China Turns On Nuclear-Powered 'Artificial Sun' (phys.org) 108
China successfully powered up its "artificial sun" nuclear fusion reactor for the first time, state media reported Friday, marking a great advance in the country's nuclear power research capabilities. Phys.Org reports: The HL-2M Tokamak reactor is China's largest and most advanced nuclear fusion experimental research device, and scientists hope that the device can potentially unlock a powerful clean energy source. It uses a powerful magnetic field to fuse hot plasma and can reach temperatures of over 150 million degrees Celsius, according to the People's Daily -- approximately ten times hotter than the core of the sun. Located in southwestern Sichuan province and completed late last year, the reactor is often called an "artificial sun" on account of the enormous heat and power it produces. They plan to use the device in collaboration with scientists working on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor -- the world's largest nuclear fusion research project based in France, which is expected to be completed in 2025.
Kind of hoped it was in... (Score:1)
Wuhan, or at least Hubei province.
150 million degrees? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:150 million degrees? (Score:5, Informative)
Simply put, no. It's a deuterium/tritium reactor. Tritium has a very short half-life, and is primarily available from the breakdown of uranium. Running enough nuclear reactors or breeder reactors to produce the tritium for the necessarily inefficient fusion plants would provide many times the power of the fusion plants themselves.
There is some interesting work involving _thorium_ fuels, but tritium is not an effective fuel source. It's far too rare and expensive to generate. Its use as fuel is the fiscal equivalent of burning diamonds to heat your home, especially since tritium currently costs $30,000/gram, and abrasive grade diamonds only cost $1,000/gram.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:150 million degrees? (Score:5, Informative)
If you are able to make a working D-T reactor you get enough neutrons out that you can use them to generate Tritium from Lithium (which is pretty common)
Today tritium is made using fission reactors because we don't have any working fusion reactors.
There are still issues with handling the tritium but there isn't a supply problem.
https://www.iter.org/mach/Trit... [iter.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Today tritium is made using fission reactors because we don't have any working fusion reactors.
There's plenty of working fusion reactors. Just none of them are any good at producing a net gain power output, at least none that any are talking about publicly. What they are quite good at doing though is producing neutrons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If you are able to make a working D-T reactor you get enough neutrons out that you can use them to generate Tritium from Lithium (which is pretty common)
That's precisely how fusors are used to produce more tritium today. A working D-T or D-D fusor is simple enough that high school students build them as science projects.
We collect tritium from fission reactors because it is a neutron poison, it can
Re: (Score:2)
It's an experimental research reactor, they're not expecting to make money selling electricity. In order to learn how to do really cool stuff you sometimes need to spend a big chunk of money, which is why the US doesn't spend much on basic research any more.
Re: (Score:1)
The half live of Tritium is 12 years. ... your post makes no sense.
And you usually collect it from sea water
Re: (Score:3)
Your posted half-life for tritium is correct. But _deuterium_ is harvested from sea water, typically from fresh water. Sea water is salty, corrosive, and awkward to refine in the necessary bulk to produce significant amounts of deuterium. _Tritium_ is harvested from fission reactors, typically from the lithium shielding bombarded by neutrons from the uranium. And if you have that much high energy neutrons from a uranium fission reactor, you don't need a deuterium/tritium source to trigger reactions in your
Re: (Score:2)
Fission reactors have no lithium shielding. Unless it is purposely build for tritium harvesting.
That is an idea for fusion reactors.
The idea that you can harvest sea water for fusion fuel makes neither economic nor thermodynamic sense. ... or are we suddenly talking about steam engines, compressed gases etc.?
Thermodynamics has obviously nothing to do with it
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium, in the form of lithium hydride is one of the _primary_ shielding materials for fission reactors. Which isotope is used affects strongly the availability of tritium generated by neutrons from the uranium striking the lithium shielding.
The energy involved to harvest water for tritium far exceeds the energy available from the tritium. Even if the energy spent for electrolysis to split oxygen from hydrogen is _mostly_ recoverable, the amount of tritium in fresh or sea water is so small that any losses
Re: (Score:2)
The energy involved to harvest water for tritium far exceeds the energy available from the tritium. Even if the energy spent for electrolysis to split oxygen from hydrogen is _mostly_ recoverable, the amount of tritium in fresh or sea water is so small that any losses whatsoever far outweigh the available fusion energy. Ergo, "it does not make thermodynamic sense".
even if it was true - which it obviously is not - it has nothing to do with "Thermodynamics", as it is not a steam engine/heat engine/pressure e
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my. The definition of "thermodynamics" generally includes the exchange of all forms of energy, not merely steam engines. Those of us old enough to have worked with assembling and wiring physical components can attest that thermodynamics affects hardware, batteries, and fuel supplies. Perhaps you'd benefit from a basic physics course? Or chemistry, where tracking energy with the laws of thermodynamics in mind is vital to understanding reactions. Even biology can provide fascinating understandings, learni
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my. The definition of "thermodynamics" generally includes the exchange of all forms of energy, not merely steam engines.
No, it does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Thermodynamics is strictly about heat and gases.
For example a PV cell has nothing to do with thermodynamics, nor an orbit of a satellite around the earth, nor your CPU in your computer ... (stupid americans).
Can you name even _one_ design that plans to harvest tritium from water shilding? There are a number of so-called "hybrid" designs
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wikipedia article you cite:
Thermodynamics applies to a wide variety of topics in science and engineering, especially physical chemistry, chemical engineering and mechanical engineering, but also in other complex fields such as meteorology.
Nuclear physics and power supplies would seem to be candidates for such complex fields, especially pointing out that the fusion supply takes more power to refine the tritium fuel for than it has ever shown any signs of generating. Ergo
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear physics and power supplies would seem to be candidates for such complex fields,
Then learn to read. (The wiki article)
They are not.
Can you point to _any_ design, existing or future, fusion or fission, for any reactor that harvests tritium from water
I never said that a fusion reactor harvests tritium from water.
You claimed that a fission reactor makes tritium from lithium, which is wrong. Simply learn to read, and re read my previous posts.
Angel OUT
Re: (Score:2)
Look again at the ral articles.
https://inis.iaea.org/collecti... [iaea.org]
The tritium in a light water reactor is primarily produced from lithium used for moderation of the reactor. Not the water.
There are other designs discussed in that article, such as using helium exposed to neutron radiation to generate and recover tritium. But no one does this: it _leaks_. I can't find any actively used samples. Can you? And oh, neither is that based on water. It relies extensively on helium.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about "tritium production", we covered that 5 post back already.
Most Fission reactors are for production of electricity, not tritium.
It relies extensively on helium.
No, it does not. You can not make tritium from helium.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, tritium is a byproduct of many fission reactors. It's one of the potential larger scale sources of tritium for fusion, and is part of many fusion power plans. But that brings it right back to thermodynamics: is it worth the extra energy consumed to refine and handle the tritium, and run the fusion reactor, to recover the currently never-provided power that such a reactor might yield? It's currently a huge net loss of power, with no sign that the efficiency of D/T fusion plants will ever justify the ene
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a working fusion reactor you can use the neutrons to breed more tritium from lithum.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is, is the reaction energy positive or energy negative.
If you're burning 1000 grams of tritium to produce 500 grams of tritium, you have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
In principal it is a net win - if you can build a working reactor. You get enough neutrons to breed enough new tritium from the lithium.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not talking "in principle". Because that's just pie-in-the-sky BS.
I'm saying flat out. If you're putting more energy and more fuel in than you are getting out, it isn't viable.
And last I checked, we were still there with fusion.
So while the reactor "works", the economics don't.
It's like burning diamonds to run a steam engine.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, tritium for nuclear fusion is generally produced from lithium. A neutron hits the lithium nucleus, resulting in an alpha particle (helium nucleus) and a tritium nucleus. The tritium fuses with deuterium, to produce an alpha particle and a neutron. This neutron then goes in to feed more reactions. A favourite fuel for nuclear fusion is lithium deuteride, which contains both nuclei required. The lithium has to be the 6Li isotope, with 3 protons and 3 neutrons. The more common 7Li isotope doe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You ar4e correct. Molten lithium is typically used for shielding at fission reactors. The amount of the triium in the world has been dropping for decades as fission reactors have been falling out of favor. handling and refining the tritium embedded fuel is its own nuclear waste adventure in safety.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, tritium derived from fission reactors should only be needed to initiate fusion. If we actually achieve ignition and sustained fusion, then the neutrons produced by the fusion of tritium and deuterium should sustain tritium production. However, the equation I have seen indicates that you only get one neutron out for one neutron in, so the usage of neutrons to produce tritium would have to be 100% efficient, which I doubt will happen in practice.
The nuclear safety aspects of tritium extracti
Re: (Score:2)
Tritium as a mere trigger? The primary fusion reaction in almost all theories for fusion reactors is one deuterium and one tritium atom. Tritium is roughly 3/5 of the fuel, by mass: the extra neutron from the tritium is radiated, and is the main source of energy from the reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly did not mean that tritium is a mere trigger. I think the intention is that a significant proportion of the tritium required for fusion is generated using neutrons emitted by the tritium-deuterium fusion itself. If you can use lithium as a neutron absorber in a fission reactor, then you can do the same in a fusion reactor. I presume that the lithium shielding absorbs the energy of the neutrons, and heats up, so there is no loss of power if neutrons are absorbed.
Re: (Score:2)
Using lithium shielding to generate some tritium has been suggested, but it would inevitably be inefficient. One neutron from a D-T fusion could only produce one Lithium from Lithium-7, and there are some inevitable losses. Given the cost and short half-life of tritium, I don't think it can be economically sustained.
The project always seems to require fission based breeder farms, using uranium for fission and possibly lithium as the tritium source, to provide fusion fuel. And with that many fission reactors
Re: (Score:2)
I take your point about needing fission reactors to produce tritium, as the fusion only process is only partially self-sustaining.
At $30,000/gram for tritium, synthetic industrial grade diamonds are considerably cheaper as fuel.
The question of whether fusion is ever going to be economically worthwhile hinges on the additional energy yield of fusion, on top of the energy yield of the fission reactors that produce the tritium needed for fusion. Even if tritium costs so much to make, it is worthwhile producing it if only tiny amounts are required to produce useful energy. Comparing the price of tritium wit
How about boron (Score:2)
test to see if there is shadowbanning (Score:1)
Can anyone at all reply to this please?
Iâ(TM)m an old SlashFag.
Something is going on; Iâ(TM)m no longer replied to, and havenâ(TM)t received mod points in years.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello fellow six digit slashdotter
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like you post about once per month:
https://slashdot.org/~io333 [slashdot.org]
Checking your last five or six posts, I don't see anything that would be likely to stimulate a reply, such as an informative post. I'm sure there are topics you know a lot about. It would be cool if you shared some knowledge and wisdom when one of those topics comes up.
Just as an example, I know a little about law, so I posted this info on a relevant story. You'll see it got some replies:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
https://slashdo [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Seems about right I guess.
Sigh.
Re: test to see if there is shadowbanning (Score:2)
Anyone else always have to think of Annoying Orange?
Does anyone know what the research goals are? (Score:5, Insightful)
All I can find is that they plan to work with ITER somehow, but with a smaller tokamak. This seems to be similar to what the Plasma Fusion Center at MIT is working on -- using it's expertise in magnet technology to build a physically smaller tokamak.
The big problem in all these experiments is that the deuterium/tritium reaction they use releases the lion's share of its energy as (for now) useless neutrons. ITER is working on that, I know, but for now we seem pretty far from hooking fusion power reactors up to the electric grid.
Just around the corner. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What has actually been achieved? (Score:3)
Does anybody know what has actually been achieved?
Have they turned it on?
Have they run first plasma?
Have they achieved first fusion in this tokamak?
All the articles I found suggest like they started to fuse, but it seems unlikely and there is actually no information what has been done and what this "big news" is about, as testing reactors has been operated throughout the world for some time (including in China), and as far as I know (despite big progress in efficiency and plasma control) no major breakthrough (more energy out than in) yet.
Re: What has actually been achieved? (Score:2)
Not a tokamak. A stellarator.
Re: What has actually been achieved? (Score:2)
Nevermind. Should have read TFS. TFH lie to me. ("stellarator" is what "artificial sun" is supposed to refer to.)
Re: (Score:3)
This tokamak is an example of new line of development that will dominate fusion projects from now on. It was not built to test the ability to hit new confinement or fusion parameters, although it is one of the largest and highest current tokamaks in the world. It was built as an engineering demonstration and development platform. It is designed to be a more practical tokamak, robust, easier to build and services, and to permit the testing of components for ITER.
Just as ITER is a stepping stone to a demonstr
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
So at what stage is this tokamak, is it built and ready to run plasma, has it already run plasma or has it burned plasma?
Also what are it's advantages comparing to other major tokamak projects in the world (the British and US one)?
I am asking all this because the articles about it are very vague, they say "turned on an artificial sun", which would suggest they burned (fused) plasma, but I have not found any confirmation of this anywhere, to the contrary, seems like all the hipe is about it being b
Re: (Score:3)
OK, I found some info. The tokamak has been build and the news are about first plasma run (not fusion), but heating up medium to reach plasma state, which is a standard procedure before trying first fusion.
Finally, 24-hour solar power (Score:2)
One of the major complaints about solar power is that it doesn't work when it's dark or cloudy. Build an indoor artificial sun, and problem solved!
If the solar panels are arranged in a ring, does that count as a Dyson ring?
Re: (Score:2)
Solar sails, used as solar mirrors, could beam Terawatts of solar power to microwave arrays on Earth, including solar sails in slightly skewed orbits to provide night-time power collected and beamed to those ground stations.
Putting them in a ring would be closer to "Ringworld", but isn't necessary. The solar sails can get a bit of orbital guidance from tilting the sails as needed to manipulate their orbits. Part of the danger would be using them against ground targets, which could be very difficult to preve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting question if the energy is in _addition_ to Earth's current chemical and solar energy production. I'd anticipate it replacing major non-renewable sources and reducing the _greenhouse_ gases associated with them. Reducing the greenhouse gases effectively should allow more efficient cooling frm solar radiation, which is much more plentiful energy than the solar sails might produce for the immediately foreseeable future.
Maybe they can contract to build one in Florida? (Score:3)
Maybe it will implode, create a tiny black hole (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Maybe it will implode, create a tiny black hol (Score:2)
Uum, four tiny black holes are entering our athmosphere every day. (Just particles with so much energy, they have become a black hole.)
Turns out the smaller they are, the quicker they evaporate A tiny one is gone so quickly, the biggest problem is being sure it ever was a black hole.
The French One ? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Started in 2007, a lot of delays, a lot of technical failure. Yes, may be in 2024 or 2025.
We may be living in the hope it bring "clean" energy (whatever that could be). But we're not living in the hope of its start, we're living in the fear that it became the most powerful bomb ever detonated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But it seems that ITER is not going very well too [wikipedia.org]
Re: The French One ? (Score:2)
No, Iter is a Tokamak. This is a stellarator.
Tokamak will fundamentally never work.
Nevermind... (Score:2)
I should have read TFS. TFH lie to me. ("stellarator" is what "artificial sun" is supposed to refer to.)
Some Physics (Score:2)
Second, it is physically impossible for a fusion, or fission, reactor to explode with the force of a nuclear bomb which it would have to be "the most powerful bomb ever detonated". The explosions which can occur at fission reactors are chemical or pressure-related in nature but are nevertheless extremely dangerous because t
First they stole our jerbz (Score:1)
Re: First they stole our jerbz (Score:2)
I thought you preferred nucular and rolling coal ...
It's called a stellarator. (Score:2)
It's the net step beyond Tokamak-type reactors. We've got one. In Germany, ours is called Wendelstein 7-X and it's awesome (original gravity of the word).
Nevermind here too. (Score:2)
Oh and stop saying "atificial.sin" for a Tokamak piece of shit. I is a failed technology. "Stellarator" literally means "that which generates a sun", and is the only type deserving of the name "artificial sun".
Welcome to the club! (Score:2)
Every sufficiently technologically advanced country gets to blow money on fusion energy research devices once they have enough money laying around. Welcome to the club!
TFA Does Not Explain What Is Notable (Score:2)
Surprising that a site called "phys.org" would fail mention the technical relevance of the device. This tokamak is not a record breaker in any particular way, though it is one of the largest and highest current machines in the world, but it is an advanced engineering design -- a demonstration of a more practical tokamak, closer to what would be needed in a commercial plant. It is a stepping stone to ITER, which is in turn a stepping stone to a demonstration power plant.
How long? (Score:3)
So, let me guess, they are hoping to have a working fusion reactor in twenty years?
You know, people have been saying that for my entire life. And I was born in 1955.
I can't Breathe (Score:1)
"Artificial sun" because Fusion (Score:2)
The article states "the reactor is often called an "artificial sun" on account of the enormous heat and power it produces".
No. It's called an "artificial sun" because it's an attempt at replicating the nuclear fusion process that powers the sun and other stars.
-1 for misleading physics vulgarisation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
are you dumb? U.S. has all kinds of private and government fusion reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Name any that produce energy rather than using it by the Gigawatt to contain the fuel as a plasma in electromagnetic fields.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you implying that the Chinese, or anyone else, have a fusion reactor that produces more energy out than is put in? Because they don't, and likely won't for many decades.
Not all of them use magnetic fields to contain the plasma, some use electrostatic fields.
Re: (Score:2)
What was why I said "electromagneetic fields", I didn't have to differentiate between them. They still requir4e considerable electrical power to generate.
Re: (Score:2)
you are claiming any Chinese one is doing that? the claim responded to implied only the Chinese had program
Re: (Score:2)
I referred to other claims here, and the historic claims, that fusion can provide cheap, safe energy. Deuterium-tritium fusion cannot: there's simply no _point_ to studying it as a fuel source, generating the tritium takes fission reactors that you can simply tap for energy more directly. To learn about solar interactions, yes, it's interesting, but research isn't the end goal of these fusion reactors. The theory that gets them funding is fusion energy, and it's not a sane endeavor.
There is a potentially e
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be confused about some things. Tritium can be bred from neutrons of fusion reactions. Reactors that produce tritium are already producing electricity and already "being tapped more directly."
Logic and science fail you.
Re: (Score:2)
> Tritium can be bred from neutrons of fusion reactions.
Not effectively using only the initial fuel. There are some hybrid designs that would irradiate Lithium, but none of them actually work yet.
> Reactors that produce tritium are already producing electricity.
_Fission_ reactors, not fusion reactors. They produce so much power by comparison that it's simply not worth harvesting the tritium for fuel, since it's chemically very active, dangerously radioactive, and it _leaks_ if it's pure. If it's sno
Re: I'm glad China is doing all this cool shit (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure there is a lot of nuclear research in the US. And they'll be shut down as soon our science illiterate public finds out about them.
Re: (Score:2)
You really believe stupid shit like that because it sounds good and edgy to you, child?
Reality is the opposite of what you say. More reactors are being built.
Re:I'm glad China is doing all this cool shit (Score:4)
Its unfortunately quite easy to generate a dangerous amount of radiation, while still not being anywhere close to fusion break-even. Some of the popular amateur device designs can generate a dangerous amount of neutrons, even though they don't scale to net power gain. You can put in 1KW, get 10W of neutrons out - which is enough to be very bad
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, how much (expensive) Tritium could one generate from the neutrons?
(I see a story on a boy scout, old batteries, homebuilt Tritium vials, and a protagonist dying of cancer :-) )
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not economical or it would be done. Fusors generate a lot of neutrons in terms of personal safety, but a lot fewer than from a fission reactor.
A power generating fusion reactor would generate enough neutrons for it to be an efficient way to make tritium - once we figure out how to make a practical fusion reactor
Re: (Score:2)
yeah so what, they are shielded, just as nuclear reactors also have neutron shielding. That's easy to do. The plan for a working fusion reactor would be for the emitted neutrons to breed tritium.
Re: (Score:2)
For a real reactor sure. I was talking about the rather dangerous devices that people can build in their basements.
Re: I'm glad China is doing all this cool shit (Score:2)
Seriously,have you been living behind the moon?
Do a freaking Startpage search for yourself. And learn to write. "Cuz" is not a word and "sauce" is what goes on food. What are you? Twelve?
Re: (Score:2)
If you read through the links in the submission, Mr. AC, you get to these quotes (two links down at https://phys.org/news/2019-04-... [phys.org]:
"EAST (the Chinese tokamak) is part of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, which seeks to prove the feasibility of fusion power.
Funded and run by the European Union, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, and the United States, the multi-billion-dollar project's centrepiece will be a giant cylindrical fusion device, called a tokamak."
and
"Wu
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a lot of complaints about the difficulty in getting funding for fusion research in the USA because so many people are invested, emotionally, politically, or monetarily, into the international fusion research programs. They see most any American fusion research as unnecessary, redundant, and a distraction. This is precisely the same complaints used by people opposing international fusion energy research. Sometimes it is not even a matter of funding, it's getting a license from the government to
Re: (Score:2)
~blindseer
The DOD sees a need for alternative sources of fuel for everything from portable coffee pots and tent heaters to tanks and bombers. They fund programs in biomass fuels, hydrocarbon synthesis, and electric vehicles to this end. Because remote operating posts might not have access to any electrical grid, and even domestic bases could lose power from the grid in a natural disaster or war, they've been looking into solar and wind power.
The first two sentences of this snippet took me back to perusing back issues of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics when they were distinct titles-- a reality distortion field quite refined-- until you invent electric vehicles from whole cloth. You lie, and then invent a lie to support a lie to serve a vital observation that is true-- the DoD and DoE contend priority and budgets by terms every bit as wasteful and pants-on-head stupid as fiction might invent. I see finally, after years, why you pursue with
Re: (Score:1)
Neither departments had spent a Roo dime's worth on electric vehicles since the 50s.
Then what is this? Some kind of hallucination?
https://www.defensenews.com/la... [defensenews.com]
That shows the DOD spent money on electric vehicles.
Here's money coming from the DOE.
https://www.energy.gov/article... [energy.gov]
Those are recent articles but this goes back decades. While attending university I worked on the university's solar car competition team. At least one such annual competition the team entered was funded in part by the Department of Energy. It has been for many years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
While this
Nonsense (Score:2)
Like many agencies, the DOE has a ton of missions that have been assigned to it by Congress. Some of these missions may seem contradictory but it's Congress that funds and prioritizes big-ticket programs, not DOE. Just as the DOD allegedly groans every time more M1 Abrahams tanks are built that the army doesn't want (but the congressional districts do), DOE may on occasion have to manage programs that likely do a better job of funneling $$$ to a particular district than advance the scientific frontier... bu
Re: (Score:1)
Per your logic, DOE wouldn't be involved in this kind of stuff because it reduces the US' dependence on Energy.
Per my logic the DOE can't look completely incompetent because then they'd set themselves up to have everyone fired and the department eliminated, which is precisely what they want to avoid. By being far too competent in solving the nation's energy problems then they become redundant, and that gets everyone fired and the department eliminated. They have to appear to so something and things like convincing people to buy energy efficient light bulbs would be one of those things. Because LED lighting is jus
Re: (Score:2)
Per my logic the DOE can't look completely incompetent because then they'd set themselves up to have everyone fired and the department eliminated, which is precisely what they want to avoid. By being far too competent in solving the nation's energy problems then they become redundant, and that gets everyone fired and the department eliminated.
Nope. As I mentioned above, there are far too many missions that DOE is involved with for that to happen. Consider the various standards that have to be codified as the country modernizes energy distribution to allow renewables to become a bigger part of the energy mix. Then there is nuclear waste disposal, nuclear regulatory, etc. None of these things will go away anytime soon and there is plenty of work to go around. Plus, the agency is only around as long as Congress allocates funding to it. Should the p
Re: (Score:1)
For the n-th time, it's not DOE that kills these projects, its the folk who allocate the dollars
The folk who allocate the dollars are the people in the DOE. That is unless Congress makes the allocation so specific that the funds will not go to international fusion research as opposed to the far more productive domestic research.
If it was a funding priority in Congress, the money would flow.
It would, and it doesn't take the DOE to exist for Congress to fund fusion energy research.
Congress can allocate the funds and any of a number of executive agencies besides DOE can manage them. It could be NIST, NASA, TVA, NRC, DOD (or more specifically the Navy), or a newly
Re: (Score:2)
The folk who allocate the dollars are the people in the DOE. That is unless Congress makes the allocation so specific that the funds will not go to international fusion research as opposed to the far more productive domestic research.
Fusion programs typically by definition are big ticket items that are specifically allocated see the work at national ignition facility, etc. For example, the US allocated specifically $122MM in 2018 as part of the omnibus bill.
Besides, per your free-market-knows-best thinking, there would be no need for government funding of fusion, etc. as the private market would be all over the Skunkworks fusion reactor, stellarator, or whatever most-promising fusion approach is out there. But the reality is different -
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to fundamentally not understand how federal allocation works.
I understand it just fine. Congress writes a check to the DOE for energy research. Anything fusion related is tossed into the ITER dumpster fire to burn. If the Navy wants more money for fusion research then they are told to go ask the DOE. The DOE says they burned that money already in the ITER dumpster fire. If the Navy goes directly to Congress for money on fusion power then a certain major political party will kill any bill to fund anything "nukular" or related to the military. If anyone brings up
Re: (Score:2)
You acknowledged further up that larger programs can / have been funded directly by Congress. Fusion is no different. It's a big enough line item that it will show up in a funding request directly unless it falls under one of the secret DOD/CIA/whatever programs not disclosed to the public.
The fundamental problem with fusion besides the physics is the funding and there is only one centralized place in the US where money has been flowing fairly consistently for fusion research and that's Congress. They get t
Re: (Score:1)
Can you give specific examples of malfeasance by DOE personnel re: fusion?
I already did. ITER.
Re: (Score:1)