Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Fusion may be 100 years away

...and the first component is arriving. Only a million more to come. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23408073

One of my mates is working on some of the components in Oxford. The costs are staggering, the costs of mistakes even more. A few months ago they were fabricating a copper component. They were rolling the copper into a cylinder type shape and someone left a rag on top of the machine. It dropped off and mushed into the thing they were making. That cost £3million, and they sold the copper off as scrap.

They're also manufacturing diamond mirrors that the lasers shine through. Each one costs £20-30m. :eek:
 
One of my mates is working on some of the components in Oxford. The costs are staggering, the costs of mistakes even more. A few months ago they were fabricating a copper component. They were rolling the copper into a cylinder type shape and someone left a rag on top of the machine. It dropped off and mushed into the thing they were making. That cost £3million, and they sold the copper off as scrap.

They're also manufacturing diamond mirrors that the lasers shine through. Each one costs £20-30m. :eek:

Interesting how much diamond mirrors cost. Going off topic. Synthetic diamond is not dropping prices radically.
 
Nah, neutrons are just that, alpha particles are 2 protons and 2 neutrons. The problem with neutron bombardment is that it tends to 'activate' most materials, finding materials that aren't made radioactive is quite difficult and a test facility for that purpose is part of the original ITER proposal.

At some point in the structure there has to be something to absorb emitted neutrons, one of the ideas to be trialled by ITER is to use a lithium liner. The neutron bombardment generates tritium that can be extracted and used as fuel.

one concept that's received renewed interest these days is a fission-fusion hybrid - using the ultrafast 14.1MeV neutrons created by d-t fusion to drive (otherwise subcritical) fission reactions, multiplying the fusion energy output by a significant factor. the very high neutron flux and energy would allow the use of a variety of fuels (thorium or even spent nuclear fuel), while destroying long-lived radioisotopes (actinides, mostly) via nuclear transmutation. in short, you'd be able to burn nuclear waste as fuel and end up with material with much shorter half-lives.
 
one concept that's received renewed interest these days is a fission-fusion hybrid - using the ultrafast 14.1MeV neutrons created by d-t fusion to drive (otherwise subcritical) fission reactions, multiplying the fusion energy output by a significant factor. the very high neutron flux and energy would allow the use of a variety of fuels (thorium or even spent nuclear fuel), while destroying long-lived radioisotopes (actinides, mostly) via nuclear transmutation. in short, you'd be able to burn nuclear waste as fuel and end up with material with much shorter half-lives.

I think a thorium reactor is much more feasible for reducing radioactive half-lives.

ADSs could also be used to destroy longer-lived fission products contained in used nuclear fuel, such as Tc-99 and I-129 (213,000 and 16 million years half-lives, respectively). These isotopes can acquire a neutron to become Tc-100 and I-130 respectively, which are very short-lived, and beta decay to Ru-100 and Xe-130, which are stable.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/C...celerator-driven-Nuclear-Energy/#.UiTfjj_VvF4
 
Now they just (!) have to work out how to do it 15 times a second.
 
No news whatsoever. EMC² corporation is still employing scientists and engineers, so the work is ongoing, but not a peep out of them. It's infuriating. This is not how you're supposed to do science!

EDIT: Have just re-checked, and the publicly known contract ran out at the end of September. There is no new information from inside the team.
 
Last edited:

Great post on reddit about it -

Yes, the title contains the phrase "fusion milestone passed", plz refrain from moistening your collective nuclear panties.

The BBC story gives almost zero useful detail here, as is to be expected from them on big science stories when the byline isn't my boy Pallab Ghosh <3. However, it appears an internal email of NIF relevant to this "milestone" was leaked to the local Livermore rag, The Independent, in which the following interesting information is conveyed and from which we can infer quite a lot:

"According to the email from program leader Ed Moses, in Saturday’s experiment, NIF fired 1.8 million joules of energy along its 192 arms, generating a record 15 quadrillion neutrons from a frozen heavy hydrogen (deuterium-tritium) target with an energy output nearly 75 percent higher than the previous record."

This, while interesting, is NOT something to flip out over, as I will explain in detail why below. Also notice that while the BBC doesn't the word "breakeven" (the specific fusion parameter of Q≥1) outright, that is indeed what they are claiming has occurred here when they say:

"The BBC understands that during an experiment in late September, the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel."

This is a highly dubious claim and I strongly suspect some very creative numberfucking is going on behind the scenes if this is indeed the claim being made by NIF. Since we can easily deduce the total energy released by fusion reactions in a shot with a credible yield of 1.5x1016 (15 quadrillion) neutrons each possessing a kinetic energy of 14.1 MeV as must be the case in deuterium tritium fusion reactions of the kind this laser is attempting - the answer is ≈40 Kilojoules - there is obviously some accounting to be done between that number and the number of Kj the target likely absorbed.

Now, the laser itself consumes about a hundred metric FUCKTONS of energy to fire a single shot: the capacitor bank that fires the thousands of enormous xenon flashlamps to pump the neodymium doped laser glass of the system together consume nearly HALF A GIGAJOULE of electricity when charging up. Clearly that is NOT the comparison they're making to that 40Kj of fusion energy out that would meet breakeven. What about the energy of the laser itself, maybe that's the comparison? No. NIF produces 4 megajoules in 192 beams of near-infrared radiation which is then frequency converted to the ultraviolet for a total of ~2 Mj of 351 nanometer UV laser light. Clearly that is not the comparison either. What about the thermal x-rays inside the gold hohlraum in which the fuel is contained and on which the lasers impinge that's depicted in that inset picture in the article? Nope, there's about a megajoule of x-rays inside that little pencil eraser sized oven at the bangtime. Ok, well then what about the total energy of x-raysactually delivered to the BB sized hydrogen fuel capsule surface itself during the actual microballoon ablation and implosion drive of the fuel? NO. After all that, about 200 Kj of x-rays are being delivered to the capsule during the 10 nanoseconds of fuel assembly and adiabatic compression.

So HOW did this notion of breakeven start to get bandied about somewhere behind the scenes here? Well the only way I can see, is that they're using the energy actually deposited inside the compressed hundred micron diameter ultrahot core of the imploded fuel pellet at the time of maximum compression and density which, considering the inefficiencies of core compression and ablative blowoff of the rest of the outer layers of the core during assembly, MAY approach the low end of the ~50-100 kilojoule range. That's pretty damn deceptive if you ask me. 40Kj out with 400+ MJ in = hilariously abysmal wall plug efficiency.

Why am I being so critical? Because this device was sold to the public as AN IGNITION MACHINE. The scientists working on the project over the past 2 decades were so confident that it would achieve ignition and burn with very high gain factors of Q>100 in some simulations that they put the word ignition in the goddamn title of the project. It is now clear, in spite of "hopeful" stories like this one that they seem to be pumping out with strange regularity, that NIF will NEVER achieve ignition, and that is because the gap between the current fusion yields, even the latest one they're singing hosannas about here that's nearly 2X the last highest yield achieved last year, are still well over an order of magnitude away from achieving the goal of ignition. And nobody has the slightest fucking clue why. There are practically innumerable energy sapping mechanisms that suck energy away from an imploding capsule during a shot: stimulated Brillouin scattering, x-ray heating of the hohlraum, stimulated Raman scattering, two-plasmon decay, Rayleigh-Taylor hydrodynamic instabilities in the imploding fuel layers, inverse electron-cyclotron resonance heating of the electrons in the capsule blowoff plasma, etc., etc., etc., etc. and just like all the previous huge laser fusion experiments done since the 70s, nobody knows where the excess energy leakage is going on these new experiments. Everyone thought that this was going to be it, that 2 MJ of UV radiation was going to be enough to get this shit done. Well it wasn't, and this is now the sad, ignominious, devastating 4 billion dollar end of the road for laser fusion.

:(
 
lcars10_small.jpg
Captain, there appear to be
innumerable energy sapping mechanisms that suck energy away from an imploding capsule during a shot: stimulated Brillouin scattering, x-ray heating of the hohlraum, stimulated Raman scattering, two-plasmon decay, Rayleigh-Taylor hydrodynamic instabilities in the imploding fuel layers and inverse electron-cyclotron resonance heating of the electrons in the capsule blowoff plasma.
Perhaps we should inverse the polarity in the warp flux coils?
 
Last edited:
Great post on reddit about it -



:(

thanks, I suspected it might be something along those lines. i.e. bbc knows very little about science.

But this quote from reddit

Well it wasn't, and this is now the sad, ignominious, devastating 4 billion dollar end of the road for laser fusion

I thought the purpose of the laser fusion machine was to help design the next generation nuclear weapons, if it can generate energy that's a bonus. So from the US defense point view, job well done?
 
University of Washington. "Fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 8 October 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141008131156.htm>.

:cool::thumbs:

Pah.. Link fail so here's c&p


Fusion energy almost sounds too good to be true -- zero greenhouse gas emissions, no long-lived radioactive waste, a nearly unlimited fuel supply.

Perhaps the biggest roadblock to adopting fusion energy is that the economics haven't penciled out. Fusion power designs aren't cheap enough to outperform systems that use fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.

University of Washington engineers hope to change that. They have designed a concept for a fusion reactor that, when scaled up to the size of a large electrical power plant, would rival costs for a new coal-fired plant with similar electrical output.

The team published its reactor design and cost-analysis findings last spring and will present results Oct. 17 at the International Atomic Energy Agency's Fusion Energy Conference in St. Petersburg, Russia.

"Right now, this design has the greatest potential of producing economical fusion power of any current concept," said Thomas Jarboe, a UW professor of aeronautics and astronautics and an adjunct professor in physics.

The UW's reactor, called the dynomak, started as a class project taught by Jarboe two years ago. After the class ended, Jarboe and doctoral student Derek Sutherland -- who previously worked on a reactor design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- continued to develop and refine the concept.

The design builds on existing technology and creates a magnetic field within a closed space to hold plasma in place long enough for fusion to occur, allowing the hot plasma to react and burn. The reactor itself would be largely self-sustaining, meaning it would continuously heat the plasma to maintain thermonuclear conditions. Heat generated from the reactor would heat up a coolant that is used to spin a turbine and generate electricity, similar to how a typical power reactor works.

"This is a much more elegant solution because the medium in which you generate fusion is the medium in which you're also driving all the current required to confine it," Sutherland said.

There are several ways to create a magnetic field, which is crucial to keeping a fusion reactor going. The UW's design is known as a spheromak, meaning it generates the majority of magnetic fields by driving electrical currents into the plasma itself. This reduces the amount of required materials and actually allows researchers to shrink the overall size of the reactor.

Other designs, such as the experimental fusion reactor project that's currently being built in France -- called Iter -- have to be much larger than the UW's because they rely on superconducting coils that circle around the outside of the device to provide a similar magnetic field. When compared with the fusion reactor concept in France, the UW's is much less expensive -- roughly one-tenth the cost of Iter -- while producing five times the amount of energy.

The UW researchers factored the cost of building a fusion reactor power plant using their design and compared that with building a coal power plant. They used a metric called "overnight capital costs," which includes all costs, particularly startup infrastructure fees. A fusion power plant producing 1 gigawatt (1 billion watts) of power would cost $2.7 billion, while a coal plant of the same output would cost $2.8 billion, according to their analysis.

"If we do invest in this type of fusion, we could be rewarded because the commercial reactor unit already looks economical," Sutherland said. "It's very exciting."

Right now, the UW's concept is about one-tenth the size and power output of a final product, which is still years away. The researchers have successfully tested the prototype's ability to sustain a plasma efficiently, and as they further develop and expand the size of the device they can ramp up to higher-temperature plasma and get significant fusion power output.

The team has filed patents on the reactor concept with the UW's Center for Commercialization and plans to continue developing and scaling up its prototypes.

Other members of the UW design team include Kyle Morgan of physics; Eric Lavine, Michal Hughes, George Marklin, Chris Hansen, Brian Victor, Michael Pfaff, and Aaron Hossack of aeronautics and astronautics; Brian Nelson of electrical engineering; and, Yu Kamikawa and Phillip Andrist formerly of the UW.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
 
Worth noting the work of UK based Tokamak Energy (partly composed of a lot of ex-Culham based researchers) who are looking to produce a commercially viable spherical tokamak, using high temperature superconducting technologies, within 10 years on a budget of around £300 million. The aim is to meet national power requirements by producing a large number of small (100 times smaller then eg ITER) fusion reactors.

See also their own corporate video.
 
"The project was officially begun in 2006 ....and the date for the beginning of operations—or first plasma— [was] in 2016....Although the official communique does not mention the proposed date for first plasma, it is widely acknowledged to [now] be 2025."

So when they signed the agreement in 2006 it was ten years away from operation, and now it's ten year away from operation. :D
 
Last edited:
"The project was officially begun in 2006 ....and the date for the beginning of operations—or first plasma— [was] in 2016....Although the official communique does not mention the proposed date for first plasma, it is widely acknowledged [now] be 2025."

So when they signed the agreement in 2006 it was ten years away from operation, and now it's ten year away from operation. :D
That's an improvement - they always used to say fusion was 50 years away! :)
 
Some serious money starting to flow to the fusioin startups now.


Helion's approach is linear and pulsed, rather than toroidal and continuous, with direct energy conversion (no steam turbines, just inducing current in the containing coils). There are about half a dozen of these companies now, with very promising results. Crucially, their timelines are all "5 years away" rather than the perenial 20. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them demonstrates net power before ITER even gets hot.
 
Back
Top Bottom