Z Machine Advances Fusion Race 220
Sandia Labs has announced a new milestone in Linear Transformer Driver technology that aims to solve one of the biggest obstacles to practical fusion reactors. Getting the current needed to "spark" a burst of fusion is doable; getting a constant series of sparks going to create a continuous chain of fusion bursts has never been achieved. The LTD, which allows the Sandia Z machine to fire once every 10.2 seconds, makes it look achievable. The press release (which has been picked up in a few places, but with no further analysis) says that practical fusion power could now be 20 years off.
20 years off? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that I'll stand by my idea that even if/when we crack fusion enough to be able to build a fusion power plant it'll have to be so big to be worth it, that they won't be able to get the funding to do so.
Basically, Containment costs go up by the square, while energy release goes up by the cube. To make it worth it, we might be looking at a 100 gigawatt reactor*, of which half goes towards sustaining the reaction.
*1-2 gigawatts is a pretty big reactor today.
20 year off == 20 good funding years (Score:5, Insightful)
That twenty years (here and decades ago) assumes that governments won't pull funding for fusion research. But they did, and will again. ITER could have been built years ago. It wasn't a lack technology holding it back, it was a lack of money. So don't blame the scientists who give those 20 year estimates, blame your governments.
Re:20 years off? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. I came here to make the same quip.
Then I realized a possible explanation. Perhaps every time another milestone is passed, the new understanding moves us closer to fusion and thus on to the next unexpected hurdle. Sort of like being able to see the second mountain that was previously obscured by the first.
Or maybe it's just researchers looking to grab headlines in order to obtain more funding. Either way. :)
Do we need such "estimates"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:20 years off? (Score:1, Insightful)
Depends on what you mean by containment (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Mr. Fusion on your roof: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Do we need such "estimates"? (Score:5, Insightful)
5 years to design it into a power plant, find and obtain a site, necessary permits, etc... Then 5 years to actually build the thing.
I'll believe that it's twenty years away when we have a working plant sustaining a fusion reaction for testing purposes. IE operating the thing for days/weeks, not seconds/minutes.
We had [umr.edu] the first nuclear pile in 1942. The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity came online in 1951. It wasn't until 1957 when the first commercial fission plant came online. 15 years from the first pile until a commercial plant. All signs point towards fusion being bigger and more difficult, so I figure one will take even longer to build than a fission plant.
Re:Do we need such "estimates"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ICF, not MCF (Score:2, Insightful)
Earth's gravity matters not one whit. There is, however, an effective local gravity that is created across the surface of the pellet by the inward acceleration. This makes "out" look like "down", and it can drive Rayleigh-Taylor (buoyancy-type) instabilities. So in that sense, there is a race against "gravity", because the target compression rate must beat the rate of growth of the instability. But that's a whole 'nother story.
Re:20 years off? (Score:1, Insightful)