Fusion - breakthrough or another false dawn

[andy_s]

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." - Benjamin Franklin

[annodomini2]

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.

It doesn't work yet, no one, I repeat no one!

Has publicly stated that they have realistically reached unity or better.

Fusion doesn't need to be continuous!

Tokamak does, but there are other solutions that don't.

None so far have reached net gain, until then all the other work is preparation for a solution that may or may not work.

It's a bit fundamental when you're trying to build a power station, that it actually produces power!

[Kawasicki]

annodomini2 said:

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.

It doesn't work yet, no one, I repeat no one!

Has publicly stated that they have realistically reached unity or better.

Fusion doesn't need to be continuous!

Tokamak does, but there are other solutions that don't.

None so far have reached net gain, until then all the other work is preparation for a solution that may or may not work.

It's a bit fundamental when you're trying to build a power station, that it actually produces power!

I was under the impression that net gain had been achieved, even if only momentarily. If I‘m wrong then I‘m sorry!

[ATG]

Kawasicki said:

annodomini2 said:

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.

It doesn't work yet, no one, I repeat no one!

Has publicly stated that they have realistically reached unity or better.

Fusion doesn't need to be continuous!

Tokamak does, but there are other solutions that don't.

None so far have reached net gain, until then all the other work is preparation for a solution that may or may not work.

It's a bit fundamental when you're trying to build a power station, that it actually produces power!

I was under the impression that net gain had been achieved, even if only momentarily. If I‘m wrong then I‘m sorry!

I think it has been too, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Reaching unity is a nice milestone to talk about, but it is not of particular relevance to the technical progress being made by the project. The physics either side of unity is the same. And just scraping above unity doesn't suddenly mean you've got a product on your hands; you need to achieve significantly above unity.

[ChocolateFrog]

ATG said:

sociopath said:

When I was at university reading Physics, fusion power was only 20 years away.

40 years later...

Ditto, except 30 years later in my case.

ITER was the next-generation experiment back then. Every time that project's name crops up I wonder how it's going and the answer is always "still building it".

They've got a YouTube channel, fascinating, but not much happens.

[ChocolateFrog]

annodomini2 said:

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.

It doesn't work yet, no one, I repeat no one!

Has publicly stated that they have realistically reached unity or better.

Fusion doesn't need to be continuous!

Tokamak does, but there are other solutions that don't.

None so far have reached net gain, until then all the other work is preparation for a solution that may or may not work.

It's a bit fundamental when you're trying to build a power station, that it actually produces power!

No one's trying to build a fusion power station, they're all experiments and they're doing what experiments are designed to do.

[Kawasicki]

ATG said:

I think it has been too, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Reaching unity is a nice milestone to talk about, but it is not of particular relevance to the technical progress being made by the project. The physics either side of unity is the same. And just scraping above unity doesn't suddenly mean you've got a product on your hands; you need to achieve significantly above unity.

Is there a major technical barrier to going further and further above unity? Something in the fundamental science?

[dukeboy749r]

andy_s said:

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." - Benjamin Franklin

Err, wasn't it Thomas Eddison who said that?

[andy_s]

dukeboy749r said:

andy_s said:

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." - Benjamin Franklin

Err, wasn't it Thomas Eddison who said that?

Interesting - I think you may be right but a quick google throws up both.

[dukeboy749r]

I used - who said "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

And all I got was Edison results.

Must kick the internet if it is going to be wrong.

[andy_s]

dukeboy749r said:

I used - who said "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

And all I got was Edison results.

Must kick the internet if it is going to be wrong.

Only 9,999 more times to go...

[annodomini2]

ChocolateFrog said:

annodomini2 said:

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.

It doesn't work yet, no one, I repeat no one!

Has publicly stated that they have realistically reached unity or better.

Fusion doesn't need to be continuous!

Tokamak does, but there are other solutions that don't.

None so far have reached net gain, until then all the other work is preparation for a solution that may or may not work.

It's a bit fundamental when you're trying to build a power station, that it actually produces power!

No one's trying to build a fusion power station, they're all experiments and they're doing what experiments are designed to do.

The primary reason to develop fusion is as an energy source, our primary use for an energy source, is electricity generation.

[Flooble]

There's still lots of other projects besides ITER and JET:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/5-big-ide...

[ATG]

Kawasicki said:

Is there a major technical barrier to going further and further above unity? Something in the fundamental science?

No more so than increasing the yield from some small number below unity to some slightly bigger number that's still before unity.

[Kawasicki]

ATG said:

Kawasicki said:

Is there a major technical barrier to going further and further above unity? Something in the fundamental science?

No more so than increasing the yield from some small number below unity to some slightly bigger number that's still before unity.

Haven‘t we already achieved unity?

[annodomini2]

Kawasicki said:

ATG said:

Kawasicki said:

Is there a major technical barrier to going further and further above unity? Something in the fundamental science?

No more so than increasing the yield from some small number below unity to some slightly bigger number that's still before unity.

Haven‘t we already achieved unity?

The only one that was stated was NIF, but this was based on the light energy hitting the pellet, but this does not include the energy to generate the laser light in the first place.

Lasers are usually 5-20% efficient, so not true unity.

The highest to date is JET:

"In 1997, JET set the record for the closest approach to scientific breakeven, reaching Q = 0.67 in 1997, producing 16 MW of fusion energy while injecting 24 MW of thermal power to heat the fuel.[25] This is also the record for greatest fusion power produced.[26][27]"

JET Wiki

[Kawasicki]

thanks!

[EliseNick]

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.)

[andy_s]

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.)

[ChocolateFrog]

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.)

Exactly, a pitiful amount of spending for the potential benefits.

Earmark £100bn over 10 years and they'd probably crack it, or a bit less than 200 miles of high speed railway.