HP]

There's a failure in his core argument. The main thing killing nuclear and coal plants (at least in the US) is not solar and wind, but plants burning cheap and clean natural gas.

Relatively cheap and clean.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There's a failure in his core argument. The main thing killing nuclear and coal plants (at least in the US) is not solar and wind, but plants burning cheap and clean natural gas.

Errr... no, the article addresses that: it groups all such plants into a single category ("heat engines with a steam turbine"), points out that no matter what, fusion (tokamak) will be more expensive than the existing ones in said group, and concludes that if the existing ones can't compete with wind (and they can't, not once baseload is taken off the table as a consideration), neither can fusion (tokamak).

It's even in his basic list of LCoE:

• Solar PV, $1.25 to $1.75 per watt-peak (Wp)
• Wind, $1.40 to $1.80 per Wp
• Combined cycle gas, $1.06 to $1.32 per Wp
• Coal, $3.00 to $8.40 per Wp
• Nuclear, $5.39 to $8.30 per Wp

GW

[halfeye]

Errr... no, the article addresses that: it groups all such plants into a single category ("heat engines with a steam turbine"), points out that no matter what, fusion (tokamak) will be more expensive than the existing ones in said group, and concludes that if the existing ones can't compete with wind (and they can't, not once baseload is taken off the table as a consideration), neither can fusion (tokamak).

It's even in his basic list of LCoE:


GW

What are the units in that?

Watts aren't a unit of energy, and that seems very expensive for Watt minutes, or even Watt hours.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What are the units in that?

Watts aren't a unit of energy, and that seems very expensive for Watt minutes, or even Watt hours.

As far as I can tell, it's the cost in dollars to construct & run a generator, divided by the total number of watts produced by said generator in its lifetime.

If the article is to be believed - and at least on paper, I would - it's the main measure the people lending the money care about: how much money they need to put down to achieve 1 Watt of sellable energy down the line.

Grey Wolf

[gomipile]

As far as I can tell, it's the cost in dollars to construct & run a generator, divided by the total number of watts produced by said generator in its lifetime.

If the article is to be believed - and at least on paper, I would - it's the main measure the people lending the money care about: how much money they need to put down to achieve 1 Watt of sellable energy down the line.

Grey Wolf

There is no such thing as "the total number of watts produced by said generator in its lifetime." That phrase is nonsense.

As said above, watts are a unit of power, not energy.

However, the article is using the term "watt peak" correctly. This is the peak amount of instantaneous power that a powerplant can produce.

[FreddyNoNose]

Nuclear fusion has been 15 years away for the last 50 years. This is another case where I'll believe when I see it.

At least there is an actual Stellerator prototype built (and it didn't break when they turned the magnets on), which should see fusion by 2021. Whether or not it will actually be net positive energy is yet to be seen, but this is definitely something to keep an eye on.

so should they totally stop research?

[monomer]

so should they totally stop research?

How did you get that from my comment? They are stating that they'll have a commercial fusion plant in 15 years. It would be amazing if they do, but we have seen this same promise time and again. Let's see if they can even get a prototype producing fusion, let alone net-positive fusion, before we start talking about commercial applications.

[Kato]

What are the units in that?

Watts aren't a unit of energy, and that seems very expensive for Watt minutes, or even Watt hours.

my guess it... It's just Watts? Or Watts at peak performance? Because that's how you would measure the cost of building a power plant? Like, if you want a solar power plant that provides 100MW it would cost around 150 Mio $? Or am I missing something?
(BTW, I thought solar thermal was the new hip thing, at least large scale)

[halfeye]

However, the article is using the term "watt peak" correctly. This is the peak amount of instantaneous power that a powerplant can produce.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Since a kilowatt hour costs the consumer something like threepence (or I think it did a few years ago), I couldn't understand any watt=dollars cost, but if it's watts for the life of the plant that probably does make sense.

[FreddyNoNose]

How did you get that from my comment? They are stating that they'll have a commercial fusion plant in 15 years. It would be amazing if they do, but we have seen this same promise time and again. Let's see if they can even get a prototype producing fusion, let alone net-positive fusion, before we start talking about commercial applications.

You little quip about 15 years for the last 50 years. So I asked you to see if you were really thinking of tossing the towel in or tossing off a comment.

[PirateMonk]

I don't see how you'd go about powering a megalopolis like Shanghai for example with wind and solar though

Well, let's see. According to Wikipedia, the average square meter of Earth averages 164 watts of sunlight over 24 hours. Current solar panels allegedly average 15% efficiency. They'll probably improve, but let's go with that. So every square meter covered with solar panels produces 24.6 W.

The urban core of Shanghai has a population density of 3854 people per square kilometer. If we assume that in the future they will be wealthier and consume the current American average of 12986.74 kWh/year/person = 1481.52 W/person, we need each square kilometer of Shanghai to produce 5709783.82 W (in practice, we'd bring in electricity generated outside the city, but let's ignore that for now). Since each square kilometer is a million square meters, that's 5.71 W/m^2. Comparing this to our figure above, we would need to cover 23.2% of Shanghai in solar panels to provide for all of its hypothetical future power needs.

I'm not sure what percentage of a city it's actually practical to cover in solar panels, but that doesn't sound too bad. Taking into account improvements in solar panel efficiency and the fact that we don't actually have to generate all the city's power within the urban core, it seems extremely doable. Of course, the need to store energy until it's needed will add further expense and inefficiency; I don't know enough to say how significant the effect will be.

[thorgrim29]

hmmm, that's not as bad as I thought.

[monomer]

You little quip about 15 years for the last 50 years. So I asked you to see if you were really thinking of tossing the towel in or tossing off a comment.

I mean the very next sentence showed I was excited about the research being done on a Stellerator design, so I have no idea why you would think I would be advocating throwing in the towel on fusion.

It is just that there have been many companies like what the OP quoted with overly ambitious "plans" without even being able to demonstrate a working prototype saying that their technology will be ready right around the corner, and then not delivering on it. This doesn't mean that research should stop, but to claim a commercial product when the research isn't even close to being done is disingenuous at best, and is more likely deceptive business practice.

Just look at ITER. This is the most ambitious fusion project in the world, with some of the best funding. It was announced in 1988. Engineering started in 1992 and was completed in 1998. Construction started in 2010 and will be done in 2020. It may see fusion by 2025. Sure they have been hit by some bureaucratic overhead which probably shot their timelines to hell, but just to build a commercial-sized facility will be a tremendous undertaking, let alone getting research and engineering completed. 15 years from nothing to a commercial plant is extremely unlikely, bordering on fantasy.

[halfeye]

Nuclear fusion has been 15 years away for the last 50 years.

I remember being there, that would have been fourty years ago at the most, and it was 50 years away at the time, it just stayed at 50 years away for a long time after that.