World's Largest Nuclear Fusion Experiment Clears Milestone (scientificamerican.com) 161
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: A multination project to build a fusion reactor cleared a milestone yesterday and is now six-and-a-half-years away from "First Plasma," officials announced. Yesterday, dignitaries attended a components handover ceremony at the construction site of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor in southern France. The ITER project is an experiment aimed at reaching the next stage in the evolution of nuclear energy as a means of generating emissions-free electricity. The section recently installed -- the cryostat base and lower cylinder -- paves the way for the installation of the tokamak, the technology design chosen to house the powerful magnetic field that will encase the ultra-hot plasma fusion core. The entire project is now 65% complete, the officials said. "Manufactured by India, the ITER cryostat is 16,000 cubic meters," ITER officials said in a release. "Its diameter and height are both almost 30 meters and it weighs 3,850 tons. Because of its bulk, it is being fabricated in four main sections: the base, lower cylinder, upper cylinder, and top lid."
Now that's real progress!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
The 3-1/2 year savings is apparently due to randomly changing around the subcomponents, rather than having scientists and engineers continue to waste time designing the thing.
In case people think he's kidding: (Score:5, Insightful)
AEC Scientists Anticipate Threshold Of Harnessing Fusion Power in 2 Years"
- The Wall Street Journal Aug 1, 1958
Recent Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory test indicate scientists may be only five or so years away from the first demonstration of sustainable [which is what they called "as much energy out than in, in a way that could be productized" back then] fusion.
- The Spokesman-Review - Apr 28, 1971
Oct 26, 1977 Nuclear Solution That's 20 years away
- The Glasgow Herald - Oct 26, 1977
government officials estimate that commercially feasable fusion power remains at least 30 years away
The Montreal Gazette - Dec 29, 1982
Edit: For more serious history with actual cost estimates - this http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergo... [fas.org] is one of the more technical documents with predictions from the 1970's of the first intertial confinement laser fusion system that was supposed to achieve breakeven. It has choice quotes like "this is our breakeven laser ... $62.5 million".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But on topic, I don't see how this will ever be economically viable. Nuclear fission costs have skyrocketed, [powermag.com] like the cited Vogtle example, to a point where no self-respecting commercial company is going to embark on that. And ITER -- which is just a proof-of-principle experiment -- is 2x to 3x of that.
Compare the scope of ITER to the scope of the first human-made fission reactor: Fermi's experiment in the squash courts of the University of Chicago.
Oh,
Fusion is not fission (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how this will ever be economically viable. Nuclear fission costs have skyrocketed, like the cited Vogtle example, to a point where no self-respecting commercial company is going to embark on that.
A) Nuclear fission is a completely different technology than fusion so you are really are comparing proverbial apples to oranges
B) The reasons fission is so expensive is because its failure modes are REALLY dangerous (see Chernobyl + weapons proliferation)
C) The failure modes for a fusion reactor are not substantial problems and not particularly dangerous ergo less safety engineering and less insurance
D) The costs and problems of nuclear fission have no relationship to the costs and problems of nuclear fusion
E) Fusion does not have the waste disposal problems of fission nor is its fuel particularly dangerous or rare or hard to handle safely
F) Fission has problems with nuclear weapons proliferation. Fusion (for power) does not. This too is a factor in the cost of fission.
The ONLY real question with fusion is whether or not we can actually do it economically. That question hasn't been answered yet because we are still working out the science and engineering. Maybe we'll figure it out with ITER in a few years or maybe some other project or maybe we never will. But that question has NO relationship whatsoever to the costs and problems of nuclear fission. If fusion works then it appears to solve a whole raft of problems with our current non-renewable energy sources in an almost ideal way. Whether we can get fusion to work as a usable power source and do so economically remains an open question but it's a question very much worth investigating considering the potential upside.
And ITER -- which is just a proof-of-principle experiment -- is 2x to 3x of that. Compare the scope of ITER to the scope of the first human-made fission reactor: Fermi's experiment in the squash courts of the University of Chicago.
Can do but you are comparing the wrong things. The Manhattan project adjusted for inflation cost around $23 billion [ctbto.org] in 2007 dollars which would be around $28 billion in 2019. The cost of ITER? About $20 billion [sciencemag.org] so far or approximately the same once you adjust for inflation. They are roughly comparable large projects aimed at the first viable functional implementation of a new technology for real world use.
Now the success of ITER is not a foregone conclusion. But the cost to figure out fusion appears to be roughly comparable to the cost of figuring out fission provided we are successful.
Oh, and lastly ... you spend 80% of your time doing 20% of the work. I don't think they're 6.5 years away.
Based on what? You might be right but you certainly are providing no evidence to support your assertion. Also bear in mind that ITER is far from the only game in town in trying to figure out fusion. It's just the biggest and most high profile but there is a LOT of effort going into figuring out fusion because the first to figure that technology out stands to make almost unimaginable amounts of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion reactors involve quite a bit of fission.
The hydrogen / helium fusion produces neutrons. Those neutrons are captured wih lithium in a fission reaction to produce hydrogen, helium and energy. Quite a bit of energy, in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion BOMBS require quite a bit of Fission. You're confusing the technologies quite a bit.
Fusion REACTORS need quite a bit of ENERGY to start the reaction. The trick is to keep it going with a net positive of energy output.
Re: (Score:2)
Two things:
1) Chernobyl was such a catastrophe as we've not seen since the last airliner crashed. Or normal traffic deaths in the USA this morning.
1) No, nuclear power plants don't produce Pu239 in useful quantities. Which is what we use in nuclear bombs. Pu239 is produced in reactors specially designed to do so. Which means that weapons proliferation from commercial power p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Confused about fission (Score:5, Informative)
In making a fusion reactor, much like a fission reactor, there must be separation of isotopes. This separation is done with gas centrifuges for many elements. Once someone has access to a gas centrifuge then there is the possibility for use in enriching uranium.
Capturing deuterium does not generally utilize gas centrifuges. It is distilled from seawater [wikipedia.org] in almost inexhaustible quantities. Tritium doesn't use them either for that purpose as a general proposition. So again we are back to comparing apples to oranges. The processes and technology for fusion have very little to do with fission. You seem to be confused about the differences between them and are thinking they are more similar than they actually are.
Tritium is a vital fuel for nuclear fission, both in a controlled fusion reaction for power and in a fission-fusion weapon.
Tritium is NOT a vital fuel for nuclear fission. It is an uncommon byproduct [wikipedia.org] of fission of some isotopes of uranium and plutonium. It is used to boost fission weapons but it isn't required for them nor is it used for power generation. It's incredibly rare so it would be a real problem if fission reactions actually required it. Furthermore to build a fusion bomb you need to have the ability to make a fission bomb first. Fusion power does not contribute to the weapons proliferation. At worst the fuels it requires just allows countries that can already make fission bombs to make bigger fusion bombs.
Tritium needs to be produced by some means. This can be done in particle accelerator, a fusion reactor (which brings a chicken and egg problem), or a fission reactor.
ITER explains how they get tritium [iter.org] on their website. There already is a stock of tritium available and they are building a fusion reactor which will breed more via interaction with lithium (again available in seawater as well as on land) thereby solving your chicken and egg problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Tritium is a vital fuel for nuclear fission, both in a controlled fusion reaction for power and in a fission-fusion weapon.
Tritium is NOT a vital fuel for nuclear fission. It is an uncommon byproduct [wikipedia.org] of fission of some isotopes of uranium and plutonium. It is used to boost fission weapons but it isn't required for them nor is it used for power generation. It's incredibly rare so it would be a real problem if fission reactions actually required it. Furthermore to build a fusion bomb you need to have the ability to make a fission bomb first. Fusion power does not contribute to the weapons proliferation. At worst the fuels it requires just allows countries that can already make fission bombs to make bigger fusion bombs.
Perhaps it isn't "vital", but IIRC from my plasma fusion courses I took once upon a time, it is much more difficult to create a fusion reactor with deuterium alone than with a deuterium-tritium mix. It has to do with the energy required to overcome coulomb repulsion of the nuclei to get them close enough to fuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, sorry. I just noticed you were talking about fission, not fusion. Derp.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm - we already employ a version of this in submarines. How do you think they get fresh oxygen? They're splitting water into hydrogen/oxygen. All you need is the liquid, a couple of electrodes and a way to capture the gases.
You're thinking of electrolysis, to separate H2O into H2 and O2.
This is different. First you need to distill heavy water from ordinary water. (What makes it "heavy" is the presence of one or two deuterium atoms in place of the hydrogen atoms.) Then electrolysis will separate out the deuterium.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not an appropriate comparison. Fermi's experiment was just to see if they could produce a fission reaction. We've managed that same milestone with fusion already - decades ago. Hell, you can build a fusor [wikipedia.org] in your basement and start producing fusion in quick fashion. Your electricity meter will not run backwards, however.
The more apt comparison i
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe there is some relation with this [wikimedia.org]?
Based on this [pppl.gov].
Sure, there is more to it, but this is a big one. It indicates a lacking sense of urgency. I bet that if this project was run like the Manhattan project things would progress much faster.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly know NOTHING about ITER (Score:5, Interesting)
As for delays, they were mostly political. Modulo political problems, ITER is moving about as fast as possible for similar projects.
On the verge of possibilities? (Score:2)
We can all be on the verge of possibilities my friend - I can be on the verge of going to get another coffee but it means nothing if I don't actually get off my arse and do it.
Fusion power is Very Very Hard. Perhaps they will do it in 6.5 years, but I really doubt it. This just sounds like a typical lets-keep-the-investors-happy type announcement.
Better ITER story. Other fusion research (Score:2)
Here is a good story about ITER, also from yesterday:
Electrifying success for MITICA High Voltage tests. [europa.eu] (July 24, 2019)
Quote: "The teams had managed several things in one go: to verify the suitability of the equipment; to operate and to test jointly the different components, and last but not l
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly know NOTHING about ITER. It's a project that is on the verge of engineering possibilities.
Fusion has been "on the verge" of "possibilities" for 70 years now. It's just a joke at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, neutral beam injectors were developed specifically for ITER. They accelerate ions using 1MV potential difference and then neutralize them back into regular atoms (so they can pass through the magnetic containment). And they do it at 1 ampere of current.
Another problem is servicing t
Re: (Score:2)
What an inane fucking viewpoint. "Well, it's hard, so it's stupid, derp!".
It's not that it's hard. It's that we've been hearing "it's hard, but we're almost there, just a little more funding" for longer than most Slashdotters have been alive. It takes far less time than that for any given organization to change it's priority from its original goal to the goal of forever growing larger.
It's a project, not a for profit company (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the impression that, for many people who work on ITER, the project is a work-until-retirement scheme.
"Scheme"? No it isn't a scheme, not any more than the Large Hadron Collider is a scheme. Basically every large economy on the planet is involved with it. For it to be some clever jobs program you have to assume that the European Union, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, and the United States have all been hoodwinked by it. Furthermore you would have to assume pretty much every credible nuclear physicist in the world was somehow in cahoots on the project whether or not they were directly involved with it.
Maybe ITER will work or maybe it won't. It's an experiment and experiments are never sure bets. But your vague hand waving about "sociology of ITER" is a sad bit of FUD based on nothing but apparently your own gut feelings.
ITER does not seem to have the kind of top management that encourages innovation.
I think you misunderstand what ITER is. ITER is a PROJECT to build a specific implementation of a proposed fusion reactor. It is not an organization meant to be some flexible innovating company. ITER is akin to the Large Hadron Collider or the Manhattan Project. They are building a very big and complicated but specific device to solve a previously unsolved problem. ITER is not a company or a government agency. It's a project doing a (very large and expensive) specific task which will either succeed or fail but has nothing to do with the innovation of management. They aren't trying to find some innovative disruption - they are trying to build a big machine to solve a specific problem.
Re: (Score:1)
That's because this article is on ITER, not ITAR.
You're thinking of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Wrong story buddy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
First plasma in 6.5 years, not actual fusion. And certainly no net power generation, nobody claims that ITER will be capable of that. Actual fusion power is decades away, and everyone involved knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion, along with "electricity that's too cheap to meter",
This referred to marginal cost. Flat-fee un-metered supply is very common for television, mobile phone service, broadband internet, water supply, sewerage, road use, public transport, etc. These things cost many billions to provide, but can operate without meters.
While un-metered electricity has not happened, millions of people have benefited from unmetered piped central heating from nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm concerned (Score:4, Funny)
This project may be rushing things. It's already 65% complete, and now only 6-1/2 years before they start experimenting? That sounds reckless.
I think that they should stand down and start a top-to-bottom review to make sure that they've dotted all of the i's and crossed all the t's before they proceed any further.
Re: (Score:1)
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because sarcasm. That's my guess. I'm open to other interpretations on the need to slow this project down further.
Re: (Score:1)
Why?
Because if you don't it is just a lokamak!
Re: (Score:2)
This project may be rushing things. It's already 65% complete, and now only 6-1/2 years before they start experimenting? That sounds reckless.
Why does it sound reckless? It's "only" 6.5 years away? A project that has been going 12 years already? I would think that after 20 years you probably have quite a decent and well thought through test and commissioning plan.
Re: I'm concerned (Score:1)
Whooooosh!
Re: (Score:2)
Metric tons only exist in the US. The correct metric term is tonnes. However, some people write "tons" when they actually meant "tonnes". For more confusion people say "tons" in preference to "tonnes".
Re:Mixing units isn't a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Why do they describe the dimensions in metric but the mass in olde tyme imperial units?
It is all metric. The mass is 3,850 metric tonnes. One tonne = 1000 kg = 2205 lbs.
Scientific American uses "tons" which is ambiguous, but since ITER is European, they have no reason to use imperial tons.
ITER says 3,850 "tonnes", which is unambiguous: ITER Cryostat [iter.org]
Re: (Score:2)
... but since ITER is European, they have no reason to use imperial tons.
Yup, they have left the middle ages and moved into the modern age, unlike some other people.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tonnes" is just pretentious anyway, unless you're in a context where both it's unclear whether you're using metric and accuracy really matters (i.e., basically never). "Tons" is just fine.
Not to mention that "old tyme imperial" tons were ... 2200 lbs, usually. Sometimes 2400, depending on the weight of a hundredweight of whatever you were measuring, but often 2200. Hardly worth caring.
US tons are 2000 pounds, because the US does not use imperial units. US units are different. Our hundredweights weigh
Re: (Score:2)
US ton = short ton [wikipedia.org] unless we're talking about a ship of course
Imperial ton = long ton [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
45% away from failure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compare this to nuclear fission (Score:4, Insightful)
We had the first model of the atom that could describe nuclear fission in 1913.
By 1945 we had created the first nuclear weapon.
In 1954 the first nuclear powered submarine went to sea, crossing the North Pole beneath the arctic ice four years later.
In 1956 the first commercial nuclear power plant opened in the UK.
By 2013 there were 437 nuclear reactors in 31 countries.
With fusion power we had plans laid for this first fusion reactor in the 1980s. This is such a large effort that no single nation was willing, or perhaps none were able, to fund it alone. We can expect this to produce some of the first bursts of fusion 30 years later. This reactor was never intended to produce more power than was put in, only to prove the concept and collect data for the next multi-national project that should produce a net power output. How long will that one take? Another 30 to 40 years? Assuming that one works then we might be able to expect nations to have enough to work with in making their own fusion reactors with even higher net output.
So, if all goes well then maybe in 2080 we can see the first commercial fusion reactors producing power for use in homes and businesses. Then it will still take another 20 or 30 years for this to develop to a point where it's actually replacing other energy sources like nuclear fission did in the 1970s.
I can certainly admire their tenacity and engineering skill. What I find problematic is the large numbers of people that claim we can simply wait for fusion power to replace coal power. Is global warming a real threat or not? If we can wait for nearly 100 years for a solution then is this really all that big of a problem?
Re:Compare this to nuclear fission (Score:5, Interesting)
You're close to summarizing the arguments put forth by Lidsky back in 1985 (then in charge of MIT's fusion program):
http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-co... [orcutt.net]
Anyone interested in Fusion should give it a read. This is part of the reason in general fusion scientists are optimists but fusion engineers are pessimists. Even if we succeed in net energy out it appears the costs of such a large plant (by necessity in design per Lidsky's arguments) will be far more expensive than fission plants. The cost of ITER is already in excess of $20 billion, and the successor slated to actually create power will be far more expensive with lithium capture blankets and steam cycles etc. The power output could be matched by smaller fission reactors.
It's important research, but in my opinion fusion will only ever be commercial if a new approach is found beyond the tokamak which allows for greater stability with small compact reactors. Given we're almost a century of relentless pursuit of this goal with various designs (some fusion attempts predate WWII), I wouldn't hold my breath.
Re:Compare this to nuclear fission (Score:5, Interesting)
The cost of ITER is already in excess of $20 billion, and the successor slated to actually create power will be far more expensive with lithium capture blankets and steam cycles etc.
No. The successor of ITER will be MUCH cheaper. ITER is built basically with 90-s technologies - lots of low-temperature superconductors, sub-optimal central pillar design, etc. This is all fine. ITER is meant to be used as a burning plasma laboratory, there's simply no other way to investigate confined plasma properties at ignition temperatures. So a "simple" conservative design for ITER is a good idea, ITER designers didn't want to add even more technological risks.
Once the plasma physics are clear, the successor is likely to be built with high-temperature superconductors, with a very thin central pillar, and it's going to be using neutral beam and microwave heating instead of changing field of the huge poloidal magnet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be thrilled if you're right, but to me it seems too hopeful. The central solenoid is very expensive since Nb3Sn technology (state of the art, not really 90s) is very difficult to fabricate with. You're right that HTS would be better, but it's so state of the art that hardly any magnets other than simple small solenoids are made from it. Large solenoids would require internal splicing techniques that haven't been developed yet. Further, present HTS is far more expensive than the latest Nb3Sn with powder
Re: (Score:2)
High-TC superconductors are only now getting close to the required mechanical properties. The first full-scale high-TC MRI machine will probably be released next year. And this is huge, helium cooli
Re: (Score:2)
It's important research, but in my opinion fusion will only ever be commercial if a new approach is found beyond the tokamak which allows for greater stability with small compact reactors.
There are some alternative designs, for example the Stellarator. They've been getting good results from one being developed in Germany, Wendelstein 7-X [ipp.mpg.de]
Still, I put more faith in fission to be developed further, like a MSR or pebble bed reactor running on thorium. There are still some serious engineering problems to address before we can build a viable reactor, but these are nothing compared to the challenges to get fusion going. Development of thorium reactors hasn't had a lot of interest (or funding),
Re: (Score:2)
"Still, I put more faith in fission to be developed further, like a MSR or pebble bed reactor running on thorium. There are still some serious engineering problems to address before we can build a viable reactor, but these are nothing compared to the challenges to get fusion going"
I note that side is still throwing up its hands and saying "fuck it, you solve it for me" about the waste problem.
Anyone who supports fission plants before we have a working waste solution is agitating for evil.
Don't be evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Spent fuel is a mess -- 95% of the energy remains, but it can't support a chain reaction.
That's okay.
What you CAN do is add supplemental neutrons. Actually, you can design the reactor so that without these supplemental neutrons, there's no way to sustain a chain reaction, even with relatively fresh spent fuel. (This is probably a good idea)
Where do you get these spare neutrons? Well, turns out that beryllium, bombarded with alpha particles, sprays neutrons everywhere. Alpha source? Tritium will work, b
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I like stellarators. Verdict is still out on if they are more stable and have better performance than tokamaks from what I understand (and hence experiments like W7X). In theory they should be better behaving than tokamaks without some instabilities like disruptions, but none have been made to particularly large size to verify this. If it does work out you're trading physics difficulty for engineering difficulty, but as an engineer the designs kind of excite me. You could imagine just using additive m
Re:Compare this to nuclear fission (Score:4, Insightful)
Fusion seems like a lot of money but the trick is to look at some of the other big things Governments spend money on.
Back in the sixties America spent the equivalent in today's dollars of $702.3bn to go to the Moon https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a... [cbsnews.com] Even with today's technology the plan to do it again with Artemis is being estimate at $39bn https://spacenews.com/paying-f... [spacenews.com]
Depending if you want the nuclear powered jacuzzi, big aircraft carriers are somewhere between $8 to $10bn a pop. With each aircraft on it typically north of $50m. The US Navy's new 12 boat fleet of Columbus nuclear missile submarines is apparently looking like $128bn https://time.com/5566107/navy-... [time.com] and the F35 program cost $406bn.
Even in the UK, we're starting to build a high speed railway network to make commuting into London from the north a bit quicker. If it happens, the final cost of this based on internal reviews is currently estimated to be around £85bn https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Multiply that globally and it's plain to see that Fusions main problem is not cost or even the physics.
Fusion's real problem is that globally we are saddled with leaders that fail to prioritise achieving limitless clean energy and a fighting chance with climate change against other trivia, like for instance saving about thirty minutes on a trip between London and Birmingham.
Re: Compare this to nuclear fission (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No argument with government spending on science, I would love to see it increased! My comment about $20 billion for ITER is more about what that means for a future commercial reactor. For a working commercial tokamak with full lithium capture etc to cost below $10 billion seems to me to be incredibly optimistic, and yet a smaller cheaper fission reactor could produce the same power out. Agreeing with the linked article by Lidsky I would say alternative fusion technologies need to be explored with practicali
Re: (Score:2)
What I find problematic is the large numbers of people that claim we can simply wait for fusion power to replace coal power.
Name one.
Re: (Score:2)
We had the first model of the atom that could describe nuclear fission in 1913.
By 1945 we had created the first nuclear weapon.
In 1954 the first nuclear powered submarine went to sea, crossing the North Pole beneath the arctic ice four years later.
In 1956 the first commercial nuclear power plant opened in the UK.
By 2013 there were 437 nuclear reactors in 31 countries.
With fusion power we had plans laid for this first fusion reactor in the 1980s. This is such a large effort that no single nation was willing, or perhaps none were able, to fund it alone. We can expect this to produce some of the first bursts of fusion 30 years later. This reactor was never intended to produce more power than was put in, only to prove the concept and collect data for the next multi-national project that should produce a net power output. How long will that one take? Another 30 to 40 years? Assuming that one works then we might be able to expect nations to have enough to work with in making their own fusion reactors with even higher net output.
So, if all goes well then maybe in 2080 we can see the first commercial fusion reactors producing power for use in homes and businesses. Then it will still take another 20 or 30 years for this to develop to a point where it's actually replacing other energy sources like nuclear fission did in the 1970s.
I can certainly admire their tenacity and engineering skill. What I find problematic is the large numbers of people that claim we can simply wait for fusion power to replace coal power. Is global warming a real threat or not? If we can wait for nearly 100 years for a solution then is this really all that big of a problem?
Nobody is waiting for fusion to replace nuclear, they are already busy replacing coal with renewables. By the time fusion technology becomes mature the only coal plants left will be industrial history museums.
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody is waiting for fusion to replace nuclear, they are already busy replacing coal with renewables. By the time fusion technology becomes mature the only coal plants left will be industrial history museums.
No, coal is being replaced by natural gas.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37952
Planned retired capacity in 2019 is 8 GW, with most of that being coal but also some nuclear and natural gas.
Planned added capacity in 2019? 8 GW natural gas, so right there this sinks that idea. Then comes 11 GW in wind, and the balance of the 24 GW total being solar and other. Is 11 GW of wind greater than 8 GW of natural gas? Sure. What is greater than the retired coal and nuclear is the 8 GW of natural ga
Re: (Score:1)
What I find problematic is the large numbers of people that claim we can simply wait for fusion power to replace coal power. Is global warming a real threat or not? If we can wait for nearly 100 years for a solution then is this really all that big of a problem?
oh blindseer, you just can't help yourself. We don't want your fission ok? Let the innovation in renewables cover the gap to fusion.
Two things can be a big problem at the same time. Some people are able to realize that most problems are not a binary choice. Global warming = bad, nuclear fission = not ideal.
You know what they do with that big fancy extraordinarily dangerous nuclear power plant to make electricity? They boil water.
Wind is free, sunlight is free, gravity is free. Innovations in renewable t
Re: (Score:2)
https://generalfusion.com/ [generalfusion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Any compression scheme (including the general fusion design) has the potential for Rayleigh-taylor instability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is seen on scales from drops of cream in coffee cups to supernova remnants, and is one of the main reasons the LLNL laser implosion fusion program has been so difficult. The RT instability causes. the nice spherical compression to become unstable, and not reach nearly the design pressure.
I haven't seen General Fusion address this issue, or show results that th
If you promise to give me $1 million per year (Score:2, Funny)
for the next 100 years, I promise to give you one billion dollars in less than 100 years. In fact each year I will cut in half the time you have to wait for the 1 billion dollars.
Fusion Snake Oil Power.
Re: (Score:1)
That's actually easily doable with a good ROI.
You're tripping...
Year (and amount paid) - Years to $1 billion Payback
1 - < 100 years
2 - < 50 years
3 - < 25 years
4 - < 13 years
5 - < 6 years (i.e. now!)
If I had $5 million, and any reasonable expectation that GP would be able to hold up their end of the bargain, I'd snap up this investment opportunity faster than you could say "Profit!"
I know science doesn't work.... (Score:2)
like it does in pop culture. But surely these scientists and engineers are dragging their feet. If the thing is built already why haven't they turned it on and got plasma yet? I know funding isn't what we want it to be but how long did it take the Chicago pile to get running? This feels like SLS project levels of speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Dump your solar and wind stocks (Score:2)
Solar and wind are the CFL bulbs of the energy production world. Once LEDs became practical and better than other light sources, CFLs were toast. This might explain why there was such a push to ban incandescent bulbs so that GE could recoup their development and production costs before the party ended. Given this, and the prospect of practical fusion power, wind and solar power will basically be obsolete so anyone who invested heavily in it has to pass the buck before the music stops.
Re: (Score:2)
and the prospect of practical fusion power
Long after all of us are dead.
Crossing my fingers (Score:2)
I hope it works. Fusion has been n years away as long as I have been alive.
If it happens, the world will be a vastly better place.
signed, I want to be an optimist but I've seen this too many times before.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion has been n years away as long as I have been alive.
So has World War III, but that hasn't happened yet, so...
India's misguided focus... (Score:1)
Yet, we will be trusting their cryostat construction?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dumbasses (Score:1)
Seek help. I heard, a painless and popular procedure called "euthanasia" helps a lot in cases like yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...the thing that makes me laugh is all around the world there are Tokamaks running. Just not as long as they propose to run the ITER experiment but still. ....
And NOT ONE of those "running" Tokamaks have achieved Lawson Criteria, much less breakeven.
NOW you know where the money is going
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
NB: at first, I made a confusion between ITER and EPR. Both are way more expensive than planed, and a lot past schedule
So, what do I have for ITER
- https://blogs.mediapart.fr/ant... [mediapart.fr] (French, may be paywalled)
- quake risk: https://www.mediapart.fr/journ... [mediapart.fr]
- in 2017, 20 b€, 4 times the initial budget, 9 years late: https://blogs.mediapart.fr/ant... [mediapart.fr]
About the EPR now:
- the ASN (Nuclear Safety Authority) is telling EDF to do a better job: https://www.mediapart [mediapart.fr]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already took so much more time and it's no finish, by far.
Yeah I say the same thing about assembling my IKEA furniture.
It already took so much more money than planned, by far.
Now you're describing my car.
It is so full of defects that are officially acknowledged that you can only think that:
- these problems must be extremely serious to be made public, which is completely unusual is this domain
- corruption must have been at play
ITER isn't some private company. These things are public for a reason.
A fraud it is.
Based on what? So far you've just strung together random sentences that can apply to any project of any scale without every indicating what the criteria for fraud is. "so much" is not a criteria.
Your post is non sequitur