Fusion - breakthrough or another false dawn
Discussion
EliseNick said:
Progress in fusion is a bit better than some of the "always twenty years away" crowd let on. Here's a 'Moore's law' for the fusion triple product (product of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature).
However, if I remember correctly, fusion development has been a little more sporadic than that plot would suggest. The first data from tokomaks (out of the USSR) was disbelieved at the time, as it was such a leap forward. This was followed by a period of stagnation. And so on.
The other remarks about the cost; MAST's successor, STEP, has a budget of £220 million. There's s
tty mediocre superhero films that cost over 50% more than that to make. Boris's failed Garden Bridge cost £53m. Wikipedia tells me that "The worldwide cosmetics and perfume industry currently generates an estimated annual turnover of US$170 billion". I remain to be convinced that the human race is spending too much on fusion research (or any scientific research, for that matter.)
Yup. Given Boris has just dumped £400 billion into the Covid situation in a little over a year and £106 billion into a quick train set, I’d say we are miles off being anywhere close to spending too much on science.However, if I remember correctly, fusion development has been a little more sporadic than that plot would suggest. The first data from tokomaks (out of the USSR) was disbelieved at the time, as it was such a leap forward. This was followed by a period of stagnation. And so on.
The other remarks about the cost; MAST's successor, STEP, has a budget of £220 million. There's s
tty mediocre superhero films that cost over 50% more than that to make. Boris's failed Garden Bridge cost £53m. Wikipedia tells me that "The worldwide cosmetics and perfume industry currently generates an estimated annual turnover of US$170 billion". I remain to be convinced that the human race is spending too much on fusion research (or any scientific research, for that matter.)Our politicians are future facing if that means it covers around 4 years, anything with a 20year roadmap will be the next persons mountain to climb, and so the can gets kicked down the road, yet again.
EliseNick said:
Progress in fusion is a bit better than some of the "always twenty years away" crowd let on. Here's a 'Moore's law' for the fusion triple product (product of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature).
However, if I remember correctly, fusion development has been a little more sporadic than that plot would suggest. The first data from tokomaks (out of the USSR) was disbelieved at the time, as it was such a leap forward. This was followed by a period of stagnation. And so on.
The other remarks about the cost; MAST's successor, STEP, has a budget of £220 million. There's stty mediocre superhero films that cost over 50% more than that to make. Boris's failed Garden Bridge cost £53m. Wikipedia tells me that "The worldwide cosmetics and perfume industry currently generates an estimated annual turnover of US$170 billion". I remain to be convinced that the human race is spending too much on fusion research (or any scientific research, for that matter.)
I don't think we are spending too much, but I do think that it is directed incorrectly, ITER is hoovering up the majority of the funding.However, if I remember correctly, fusion development has been a little more sporadic than that plot would suggest. The first data from tokomaks (out of the USSR) was disbelieved at the time, as it was such a leap forward. This was followed by a period of stagnation. And so on.
The other remarks about the cost; MAST's successor, STEP, has a budget of £220 million. There's s
tty mediocre superhero films that cost over 50% more than that to make. Boris's failed Garden Bridge cost £53m. Wikipedia tells me that "The worldwide cosmetics and perfume industry currently generates an estimated annual turnover of US$170 billion". I remain to be convinced that the human race is spending too much on fusion research (or any scientific research, for that matter.)The fact that tokamak after decades of research has yet to reach break even suggests that it is not the right approach.
There are many other concepts that could prove more promising, but the available funding for these is generally consumed by ITER.
EliseNick said:
Progress in fusion is a bit better than some of the "always twenty years away" crowd let on. Here's a 'Moore's law' for the fusion triple product (product of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature).
However, if I remember correctly, fusion development has been a little more sporadic than that plot would suggest. The first data from tokomaks (out of the USSR) was disbelieved at the time, as it was such a leap forward. This was followed by a period of stagnation. And so on.
The other remarks about the cost; MAST's successor, STEP, has a budget of £220 million. There's stty mediocre superhero films that cost over 50% more than that to make. Boris's failed Garden Bridge cost £53m. Wikipedia tells me that "The worldwide cosmetics and perfume industry currently generates an estimated annual turnover of US$170 billion". I remain to be convinced that the human race is spending too much on fusion research (or any scientific research, for that matter.)
If I‘m to believe previous comments then that graph must be wrong. It shows that unity has been achieved.However, if I remember correctly, fusion development has been a little more sporadic than that plot would suggest. The first data from tokomaks (out of the USSR) was disbelieved at the time, as it was such a leap forward. This was followed by a period of stagnation. And so on.
The other remarks about the cost; MAST's successor, STEP, has a budget of £220 million. There's s
tty mediocre superhero films that cost over 50% more than that to make. Boris's failed Garden Bridge cost £53m. Wikipedia tells me that "The worldwide cosmetics and perfume industry currently generates an estimated annual turnover of US$170 billion". I remain to be convinced that the human race is spending too much on fusion research (or any scientific research, for that matter.)I agree on the funding aspect. It’s weird that climate change is considered the biggest threat to face mankind but no real funding is available for fusion research. You would think we would be throwing vast quantities of money at it as a potential solution.
Again from Wiki, the article on JT-60:
"During deuterium (D–D fuel) plasma experiments in 1998, plasma conditions were achieved which would have achieved break-even—the point where the power produced by the fusion reactions equals the power supplied to operate the machine—if the D–D fuel were replaced with a 1:1 mix of deuterium and tritium (D–T fuel). JT-60 does not have the facilities to handle tritium; only the JET tokamak in the United Kingdom has such facilities as of 2018."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60
So it's a slightly optimistic data point in a sense - I guess the problem is that the value of the triple product at which breakeven is achieved is dependent upon the fuel, so one axis is doing a lot of work - but the general trend remains a positive one.
"During deuterium (D–D fuel) plasma experiments in 1998, plasma conditions were achieved which would have achieved break-even—the point where the power produced by the fusion reactions equals the power supplied to operate the machine—if the D–D fuel were replaced with a 1:1 mix of deuterium and tritium (D–T fuel). JT-60 does not have the facilities to handle tritium; only the JET tokamak in the United Kingdom has such facilities as of 2018."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60
So it's a slightly optimistic data point in a sense - I guess the problem is that the value of the triple product at which breakeven is achieved is dependent upon the fuel, so one axis is doing a lot of work - but the general trend remains a positive one.
Kawasicki said:
It’s nothing like your 747 analogy.
It’s like designing a jet engine that works for a few seconds longer than the jet engine you currently have. Pretty reasonable and normal technological development.
Not really. It’s like designing a jet engine that works for a few seconds longer than the jet engine you currently have. Pretty reasonable and normal technological development.
It’s like having a jet engine that works for 2 seconds, but only when accelerated to 7000 mph by a rocket booster. The physics of the jet engine is well understood, it’s just not stable enough to work for more than seconds.
The thing that suggests to me that this is absurdly hard, is that they can’t even make a crap one work for more than a minute. Show me fusion working at some level below unity (don’t care how bad) and show me it working for a week, a month, a year. At that point it becomes an engineering challenge, just like a jet engine. The first jets were crap, less power and more maintenance than a piston engine - but you could run them and fly them. In short order, they’ve become some of the most reliable and powerful engines mankind has created.
But jet engines were still superior at the time due to speed.
Throwing energy into a fusion reactor do it runs badly for years, is no doubt entirely possible, but entirely pointless.
If the task were to contain fusion at any cost it may get results but they might not scale to overall energy output. It could be a dead end endeavour.
The goal should be get out what you want, energy, then make it stable... using as many approaches as possible.
Anyhow I thought Thorium fission was a generally ok thing in the mean time.
Clearly too much money in green and oil to make utopian solutions a priority.
Utopian breakthroughs throw spanners into the works of capitalist economies.
Imagine the stock market crashes... all green goes down, all oil goes down, all the eco stuff, coal, yadda yadda.
Instead base power fusion plants take their place but require a tiny fraction of the ongoing costs.
Before you know it you can ‘make’ anything as the energy cost is essentially free.
Before you know it we might see reactors breeding silver, gold, iron, copper, other rare metals etc.
Suddenly no need for mining and expensive metals.
I can see a lot of motivation from certain industries/economies that fusion doesn’t make it big because it’s too disruptive.
There isn’t a lot of money to be made from fusion relative to other sources of energy.
Just as there isn’t much money to be made healing people’s illnesses vs treating their symptoms.
In a utopian society where money isn’t important, the utopian solution is best.
In a society where money is paramount, then utopian solutions aren’t ideal.
Throwing energy into a fusion reactor do it runs badly for years, is no doubt entirely possible, but entirely pointless.
If the task were to contain fusion at any cost it may get results but they might not scale to overall energy output. It could be a dead end endeavour.
The goal should be get out what you want, energy, then make it stable... using as many approaches as possible.
Anyhow I thought Thorium fission was a generally ok thing in the mean time.
Clearly too much money in green and oil to make utopian solutions a priority.
Utopian breakthroughs throw spanners into the works of capitalist economies.
Imagine the stock market crashes... all green goes down, all oil goes down, all the eco stuff, coal, yadda yadda.
Instead base power fusion plants take their place but require a tiny fraction of the ongoing costs.
Before you know it you can ‘make’ anything as the energy cost is essentially free.
Before you know it we might see reactors breeding silver, gold, iron, copper, other rare metals etc.
Suddenly no need for mining and expensive metals.
I can see a lot of motivation from certain industries/economies that fusion doesn’t make it big because it’s too disruptive.
There isn’t a lot of money to be made from fusion relative to other sources of energy.
Just as there isn’t much money to be made healing people’s illnesses vs treating their symptoms.
In a utopian society where money isn’t important, the utopian solution is best.
In a society where money is paramount, then utopian solutions aren’t ideal.
Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 31st May 13:54
rxe said:
Not really.
It’s like having a jet engine that works for 2 seconds, but only when accelerated to 7000 mph by a rocket booster. The physics of the jet engine is well understood, it’s just not stable enough to work for more than seconds.
The thing that suggests to me that this is absurdly hard, is that they can’t even make a crap one work for more than a minute. Show me fusion working at some level below unity (don’t care how bad) and show me it working for a week, a month, a year. At that point it becomes an engineering challenge, just like a jet engine. The first jets were crap, less power and more maintenance than a piston engine - but you could run them and fly them. In short order, they’ve become some of the most reliable and powerful engines mankind has created.
I wouldn’t surprise me if the first jet engine prototypes were a nightmare to start running and then blew apart in a few seconds. I’m certain they wouldn’t have been suitable as a means of powering flight. Not that different to the current fusion reactors.It’s like having a jet engine that works for 2 seconds, but only when accelerated to 7000 mph by a rocket booster. The physics of the jet engine is well understood, it’s just not stable enough to work for more than seconds.
The thing that suggests to me that this is absurdly hard, is that they can’t even make a crap one work for more than a minute. Show me fusion working at some level below unity (don’t care how bad) and show me it working for a week, a month, a year. At that point it becomes an engineering challenge, just like a jet engine. The first jets were crap, less power and more maintenance than a piston engine - but you could run them and fly them. In short order, they’ve become some of the most reliable and powerful engines mankind has created.
I‘m not knowledgeable enough to know if fusion reactors
Kawasicki said:
I wouldn’t surprise me if the first jet engine prototypes were a nightmare to start running and then blew apart in a few seconds. I’m certain they wouldn’t have been suitable as a means of powering flight. Not that different to the current fusion reactors.
I‘m not knowledgeable enough to know if fusion reactors
The early jet engines were at the very limit of metallurgy of the day.I‘m not knowledgeable enough to know if fusion reactors
They often lasted only 30 mins before shedding blades.
cherry picking quote to pick up on a few things...
Although I did just read something that suggested that Th-fuel could be used in some existing plant and some experiments are being done with it. But not optimal in PWR which is a dominant type of existing reactor with a lot of inertia invested in it.
Any promises of 'free energy' sound like snake oil, in fact I'm sure the earliest 'fusion is the future' stuff I saw as a kid suggested once fusion was in play energy would be essentially free.....
Be careful what you wish for suggesting using reactors to transmute stuff - devil is always in the detail, once you get into activation you get some really whacky stuff turn up that sours the pie!
'no money in fusion' - see above comment; it was once promised as the utopia of free/cheap energy 'in 30 years', when I was a kid... 30 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for research into it and have brushed the boundaries of some of the alternative to tokomaks that are being played with, so clearly there are some things that might make a break through if they can get them to work. But honestly would be surprised if it was in my lifetime.
Mr Whippy said:
Anyhow I thought Thorium fission was a generally ok thing in the mean time.
Before you know it you can ‘make’ anything as the energy cost is essentially free.
Before you know it we might see reactors breeding silver, gold, iron, copper, other rare metals etc.
Suddenly no need for mining and expensive metals.
There isn’t a lot of money to be made from fusion relative to other sources of energy.
I can't claim to understand the thorium process well enough to understand +/- but it might be pushing water up hill vs the established fission technologies. Before you know it you can ‘make’ anything as the energy cost is essentially free.
Before you know it we might see reactors breeding silver, gold, iron, copper, other rare metals etc.
Suddenly no need for mining and expensive metals.
There isn’t a lot of money to be made from fusion relative to other sources of energy.
Although I did just read something that suggested that Th-fuel could be used in some existing plant and some experiments are being done with it. But not optimal in PWR which is a dominant type of existing reactor with a lot of inertia invested in it.
Any promises of 'free energy' sound like snake oil, in fact I'm sure the earliest 'fusion is the future' stuff I saw as a kid suggested once fusion was in play energy would be essentially free.....
Be careful what you wish for suggesting using reactors to transmute stuff - devil is always in the detail, once you get into activation you get some really whacky stuff turn up that sours the pie!
'no money in fusion' - see above comment; it was once promised as the utopia of free/cheap energy 'in 30 years', when I was a kid... 30 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for research into it and have brushed the boundaries of some of the alternative to tokomaks that are being played with, so clearly there are some things that might make a break through if they can get them to work. But honestly would be surprised if it was in my lifetime.
llewop said:
I can't claim to understand the thorium process well enough to understand +/- but it might be pushing water up hill vs the established fission technologies.
Although I did just read something that suggested that Th-fuel could be used in some existing plant and some experiments are being done with it. But not optimal in PWR which is a dominant type of existing reactor with a lot of inertia invested in it.
Any promises of 'free energy' sound like snake oil, in fact I'm sure the earliest 'fusion is the future' stuff I saw as a kid suggested once fusion was in play energy would be essentially free.....
Be careful what you wish for suggesting using reactors to transmute stuff - devil is always in the detail, once you get into activation you get some really whacky stuff turn up that sours the pie!
'no money in fusion' - see above comment; it was once promised as the utopia of free/cheap energy 'in 30 years', when I was a kid... 30 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for research into it and have brushed the boundaries of some of the alternative to tokomaks that are being played with, so clearly there are some things that might make a break through if they can get them to work. But honestly would be surprised if it was in my lifetime.
I think PWRs are primarily dominant because they are used for the submarines. Most other forms of reactor (e.g. AGR) couldn't get funding to research and develop them as there was insufficient incentive to invest in a reactor purely for generating electricity. The earliest reactors were really bomb-factories, as I understand it the electricity was almost a by-product (e.g. Calder Hall). With a different set of constraints I think it likely engineers wouldn't have designed reactors that made so much waste in the first place - it was only that the "waste" (Plutonium) was originally wanted for bombs that set them down that path.Although I did just read something that suggested that Th-fuel could be used in some existing plant and some experiments are being done with it. But not optimal in PWR which is a dominant type of existing reactor with a lot of inertia invested in it.
Any promises of 'free energy' sound like snake oil, in fact I'm sure the earliest 'fusion is the future' stuff I saw as a kid suggested once fusion was in play energy would be essentially free.....
Be careful what you wish for suggesting using reactors to transmute stuff - devil is always in the detail, once you get into activation you get some really whacky stuff turn up that sours the pie!
'no money in fusion' - see above comment; it was once promised as the utopia of free/cheap energy 'in 30 years', when I was a kid... 30 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for research into it and have brushed the boundaries of some of the alternative to tokomaks that are being played with, so clearly there are some things that might make a break through if they can get them to work. But honestly would be surprised if it was in my lifetime.
I am sure that the original "electricity too cheap to meter" was in a 1950s newsreel and was talking about fission, let alone fusion. I suspect if the desire was there it would be possible to build fast fission reactors or similar which could burn the waste and hence be essentially "clean". But it's too late now, "nuclear" is too closely associated with death and destruction.
You might be right about the synergy with the propulsion programme. It is probably the only reactor I know 'well', having spent time studying the floating versions many years ago and more recently being amused/surprised by the close similarity in architecture of Sizewell B, although with the redundancy balanced up differently and scaled quite differently.
Designed in waste management/minimisation came along later I feel, not just because there were certain 'wastes' that had alternative uses but also the philosophy wasn't there. Still isn't in many respects as there is enough wiggle room in ALARP/BAT to pick the path that suits your purpose(s). Not least 'do you need to actually do it in the first place?'.
anyway, wandering off topic.
Designed in waste management/minimisation came along later I feel, not just because there were certain 'wastes' that had alternative uses but also the philosophy wasn't there. Still isn't in many respects as there is enough wiggle room in ALARP/BAT to pick the path that suits your purpose(s). Not least 'do you need to actually do it in the first place?'.
anyway, wandering off topic.
Mr Whippy said:
But jet engines were still superior at the time due to speed.
Throwing energy into a fusion reactor do it runs badly for years, is no doubt entirely possible, but entirely pointless.
If the task were to contain fusion at any cost it may get results but they might not scale to overall energy output. It could be a dead end endeavour.
The goal should be get out what you want, energy, then make it stable... using as many approaches as possible.
Anyhow I thought Thorium fission was a generally ok thing in the mean time.
Clearly too much money in green and oil to make utopian solutions a priority.
Utopian breakthroughs throw spanners into the works of capitalist economies.
Imagine the stock market crashes... all green goes down, all oil goes down, all the eco stuff, coal, yadda yadda.
Instead base power fusion plants take their place but require a tiny fraction of the ongoing costs.
Before you know it you can ‘make’ anything as the energy cost is essentially free.
Before you know it we might see reactors breeding silver, gold, iron, copper, other rare metals etc.
Suddenly no need for mining and expensive metals.
I can see a lot of motivation from certain industries/economies that fusion doesn’t make it big because it’s too disruptive.
There isn’t a lot of money to be made from fusion relative to other sources of energy.
Just as there isn’t much money to be made healing people’s illnesses vs treating their symptoms.
In a utopian society where money isn’t important, the utopian solution is best.
In a society where money is paramount, then utopian solutions aren’t ideal.
It is probably hindering the available research money.Throwing energy into a fusion reactor do it runs badly for years, is no doubt entirely possible, but entirely pointless.
If the task were to contain fusion at any cost it may get results but they might not scale to overall energy output. It could be a dead end endeavour.
The goal should be get out what you want, energy, then make it stable... using as many approaches as possible.
Anyhow I thought Thorium fission was a generally ok thing in the mean time.
Clearly too much money in green and oil to make utopian solutions a priority.
Utopian breakthroughs throw spanners into the works of capitalist economies.
Imagine the stock market crashes... all green goes down, all oil goes down, all the eco stuff, coal, yadda yadda.
Instead base power fusion plants take their place but require a tiny fraction of the ongoing costs.
Before you know it you can ‘make’ anything as the energy cost is essentially free.
Before you know it we might see reactors breeding silver, gold, iron, copper, other rare metals etc.
Suddenly no need for mining and expensive metals.
I can see a lot of motivation from certain industries/economies that fusion doesn’t make it big because it’s too disruptive.
There isn’t a lot of money to be made from fusion relative to other sources of energy.
Just as there isn’t much money to be made healing people’s illnesses vs treating their symptoms.
In a utopian society where money isn’t important, the utopian solution is best.
In a society where money is paramount, then utopian solutions aren’t ideal.
Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 31st May 13:54
Whether deliberately or not.
Transmutation of materials can be done in fission reactors, they all suffer from the same problem, the resultant products are radioactive for time periods that are not commercially viable.
That's how the thorium cycle works!
The financial side, energy has an inherent value.
Now if a lot more can be made more cheaply then 2 things will happen:
1. The cost of the fuel will increase dramatically, to balance the equation.
2. The reactors will have some form of regulation applied to them to delay the deployment and allow for the interested parties to establish their transition plans.
This is probably part of the push for ITER, big, expensive, hard to build and deploy.
Taking decades to achieve something useful.
Centralised, controlled, authorised.
I found this thread expecting comment on this China's 'artificial sun' nuclear fusion reactor sets a new world record after running at 216MILLION°F for 100 seconds which I assume is related to this specific thread?
Even the record breakers are still saying it's a ways off.
"Lin Boqiang, director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, told the Global Times that we are still 30 years away from seeing a functioning artificial sun. "It's more like a future technology that's critical for China's green development push," Boqiang added."
https://interestingengineering.com/closer-to-nucle...
"Lin Boqiang, director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, told the Global Times that we are still 30 years away from seeing a functioning artificial sun. "It's more like a future technology that's critical for China's green development push," Boqiang added."
https://interestingengineering.com/closer-to-nucle...
I remember in the late '50s / early 60s, dad came home from work with a nice booklet all about nuclear power. I think it was a Government publication.
On the last page I'm sure there was a paragraph that said something like "...by the year 1980 (?) electricity will be so plentiful it will no longer be worth sending out bills".
Where did all that optimism go I wonder?
On the last page I'm sure there was a paragraph that said something like "...by the year 1980 (?) electricity will be so plentiful it will no longer be worth sending out bills".
Where did all that optimism go I wonder?
Edited by 55palfers on Wednesday 2nd June 16:31
55palfers said:
i remember in the late '50s / early 60s, dad came home from work with a nice booklet all about nuclear power. I think it was a Government publication.
On the last page I'm sure there was a paragraph that said something like "...by the year 1980 (?) electricity will be so plentiful it will no longer be worth sending out bills".
Where did all that optimism go I wonder?
Combination of public perception and reality bites.On the last page I'm sure there was a paragraph that said something like "...by the year 1980 (?) electricity will be so plentiful it will no longer be worth sending out bills".
Where did all that optimism go I wonder?
Apparently we're going from 20 year indefinite estimates to 3 year ones: https://step.ukaea.uk/
Edit: no. 2040 build target. It's 2024 for the design
Edit: no. 2040 build target. It's 2024 for the design
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff