Fusion - breakthrough or another false dawn
Discussion
coanda said:
Lot of hyperbole, little detail, funding fishing.I am sure one of the technical journals (Spectrum?) published a story about three years ago from some other firm which reckoned they were similarly close. Not seen any updates since.
I have a feeling there's money to be made in "Breakthrough designs" which turn out to be damp squibs.
I have a feeling there's money to be made in "Breakthrough designs" which turn out to be damp squibs.
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?
The whole too cheap to meter thing is just odd, why would any company build a power plant if the product was worthless?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
If you simply pay a flat rate to support your grade of connection I suppose that might work? In this age of crypto currency mining there could be a lot of people maxing out their connection.
The other issue I see is plant economic lifespan, with all of the ongoing research the chances are your multi billion investment will be out of date by the time you have gone through the decade long process to get it built.
These though are more western nation issues.
Toltec said:
The whole too cheap to meter thing is just odd, why would any company build a power plant if the product was worthless?
If you simply pay a flat rate to support your grade of connection I suppose that might work? In this age of crypto currency mining there could be a lot of people maxing out their connection.
....
Yes, in the context of the time they were talking about "too cheap to meter" I don't think it was "too cheap to charge for" which is, as you say, just an odd idea. If you simply pay a flat rate to support your grade of connection I suppose that might work? In this age of crypto currency mining there could be a lot of people maxing out their connection.
....
Not having to pay for meters to be designed, built and installed would be a big saving by itself. But at the time the only way to read meters was with an army of people travelling around the country (and back then meters were often inside the house so taking a reading wasn't as quick as flicking open the cupboard outside). Add in the overhead of collecting the (paper) forms from your meter readers, collating them (by hand), calculating the bill (by hand), printing and posting out the (paper) bills , then processing the cheques people sent back and reconciling them with people's accounts (by hand).
Then consider that most people had few electrical appliances anyway so probably only used a few kWh per day and I can see why it would work out cheaper to charge a flat rate. Especially if you are selling your plutonium to the government
Toltec said:
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?
The whole too cheap to meter thing is just odd, why would any company build a power plant if the product was worthless?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
If you simply pay a flat rate to support your grade of connection I suppose that might work? In this age of crypto currency mining there could be a lot of people maxing out their connection.
The other issue I see is plant economic lifespan, with all of the ongoing research the chances are your multi billion investment will be out of date by the time you have gone through the decade long process to get it built.
These though are more western nation issues.
All the plants were funded by HMG.
Pre Privatisation.
Flooble said:
Yes, in the context of the time they were talking about "too cheap to meter" I don't think it was "too cheap to charge for" which is, as you say, just an odd idea.
Not having to pay for meters to be designed, built and installed would be a big saving by itself. But at the time the only way to read meters was with an army of people travelling around the country (and back then meters were often inside the house so taking a reading wasn't as quick as flicking open the cupboard outside). Add in the overhead of collecting the (paper) forms from your meter readers, collating them (by hand), calculating the bill (by hand), printing and posting out the (paper) bills , then processing the cheques people sent back and reconciling them with people's accounts (by hand).
Then consider that most people had few electrical appliances anyway so probably only used a few kWh per day and I can see why it would work out cheaper to charge a flat rate. Especially if you are selling your plutonium to the government
Sorry, typically for me I missed noticing what I'd written was not quite what was in my head. I meant to say 'just odd now', which makes a bit of a difference. Your reply makes sense in the historical context. Not having to pay for meters to be designed, built and installed would be a big saving by itself. But at the time the only way to read meters was with an army of people travelling around the country (and back then meters were often inside the house so taking a reading wasn't as quick as flicking open the cupboard outside). Add in the overhead of collecting the (paper) forms from your meter readers, collating them (by hand), calculating the bill (by hand), printing and posting out the (paper) bills , then processing the cheques people sent back and reconciling them with people's accounts (by hand).
Then consider that most people had few electrical appliances anyway so probably only used a few kWh per day and I can see why it would work out cheaper to charge a flat rate. Especially if you are selling your plutonium to the government
Toltec said:
The whole too cheap to meter thing is just odd, why would any company build a power plant if the product was worthless?
If you simply pay a flat rate to support your grade of connection I suppose that might work? In this age of crypto currency mining there could be a lot of people maxing out their connection.
The other issue I see is plant economic lifespan, with all of the ongoing research the chances are your multi billion investment will be out of date by the time you have gone through the decade long process to get it built.
These though are more western nation issues.
You could say that about lots of industries.If you simply pay a flat rate to support your grade of connection I suppose that might work? In this age of crypto currency mining there could be a lot of people maxing out their connection.
The other issue I see is plant economic lifespan, with all of the ongoing research the chances are your multi billion investment will be out of date by the time you have gone through the decade long process to get it built.
These though are more western nation issues.
About 30 years ago I listened to one of the smart guys in my company explain how telcos were going to function in the next few decades. This was in a time when mobiles were brand new (and made by Racal), and calls were billed by the minute.
He had these crazy ideas of subscription based services, where you would pay a flat fee and get whatever connectivity you could use. This was apparently going to happen to mobiles as well. How we laughed - this was clearly Impossible.
This happens in any business where the cost of metering the product becomes more expensive than the product itself.
Say fusion did happen, and it was reliable, abundant and cheap, to the point where fuel costs were zero. There is nothing stopping power companies from saying “here is a 10 kW connection, have all you can eat”.
rxe said:
You could say that about lots of industries.
About 30 years ago I listened to one of the smart guys in my company explain how telcos were going to function in the next few decades. This was in a time when mobiles were brand new (and made by Racal), and calls were billed by the minute.
He had these crazy ideas of subscription based services, where you would pay a flat fee and get whatever connectivity you could use. This was apparently going to happen to mobiles as well. How we laughed - this was clearly Impossible.
This happens in any business where the cost of metering the product becomes more expensive than the product itself.
Say fusion did happen, and it was reliable, abundant and cheap, to the point where fuel costs were zero. There is nothing stopping power companies from saying “here is a 10 kW connection, have all you can eat”.
Yes, I get what you are saying, the service isn't free, but you buy a certain level of supply rather than how much you use. Mobile companies do meter though, even no limit call and data connections are counted and can have fair usage terms. Water has gone from unmetered to metered, though that is due to it being a limited resource and processing costs at both sides. About 30 years ago I listened to one of the smart guys in my company explain how telcos were going to function in the next few decades. This was in a time when mobiles were brand new (and made by Racal), and calls were billed by the minute.
He had these crazy ideas of subscription based services, where you would pay a flat fee and get whatever connectivity you could use. This was apparently going to happen to mobiles as well. How we laughed - this was clearly Impossible.
This happens in any business where the cost of metering the product becomes more expensive than the product itself.
Say fusion did happen, and it was reliable, abundant and cheap, to the point where fuel costs were zero. There is nothing stopping power companies from saying “here is a 10 kW connection, have all you can eat”.
I could see it being effectively unmetered, but a charge based on house size, number of EVs and if you have a swimming pool etc. Fusion plants are going to be very expensive to build and maintain so even if the fuel is almost free the materials and workforce will not. Well barring moving into post scarcity society at least. I'm hoping I'll live long enough to see fusion go mainstream, certainly going to be exciting.
If anybody is interested MAST has just recently started producing first plasma and has also managed to 'exhaust' heated plasma which as I understand it, is one of the key enablers to protect the reactor.
detail can be found here.
https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/research/mast-upgrade/
Really interesting stuff.
Also its worth noting that the ITER reactor that's being built, the design is being continually updated with learning gained from experiments around the world (such as at JET).
detail can be found here.
https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/research/mast-upgrade/
Really interesting stuff.
Also its worth noting that the ITER reactor that's being built, the design is being continually updated with learning gained from experiments around the world (such as at JET).
General Fusion have just announced they're going to build a commercial prototype/demonstrator for their Magnetised Target Fusion (MTF) reactor on the same site as MAST.
Jeff Bezos trying to take the lead in the supervillain race, space rockets and fusion power plants vs. space rockets and a moon base.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fusion...
Jeff Bezos trying to take the lead in the supervillain race, space rockets and fusion power plants vs. space rockets and a moon base.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fusion...
maffski said:
General Fusion have just announced they're going to build a commercial prototype/demonstrator for their Magnetised Target Fusion (MTF) reactor on the same site as MAST.
Jeff Bezos trying to take the lead in the supervillain race, space rockets and fusion power plants vs. space rockets and a moon base.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fusion...
As the liquid metal is in direct contact with the plasma, contamination will be a big problem.Jeff Bezos trying to take the lead in the supervillain race, space rockets and fusion power plants vs. space rockets and a moon base.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fusion...
An experiment carried out on 8 August yielded 1.35 megajoules (MJ) of energy - around 70% of the laser energy delivered to the fuel capsule. Reaching ignition means getting a fusion yield that's greater than the 1.9 MJ put in by the laser.
"This is a huge advance for fusion and for the entire fusion community," Debbie Callahan, a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which hosts NIF, told BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58252...
"This is a huge advance for fusion and for the entire fusion community," Debbie Callahan, a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which hosts NIF, told BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58252...
andy_s said:
An experiment carried out on 8 August yielded 1.35 megajoules (MJ) of energy - around 70% of the laser energy delivered to the fuel capsule. Reaching ignition means getting a fusion yield that's greater than the 1.9 MJ put in by the laser.
"This is a huge advance for fusion and for the entire fusion community," Debbie Callahan, a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which hosts NIF, told BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58252...
Practically, the electrical output at the consumer needs to be significantly higher than the energy input to the system as a whole or this is no use. Even matching the heat output to the energy delivered just means you have made an efficient storage heater, providing you ignore the efficiency of the laser system."This is a huge advance for fusion and for the entire fusion community," Debbie Callahan, a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which hosts NIF, told BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58252...
It will be a significant step reaching input output equivalence though.
Then once it can produce enough energy to drive itself things start to get really interesting.
AW111 said:
They also have an odd definition of "reaching ignition".
Surely if you get the atoms to fuse you've reached ignition. The power in/out ratio has nothing to do with "ignition".
They should be able to tell if there is any fusion going on by what particles are emitted. I think it is a nominal goalpost as if you can measure more energy being released than you just added then something is going on. The next point is getting more usable energy out than you used to generate it. Then getting the balance between a self sustaining fusion reaction and a RUD. Surely if you get the atoms to fuse you've reached ignition. The power in/out ratio has nothing to do with "ignition".
The Wookie said:
I didn't think that energy equivalence was really the goal for NIF, I thought they were basically backdooring H-bomb research and all it proves is that they're getting better at modelling the behaviour of the system and reaction
A great way to get funding for Fission research if nothing else.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff