U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant(sciencemag.org)
sciencemag.org
U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/us-physicists-rally-around-ambitious-plan-build-fusion-power-plant
239 comments
God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit. I'm a layman too but I get the impression that the theory is basically there and we just need to figure out the engineering. That's a solvable problem with lots of money and lots of teams.
Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?
Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?
>God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit.
Interesting point of reference: the Manhattan project cost around around $25 billion in today's dollars. The US government spent at least $6 trillion on the coronavirus response, which could buy 200 Manhattan Projects. Coronavirus will kill around a million people this year at most; air pollution kills around five million per year (and sea level rises could kill a lot more).
Interesting point of reference: the Manhattan project cost around around $25 billion in today's dollars. The US government spent at least $6 trillion on the coronavirus response, which could buy 200 Manhattan Projects. Coronavirus will kill around a million people this year at most; air pollution kills around five million per year (and sea level rises could kill a lot more).
Aren't you implying, intentionally or not, that a "Manhattan Project" level of expenditure, $25 billion, is enough to make meaningful progress towards commercial fusion energy production? I don't think that is a given.
The implication is rather that we’ve grown much more inept when it comes to getting things done.
Because there isn't an existential war going on forcing people to listen to the people who want to be economically efficient.
Yeah it’s not like we’re in any kind of emergency that required reorganizing the whole society and economy, or anything like that.
Or because all the low hanging fruit is plucked.
That's roughly the total cost of ITER.
According to David Edgerton's The Shock of the Old, Brigadier-General Leslie Groves had previously overseen the construction of several munitions plants costing much more than the entire cost of the Manhattan Engineering District project.
1. Chapter 8, "Invention", p198 in my paperback edition.
1. Chapter 8, "Invention", p198 in my paperback edition.
Things sure were cheap back then. ITER alone is expected to cost at least 22 billion Euros.
In my opinion, the main reason for success of the Manhattan Project wasn't the budget, but getting people such as Feynman, Fermi, Teller, Oppenheimer, Bohr, Szilard and Wheeler to work on the project together with a sense of urgency.
25 billion USD buys a lot of necessary stuff, but one Feynman doing his best to crack a secret of nature is priceless.
25 billion USD buys a lot of necessary stuff, but one Feynman doing his best to crack a secret of nature is priceless.
Before the 10x programmers there were 10x physicists and the Manhattan project had a lot of those
And as opposed to the current advertisement websites with auxiliary functions, I believe they had a more physics centered role
And as opposed to the current advertisement websites with auxiliary functions, I believe they had a more physics centered role
That budget was essential. A hundred Feymans would have been useless without those thousands of engineers and workers who built and operated the plants Kringle Washington and Tennessee that produced fissionable enough fissionable material.
Interestingly enough, the most expensive program was The B-29 bomber program, which cost 50% more than the Manhattan project.
Then one B-29 had an emergency landing in Sovjet and the soviets reversed engineered it into the TU-4. Tu-94 which is still flying is a newer scaled up version of this.
It's amazing how much of the innovation the U.S did in the 1940s ended up in others hands(the bomb, B-29). The world would probably be very different if it hadn't happened.
Then one B-29 had an emergency landing in Sovjet and the soviets reversed engineered it into the TU-4. Tu-94 which is still flying is a newer scaled up version of this.
It's amazing how much of the innovation the U.S did in the 1940s ended up in others hands(the bomb, B-29). The world would probably be very different if it hadn't happened.
The US copied a lot from Germany too.
https://www.businessinsider.com/6-things-us-stole-from-germa...
Jets and Rockets were built by the Germans first.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160201-the-wwii-flying-...
Jets and Rockets were built by the Germans first.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160201-the-wwii-flying-...
The physicists knew an atomic bomb was possible the US just did it fist. I am sure secrets got out that helped the Soviets create one but I think they would've created one regardless.
History says that that's not true and the Soviets relied on extensive networks of spies to get tech secrets, be it the bomb or so many other military projects.
The US medical system wastes enough each year ($950B) to start an LHC sized project (~$10B), fully funded, in each US state every year and have enough left over to fully fund three new Apollo scale set of missions ($150B). You can't recover all that, but still, it's hard to picture just how big some of these figures are until you compare to other large costs.
That number is shocking. I'd love to know details. Can you provide a source please?
It's reviewed occasionally, here's a few links
This was the original article I saw when it was $700B: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-u...
More recent one, I thought it was $950B but this puts it at $760-935B. The potential savings are lower but still in the low hundreds of billions.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2752664
I originally started thinking about "how do we understand large numbers" when I saw the article as I think I had roughly the same emotional reaction as I would have done if the number was $70B. Most "big number" comparisons go to things like "dollar bills up to the moon" or "swimming pool full of X" which only gets across "this is a big number". I found comparing it to other enormous projects was hard even as if you take out the US contribution to the LHC you don't move the needle, so you need to then cover all countries costs, then the full project budget for all years and you're still left with almost the entire figure left.
This was the original article I saw when it was $700B: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-u...
More recent one, I thought it was $950B but this puts it at $760-935B. The potential savings are lower but still in the low hundreds of billions.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2752664
I originally started thinking about "how do we understand large numbers" when I saw the article as I think I had roughly the same emotional reaction as I would have done if the number was $70B. Most "big number" comparisons go to things like "dollar bills up to the moon" or "swimming pool full of X" which only gets across "this is a big number". I found comparing it to other enormous projects was hard even as if you take out the US contribution to the LHC you don't move the needle, so you need to then cover all countries costs, then the full project budget for all years and you're still left with almost the entire figure left.
Just the US value from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... vs #2 (Switzerland) is $US800 000 000 000 for all US residents in extra spending.
I'm confused by these data.
It's common knowledge that the US spends much more per capita on Healthcare, however the commonly offered explanation for this is that the private healthcare system in the US is less efficient than the public systems in Europe. But the graph in the provided link shows that US costs are split evenly between private spending and public spending.
This is confusing because the private system in the US covers twice as many people as the public system. Per the US Census Bureau: "in 2018, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than public coverage, covering 67.3 percent of the population and 34.4 percent of the population, respectively."[0] If the provided data are correct, this would indicate that US private spending is nearly twice as efficient as public spending.
What am I missing?
[0]https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...
It's common knowledge that the US spends much more per capita on Healthcare, however the commonly offered explanation for this is that the private healthcare system in the US is less efficient than the public systems in Europe. But the graph in the provided link shows that US costs are split evenly between private spending and public spending.
This is confusing because the private system in the US covers twice as many people as the public system. Per the US Census Bureau: "in 2018, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than public coverage, covering 67.3 percent of the population and 34.4 percent of the population, respectively."[0] If the provided data are correct, this would indicate that US private spending is nearly twice as efficient as public spending.
What am I missing?
[0]https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...
The current laws restrict the government healthcare programs from negotiating on e.g. drug prices, so the manufacturers name whatever absurd prices they want and the US Gov just pays it. Just another corrupt government giveaway to the private sector.
The gov't portion includes basically everyone over 65 via Medicare, who have a disproportionate share of healthcare needs.
A lot of the Manhattan Project's spending was to scale the processes to industrial level in order to produce what was necessary to build bombs.
The situation is quite different with nuclear fusion.
The situation is quite different with nuclear fusion.
To be fair, it did scale for fusion bombs.
Fission is a solved engineering and science problem though and we’re still blocking it to let the sea levels rise. Point being, nobody actually cares about climate change enough to make hard decisions so a Manhattan style project is highly unlikely.
Yes, I've been saying it over and over: raise the price of oil until gasoline et al are $20+/gallon. Then nuclear will be cheap.
Why are we letting a silly thing like scarcity, supply, and demand dictate whether we self-destruct?
Why are we letting a silly thing like scarcity, supply, and demand dictate whether we self-destruct?
Most fossil-based electric generation is not oil; it's either natural gas (reasonably clean, though it does produce a lot of CO₂), or coal (terrible on many counts).
I'd say that killing coal would have a large effect. It would also put entire town populations out of work — a really hard problem, read about how UK tackled it in 1970s and 1980s, it was painful and ugly.
I'd say that killing coal would have a large effect. It would also put entire town populations out of work — a really hard problem, read about how UK tackled it in 1970s and 1980s, it was painful and ugly.
At the end of 2016 there were 50,000 coal miners in the US.[1] Their average annual pay is $29K.[2] We could give each of them one million dollars, invested and paying out 3% annually, and the $50B it costs would be a drop in the bucket compared to the economic benefit of eliminating those carbon emissions.
In fact, it would even be cheaper than the healthcare costs of pollution from coal plants, which amounts to $187 billion in the U.S.[3] And in Appalachia, healthcare costs from coal production are $75B annually, so we'd come out ahead there too, which would be a double benefit for the miners since they'd be both richer and healthier.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Stat...
[2] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/coal-miner-salary-SRCH_KO...
[3] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/coal-costs-us-half-trillion-ann...
In fact, it would even be cheaper than the healthcare costs of pollution from coal plants, which amounts to $187 billion in the U.S.[3] And in Appalachia, healthcare costs from coal production are $75B annually, so we'd come out ahead there too, which would be a double benefit for the miners since they'd be both richer and healthier.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Stat...
[2] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/coal-miner-salary-SRCH_KO...
[3] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/coal-costs-us-half-trillion-ann...
Yeah, but that's a logical, pragmatic solution that actually looks at the cost-benefit from a scientifically informed perspective. Most (or at least half) of America would hate it.
The death of UK coal was all to do with economics of importing coal and labour prices and relations, rather than climate change. But also that's why most green parties talk of a "just transition", subsidy to the workers who will lose their jobs.
It was also to do with cleaner energy generation and taking advantage of natural gas resources in North Sea. Dash to Gas was a major enabler of the switch away from coal in the 90s.
> Then nuclear will be cheap.
But it still won't be built, because Solar PV and wind are roughly two-thirds the cost and falling. (Including the cost of backup power supplies for periods of low sun or low wind.)
(Not to mention having much shorter construction times until first revenue, lower delay risk, lower investment risk, and lower operation and maintenance costs.)
Nuclear had its chance in the 1990s. Today, we have cheaper and better options.
But it still won't be built, because Solar PV and wind are roughly two-thirds the cost and falling. (Including the cost of backup power supplies for periods of low sun or low wind.)
(Not to mention having much shorter construction times until first revenue, lower delay risk, lower investment risk, and lower operation and maintenance costs.)
Nuclear had its chance in the 1990s. Today, we have cheaper and better options.
I've been saying for a long time that the US should increase the tax on gas steadily every year. Even a nickel a year would be OK but more would be better.
People would be able to plan on the price increasing every year and make sound economic decisions on whether they wanted to move closer to work, etc.
Unfortunately, it became apparent about the same time that the US is almost incapable of doing something in an organized fashion. People would scream about the price of gas going up and it would be rolled back. Or there'd be subsidies that would negate the tax increases.
People would be able to plan on the price increasing every year and make sound economic decisions on whether they wanted to move closer to work, etc.
Unfortunately, it became apparent about the same time that the US is almost incapable of doing something in an organized fashion. People would scream about the price of gas going up and it would be rolled back. Or there'd be subsidies that would negate the tax increases.
Fuel in the US is already much more expensive than two decades ago. I remember buying a gallon for around 90 cents in 1999, and at the same time I read a newspaper article about some immigrant-run stations on the Jersey shore that had slashed their prices to several cents below that, as they were content to make a tiny profit margin and play a long game. Now a gallon costs more than twice as much as then, but as far as I can tell the average American has not made significant lifestyle changes with regard to vehicle usage: they just suck it up.
$0.90 in 1999 is $1.41 today. Near me, gas is ~$2 (give or take). So, more expensive (~40-50%), but not double.
Granted, it may not be quite double, but average American salaries have not entirely kept pace with inflation in the last twenty years, so fuel expenses are appreciably higher than simply counting the inflation in.
0.90 is also an outlier for 1999. The average price was closer to $1.20 back then.
...and I remember paying almost $4/gallon, around 10 years ago (I think), with no expectation that the price would drop. Gas is crazy cheap rift now.
A month or so ago I was listening to an NPR interview about insects. The interviewee said that the insect population in Germany has declined something like 75% in 25 years. He noted that people don't tend to notice big changes over the span of a couple decades, which is a good point, and helps explain why climate change will probably never be seriously tackled.
Edit- link to article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-...
Edit- link to article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-...
It will be tackled through adaptation. Some coastal cities may die. Others may have to spend a ton on remediation. More people will migrate inland, and farming centers will shift.
It’s far too late to stop it with prevention, though there is still value in trying to cut CO2 when possible to blunt it a bit.
It’s far too late to stop it with prevention, though there is still value in trying to cut CO2 when possible to blunt it a bit.
Politics, NIMBY, risks of accidents, and radioactive materials pollution are unsolved problems. You could argue it’s sociology than engineering but a problem nonetheless.
I think nukes is the future but nukes belong in space; just build some fission on high orbit to perfect fusion, and bring the meat down over microwave or as bulk hydrocarbons or whatever that works.
Solar system has unlimited free meal supplies of raw materials on first-come-first-serve basis. It’s been said that extraterrestrially constructed spacecraft can be launched for free merely by gently pushing it out of dockyard, or at most shooting out of a maglev train, for at least half a century.
So build some gigantic fission satellites in space!
I think nukes is the future but nukes belong in space; just build some fission on high orbit to perfect fusion, and bring the meat down over microwave or as bulk hydrocarbons or whatever that works.
Solar system has unlimited free meal supplies of raw materials on first-come-first-serve basis. It’s been said that extraterrestrially constructed spacecraft can be launched for free merely by gently pushing it out of dockyard, or at most shooting out of a maglev train, for at least half a century.
So build some gigantic fission satellites in space!
> You could argue it’s sociology than engineering but a problem nonetheless.
It can be both when the consent is manufactured! :)
It can be both when the consent is manufactured! :)
Why do fission in orbit when you have unimpeded access to a huge natural fusion plant, and virtually unlimited real estate to harvest its energy?
People underestimate what 21% efficient means when it comes to solar panels... If you bring a solar panel to space and receive sunlight 24/7 at 44% higher intensity than the best place on earth you will generate an obscene amount of electricity.
Is there a way to make people care?
Personally, I think, for United States it does make perfect sense to redirect, say, half of the military budget onto solving real homeland security issues: climate change, sustainability, ecology, pandemics. There might be enough budget there to address climate change [1].
It'd be a risk to spend less on military, but considering that the United States has nuclear weapons and allies, is it a risk really?
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02460-9
Personally, I think, for United States it does make perfect sense to redirect, say, half of the military budget onto solving real homeland security issues: climate change, sustainability, ecology, pandemics. There might be enough budget there to address climate change [1].
It'd be a risk to spend less on military, but considering that the United States has nuclear weapons and allies, is it a risk really?
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02460-9
The real risk is politicians not getting their kickbacks from defense suppliers, sadly. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about has a death-grip on the congressional budget, even against the wishes of Pentagon leaders.
Fusion is not going to solve the sea level rise problem.
You can see this by comparing it to fission.
Fission fuels is not expensive on a kWh base, so cheaper fuel is not really a big advantage.
Fusion plants produce radioactive waste too (perhaps less?), so you don't save yourself from that headache. Which isn't actually that big of a problem either, even if the costs are probably underestimated for fission plants.
Now, the real killer for fission is the cost of the plants. They are just so incredibly complex and expensive that they are not competitive.
Will a fusion plant be cheaper? Probably not. It will most likely, with current tech, be much more expensive. So it won't be able to compete with fission. And fission can't compete (in most parts of the world) with renewables, that are still falling exponentially in price.
So fusion may still be interesting from a scientific stand point, and perhaps things will change in the far future.
An argument I often see is that renewables need storage, and that's true. But so does a fission or a fusion plant, unless you overbuild and accept a bad capacity factor. Some amount of overbuild combined with storage looks like the most economical solution currently - the specifics depend very much on where you are in the world.
You can see this by comparing it to fission.
Fission fuels is not expensive on a kWh base, so cheaper fuel is not really a big advantage.
Fusion plants produce radioactive waste too (perhaps less?), so you don't save yourself from that headache. Which isn't actually that big of a problem either, even if the costs are probably underestimated for fission plants.
Now, the real killer for fission is the cost of the plants. They are just so incredibly complex and expensive that they are not competitive.
Will a fusion plant be cheaper? Probably not. It will most likely, with current tech, be much more expensive. So it won't be able to compete with fission. And fission can't compete (in most parts of the world) with renewables, that are still falling exponentially in price.
So fusion may still be interesting from a scientific stand point, and perhaps things will change in the far future.
An argument I often see is that renewables need storage, and that's true. But so does a fission or a fusion plant, unless you overbuild and accept a bad capacity factor. Some amount of overbuild combined with storage looks like the most economical solution currently - the specifics depend very much on where you are in the world.
Wouldn't the major differentiator be the safety standards?
You can't have a runaway reaction, because you need energy input to the magnet field to get more energy out. Instead of creating the right environment to get a chain reaction started if your control rods end up in the wrong place. Drop the magnet field and it all collapses.
Even if you lose control of it with the magnet field on the quantity is limited, tokamaks can only sustain bursts before going unstable. Wendelstein like designs would also be limited by the quantity contained.
If everything goes completely wrong you simply end up with a dirty bomb from the neutron bombarded core material and an initial burst of radiation. Sure not amazing but not a meltdown releasing vast quantities of heavy radioactive decay materials which can leach into the environment. Remember, fission is messy, it's not a chemical reaction where A+B = C. You get a spread of materials and energies, as seen by the Z number here. [0]
Essentially, you can at any point do an unsafe abort which might damage something or if everything aligns it's no more than a dirty bomb, but you will never lose control. Your Swiss cheese model needs to have far fewer and simpler layers compared to fission, vastly bringing at least those costs down.
I'm still betting on renewables for the near future, but my guess is at least harnessing fusion will have a place for projects with extremely specific goals in the 50-100 year timescale.
[0]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Th...
You can't have a runaway reaction, because you need energy input to the magnet field to get more energy out. Instead of creating the right environment to get a chain reaction started if your control rods end up in the wrong place. Drop the magnet field and it all collapses.
Even if you lose control of it with the magnet field on the quantity is limited, tokamaks can only sustain bursts before going unstable. Wendelstein like designs would also be limited by the quantity contained.
If everything goes completely wrong you simply end up with a dirty bomb from the neutron bombarded core material and an initial burst of radiation. Sure not amazing but not a meltdown releasing vast quantities of heavy radioactive decay materials which can leach into the environment. Remember, fission is messy, it's not a chemical reaction where A+B = C. You get a spread of materials and energies, as seen by the Z number here. [0]
Essentially, you can at any point do an unsafe abort which might damage something or if everything aligns it's no more than a dirty bomb, but you will never lose control. Your Swiss cheese model needs to have far fewer and simpler layers compared to fission, vastly bringing at least those costs down.
I'm still betting on renewables for the near future, but my guess is at least harnessing fusion will have a place for projects with extremely specific goals in the 50-100 year timescale.
[0]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Th...
We can make fission plants that are also immune to run away reactions. Even with old designs, you have to do something really stupid like have nightshift take out all your control rods to get a run away reaction.
While the fusion reaction itself isn't very dangerous, the magnetic coils in a fusion reactor can potentially quench, causing them to explode, which because of their position will throw radioactive debris from the irradiated reactor vessel all over the place, as well as your tritium breeding blanket which will be highly flammable, toxic, and a bit radioactive. Worse, you can't make the magnets passively-safe.
Then there are the standard issues like tritium release. And you have nuclear proliferation concerns as a fusion reactor is great at making plutonium by just doping the tritium breeding blanket with some natural uranium. In fact, the first "fusion" reactors will probably do this anyways as they need to produce more tritium to get more reactors online and because this dramatically increases power output - so you get all the fun of dealing with fission products too.
I would be willing to bet complying with the safety standards for fusion will in fact be more expensive than for fission. Yes the general population doesn't have the same irrational fear of fusion that it has of fission, but once people start seriously proposing to put these in people's backyards that will likely change.
While the fusion reaction itself isn't very dangerous, the magnetic coils in a fusion reactor can potentially quench, causing them to explode, which because of their position will throw radioactive debris from the irradiated reactor vessel all over the place, as well as your tritium breeding blanket which will be highly flammable, toxic, and a bit radioactive. Worse, you can't make the magnets passively-safe.
Then there are the standard issues like tritium release. And you have nuclear proliferation concerns as a fusion reactor is great at making plutonium by just doping the tritium breeding blanket with some natural uranium. In fact, the first "fusion" reactors will probably do this anyways as they need to produce more tritium to get more reactors online and because this dramatically increases power output - so you get all the fun of dealing with fission products too.
I would be willing to bet complying with the safety standards for fusion will in fact be more expensive than for fission. Yes the general population doesn't have the same irrational fear of fusion that it has of fission, but once people start seriously proposing to put these in people's backyards that will likely change.
Fusion will still require a containment building because of tritium and because of the pressure from volatilized cryogenic coolants. The building will also require very strict control of tritium escape in normal operation. Remember, a 1 DW(e) DT reactor will burn enough tritium in one year to contaminate 2 months total flow of the Mississippi river above the legal limit for drinking water.
Fusion will also require highly reliable equipement, just like fission. Not because of safety, but because the fusion reactor will be complicated and very difficult to repair. The reactor itself, even the magnets, will be irradiated and activated beyond the point where hands on maintenance could be performed.
Fusion will also require highly reliable equipement, just like fission. Not because of safety, but because the fusion reactor will be complicated and very difficult to repair. The reactor itself, even the magnets, will be irradiated and activated beyond the point where hands on maintenance could be performed.
Fusion will also be pretty much mandatory for deep space exploration and space colony ships, if we ever get that far
No, it won't. It is inferior to fission, solar, and beamed power.
Fusion does not create any long-lived radioactive waste.
Fusion will likely produce a larger volume of waste contaminated enough to prevent easy disposal. That could very well make the waste more expensive to deal with.
No, but fast neutrons are created in some processes which induce long lived radiation in reactor materials though.
100 years is not “long lived” in the context of radioactive waste disposal.
http://www.acamedia.info/sciences/J_G/fusion.html
http://www.acamedia.info/sciences/J_G/fusion.html
Fission is too expensive because everyone tried to get economies of scale at big complex custom-built one-off plants. Those who see hope for fission look to get economies of scale with a modular approach, mass-producing simple, small, reactors, shipping them from the factory to the site on trucks, and attaching them to the grid.
I am not qualified to assess whether that hope is well-founded, but there are real differences in the approach.
I am not qualified to assess whether that hope is well-founded, but there are real differences in the approach.
Big nuclear reactors are cheaper on the $/MW metric than small ones. Big steam power plants are also cheaper on the $/MW than small ones.
It's not that clear how much economy of scale is there with a modular design and if it's enough to displace the diseconomy of making smaller plants. But the one thing that gets cheaper with a small size is safety mechanisms, and those are a big thing.
It's not that clear how much economy of scale is there with a modular design and if it's enough to displace the diseconomy of making smaller plants. But the one thing that gets cheaper with a small size is safety mechanisms, and those are a big thing.
Its amazing how cutting emission by regulation is completely left out of the list of options, somehow spending infinite money is seen as easier than getting congress to act...
Anyway, I let Wellerstein reply to this:
"""The Manhattan Project was an unusual, somewhat dubious enterprise that had massive, world-affecting consequences. Ignoring that not only misunderstands the Manhattan Project, it misunderstands what happens when you pour essentially unlimited resources into a given field — which actually is the primary goal of those who use this metaphor.
The problem is, the Manhattan Project “worked,” if by “worked” you mean, “produced atomic bombs for use in the Pacific theatre during World War II.” It almost didn’t work — there are plenty of reasons to believe that the war would have been over fairly soon with or without the bombs (the main historical question is not whether it would soon end, but on what terms and at what costs)."""
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/02/do-we-want-another...
Anyway, I let Wellerstein reply to this:
"""The Manhattan Project was an unusual, somewhat dubious enterprise that had massive, world-affecting consequences. Ignoring that not only misunderstands the Manhattan Project, it misunderstands what happens when you pour essentially unlimited resources into a given field — which actually is the primary goal of those who use this metaphor.
The problem is, the Manhattan Project “worked,” if by “worked” you mean, “produced atomic bombs for use in the Pacific theatre during World War II.” It almost didn’t work — there are plenty of reasons to believe that the war would have been over fairly soon with or without the bombs (the main historical question is not whether it would soon end, but on what terms and at what costs)."""
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/02/do-we-want-another...
It's widely believed that the use of the bombs in WWII as a practical demonstration of the technology is what lead to there not being a WWIII and generally a period of (granted, uneasy) world stability throughout the cold war. Thanks to the bomb's use at the end of an almost-finished conflict, everyone was too afraid of the destruction to turn the cold war hot. Without it, the cold war would have turned hot and a lot more nukes would have been used. Who knows what the world would look like today without those two bombs.
Love too incinerate 150,000 civilians instead of some random atoll with media floating in a boat a few miles away
This is just one of many lacklustre attempts at justifying a hideous war crime. From Eisenhower:
"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
This is just one of many lacklustre attempts at justifying a hideous war crime. From Eisenhower:
"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
I think the USSR was typically very keen to avoid a war for obvious reasons: they had a much smaller economy, exhausted population, significantly smaller military and massively smaller industrial base than the West.
America was more keen, but the logistics of actually invading the USSR would make any war essentially unwinnable.
Maybe if the nukes didn't exist, the USSR would have annexed western Berlin, but I don't really know how they would have managed more than that, even if they had wanted to.
I also don't think nuclear weapons would have prevented a war if the USSR was more aggressive or more close to the USA in military power.
America was more keen, but the logistics of actually invading the USSR would make any war essentially unwinnable.
Maybe if the nukes didn't exist, the USSR would have annexed western Berlin, but I don't really know how they would have managed more than that, even if they had wanted to.
I also don't think nuclear weapons would have prevented a war if the USSR was more aggressive or more close to the USA in military power.
See wikipedia's list of common misconceptions for a demonstration of the explanatory power of things that are widely believed. Nuclear peace is a theory that find limited support for it's more conservative claims: as the single basis for the "long peace"* it is plainly lacking.
*So called because intra-state conflict outside of NATO doesn't count.
*So called because intra-state conflict outside of NATO doesn't count.
Cutting emissions by regulation is a continually losing battle.
You can't tell people to live a lower-quality life and expect to win elections, and you'll have the combined lobbyists of a lot of different interests against you.
It's actually more tractable to invent fusion than to try and win that battle long-term -- at least it's theoretically possible to make fusion work. And heck, if we could put some $ in pockets while doing it, that's something that could pass!
You can't tell people to live a lower-quality life and expect to win elections, and you'll have the combined lobbyists of a lot of different interests against you.
It's actually more tractable to invent fusion than to try and win that battle long-term -- at least it's theoretically possible to make fusion work. And heck, if we could put some $ in pockets while doing it, that's something that could pass!
The established solution is you don't tell them right out, you just make it worse for most while ensuring there are a few success stories to distract with. See for instance: war on drugs, war on terror et. al.
Yeah, but those horrors made people rich. Cutting emissions makes nobody rich.
Developing fusion, carbon recapture schemes, we need to be thinking in terms of boondoggles that get the job done.
Developing fusion, carbon recapture schemes, we need to be thinking in terms of boondoggles that get the job done.
The Clean Air Act is a clear refutation of your assertion. Benefits there exceeded costs by a factor of about 40.
Fixing market failures increases economic wellbeing.
Fixing market failures increases economic wellbeing.
> Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?
Well, yeah, the US spent the last 50 years (e.g. "WTF Happened In 1971?"[0]) widening the income gap and doing everything possible to keep their "undesirable" ethnic groups as poor as possible. When the bottom falls out, the only people left standing will be the people who would have been able to use the nice water fountain back when America was "Great", and anyone suffering will get individual blame for their lack of individual bootstraps.
e: In case I was unclear, I think this is a bad thing :)
[0]: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/, but I would ask "WTF Happened in 1968?" instead.
Well, yeah, the US spent the last 50 years (e.g. "WTF Happened In 1971?"[0]) widening the income gap and doing everything possible to keep their "undesirable" ethnic groups as poor as possible. When the bottom falls out, the only people left standing will be the people who would have been able to use the nice water fountain back when America was "Great", and anyone suffering will get individual blame for their lack of individual bootstraps.
e: In case I was unclear, I think this is a bad thing :)
[0]: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/, but I would ask "WTF Happened in 1968?" instead.
Fission was a fundamentally easier problem than fusion. The equivalent of ignition was achieved in 1942 after one year of effort.
As a technical answer: this is about the federal program, and SPARC isn't part of it, while ITER is.
More practically, Commonwealth & other private fusion efforts have been advocating for (A) federal funds to be allocated to solving the thorny nuclear materials science issues common to (essentially) all fusion schemes (B) a NASA-COTS-inspired cost-share approach to building the eventual pilot plant. (Presumably the industry players would like to get federal support for building their pilot plants (like ARC), much the way SpaceX got support for Falcon 9 / Crew Dragon development.)
This plan reflects (A) for sure, and a step in the direction of (B). I was involved in the early stages of the community input to the plan. I think there's openness to increased partnership with industry like this.
More practically, Commonwealth & other private fusion efforts have been advocating for (A) federal funds to be allocated to solving the thorny nuclear materials science issues common to (essentially) all fusion schemes (B) a NASA-COTS-inspired cost-share approach to building the eventual pilot plant. (Presumably the industry players would like to get federal support for building their pilot plants (like ARC), much the way SpaceX got support for Falcon 9 / Crew Dragon development.)
This plan reflects (A) for sure, and a step in the direction of (B). I was involved in the early stages of the community input to the plan. I think there's openness to increased partnership with industry like this.
[deleted]
Because SPARC is already happening. This is planning for research in areas that the next reactor will need including a neutron source to test materials and a blanket test facility.
See Bob Mumgaard's slides from last year's annual meeting of Fusion Power Associates where he outlines the research for technologies needed for by all the approaches to fusion power.
http://www.firefusionpower.org/FPA19_Speed_Mumgaard_CFS.pdf
Quote from the last slide: "It would be a travesty for somebody to have a concept that works and have fusion stall because we, CHOSE not to prioritize the parts that help everybody."
This is where government funded research helps the emerging fusion power industry.
See Bob Mumgaard's slides from last year's annual meeting of Fusion Power Associates where he outlines the research for technologies needed for by all the approaches to fusion power.
http://www.firefusionpower.org/FPA19_Speed_Mumgaard_CFS.pdf
Quote from the last slide: "It would be a travesty for somebody to have a concept that works and have fusion stall because we, CHOSE not to prioritize the parts that help everybody."
This is where government funded research helps the emerging fusion power industry.
I am pro-nuclear, and I think it would be a mistake to assume this article is also pro-nuclear. Heck, the very first six words ("U.S. fusion scientists, notorious for squabbling") prime a reader to see those hardworking people as bickering nerds working on fleeting, individual, theoretical interests.
I sincerely doubt we will see any uranium-based energy technology ascend to dominance/ubiquity while over half of Earth's known uranium deposits are in the Afghanistan/Kazakhstan/Ukraine region alone. Nobody would want to buy crude (priced exclusively in USD in most markets) if nuclear were widespread. We might have to lay off a few Stuxnet malware developers then too. Takin' their jobs :p
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...
I sincerely doubt we will see any uranium-based energy technology ascend to dominance/ubiquity while over half of Earth's known uranium deposits are in the Afghanistan/Kazakhstan/Ukraine region alone. Nobody would want to buy crude (priced exclusively in USD in most markets) if nuclear were widespread. We might have to lay off a few Stuxnet malware developers then too. Takin' their jobs :p
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...
Fusion is not a uranium based energy technology.
You are talking about fission, not fusion.
Nuclear plants are using radioactive sources like uranium to generate energy. Fusion tech would use hydrogen and fuse it to helium.
Nuclear plants are using radioactive sources like uranium to generate energy. Fusion tech would use hydrogen and fuse it to helium.
Yep, and it is not just feasible but easy to build fission plants right now and stop using greenhouse-gas emitters entirely, but we won't, because Reasons. Our collective focus is being distracted from that working, clean, but politically-disadvantageous tech to this non-functional speculative future-tech that the author simultaneously insults.
People love to post comments like this on every thread where nuclear comes up, but it really distorts the reality of the situation.
Investment in nuclear has essentially evaporated. This is because fission plants take billions of dollars and around a decade to stand up. If you go through the numbers the ROI looks pretty ugly. Meanwhile you can look at the trend over time in levelized energy costs and storage costs, and can see that we're very near the thresholds for simply doing it all with renewables plus storage. All together this makes it clear to any investor doing the most basic of diligence that fission is a risky bet. Even if you waved a magic wand and eliminated any form of political opposition, that doesn't change this less than favorable cost picture.
Investment in nuclear has essentially evaporated. This is because fission plants take billions of dollars and around a decade to stand up. If you go through the numbers the ROI looks pretty ugly. Meanwhile you can look at the trend over time in levelized energy costs and storage costs, and can see that we're very near the thresholds for simply doing it all with renewables plus storage. All together this makes it clear to any investor doing the most basic of diligence that fission is a risky bet. Even if you waved a magic wand and eliminated any form of political opposition, that doesn't change this less than favorable cost picture.
> Even if you waved a magic wand and eliminated any form of political opposition, that doesn't change this less than favorable cost picture.
The cost is the manifestation of the political opposition.
The cost is the manifestation of the political opposition.
No, it is not. It's intrinsic to the technology. You see the exact same unpleasant numbers in entirely state funded fission, including everything China is currently building. CCP certainly isn't paying the same costs out of "politics."
I want to be clear: I'm generally pro nuclear. I'm just exhausted by the smug "scared idiots and politics ruins fission" when the situation is considerably more complex.
I want to be clear: I'm generally pro nuclear. I'm just exhausted by the smug "scared idiots and politics ruins fission" when the situation is considerably more complex.
The article image is of ARC, the predecessor to SPARC.
Well, SPARC is a mini version of ARC. Smaller and without a blanket.
This is more like "Fusion physicists rally around plan to improve message asking for more money". It's not like there's a serious plan to build a power plant.
Except at Lockheed's Skunk Works, which is quietly plugging away on their own.
Except at Lockheed's Skunk Works, which is quietly plugging away on their own.
The skunkworks program has no published details and what has been published has been put in the “been-there, tried that” category by physicists. The slunkworks program is little more than a way to funnel money.
If you read between the lines, the private companies got their wish: a change in emphasis for the federal program toward doing the supporting work on nuclear materials science that (for example) Commonwealth Fusion has been suggesting.
The other wishlist item is to build support for doing cost-share programs with industry to implement the larger facilities. If this gets traction, then the government wouldn't actually build the power plant, it would be more like NASA COTS where they help sponsor private companies that actually carry out the work. The INFUSE and ARPA-E fusion programs are tentative steps in this direction.
Edit: BTW, rallying around an improved pitch is big deal for the federal fusion program. Budgets have generally been in decline ever since it peaked in the 70's, and for many years there was nothing much in terms of a vision for the next steps.
The other wishlist item is to build support for doing cost-share programs with industry to implement the larger facilities. If this gets traction, then the government wouldn't actually build the power plant, it would be more like NASA COTS where they help sponsor private companies that actually carry out the work. The INFUSE and ARPA-E fusion programs are tentative steps in this direction.
Edit: BTW, rallying around an improved pitch is big deal for the federal fusion program. Budgets have generally been in decline ever since it peaked in the 70's, and for many years there was nothing much in terms of a vision for the next steps.
There's also Commonwealth Fusion and TAE, not to mention General Fusion (Canadian, but with American investors and a number of American employees).
Are at an inflection point for fusion power? With interest and funding for it finally gaining steam? I’ve noticed several announcements about independent efforts this past year [1–6] but not sure if (a) it’s always been this way or (b) my view is skewed by HN.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21806334 "General Fusion"
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23979608 "ITER"
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24629828 "SPARC"
[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24986528 "MAST Upgrade"
[5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209666 "NIF"
[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25261068 "KSTAR"
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21806334 "General Fusion"
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23979608 "ITER"
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24629828 "SPARC"
[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24986528 "MAST Upgrade"
[5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209666 "NIF"
[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25261068 "KSTAR"
Not yet, in my opinion. Things will really change once some group achieves 'scientific breakeven' (gain > 1) or better yet 'engineering breakeven' (gain > 10). ITER targets gain ~5-20 sometime after 2035, and SPARC targets gain ~ 2-10 sometime after 2025. So there's a possible inflection point on the horizon, which explains all the press.
I can only speak about NIF but they're under stress right now as their funding agency, the NNSA, is reviewing the progress of NIF as questions about its efficacy at achieving fusion become stronger after several failed campaigns. NIF needs to put up a pretty face so the press releases might be part of a combined effort to spin a positive picture of their progress, plus it serves as a recruitment tool since the lab is going through its largest demographic shift: the boomers are retiring.
Additionally, with the new administration it's expected that nuclear may not be viewed favorably as wind and solar continue dropping in price. So there's a lot of threats going on and all these press pieces may be attempts at buttering up the people in power and also the general population to get them excited about fusion and hopefully etch bits off of the general fear regarding nuclear power.
Personally, NIF is stuck, it's not gonna work under its current design, and convincing Congress to fork out some 60 billion dollars for a modest increase in laser energy when we probably need 10x laser energy does not seem like a good idea. Especially when the food lines are getting longer and we're approaching an insolvency event. It's hard to justify.
Additionally, with the new administration it's expected that nuclear may not be viewed favorably as wind and solar continue dropping in price. So there's a lot of threats going on and all these press pieces may be attempts at buttering up the people in power and also the general population to get them excited about fusion and hopefully etch bits off of the general fear regarding nuclear power.
Personally, NIF is stuck, it's not gonna work under its current design, and convincing Congress to fork out some 60 billion dollars for a modest increase in laser energy when we probably need 10x laser energy does not seem like a good idea. Especially when the food lines are getting longer and we're approaching an insolvency event. It's hard to justify.
I always thought NIF is just a facade for weapons research, that there is no way to make it energy positive
It's like 80% stockpile stewardship and 20% fusion research. The ratio has changed over time, and the big question is if the research will be driven down to zero. There's still a lot of basic research done with that 20% covering laser-matter interaction, materials science, plasma physics, x-ray tomography, computational simulations etc.
>>> b) my view is skewed by HN.
Making us anti-fake news?? :-)
However I also have the same impression, and HN is one of my leading indicators so it could well be coalescing.
However I also have the same impression, and HN is one of my leading indicators so it could well be coalescing.
Why would HN be the indicator? I’m sure we all personally enjoy the ego boost of participating in such a “smart” forum, but let’s not get too ahead of ourselves here; the primary speciality that HN caters to are software engineers and startup people (usually both). There’s no particular reason to believe that HN would be a reliable indicator for such heady topics as fusion power other than “a bunch of curious nerds comment there”.
“a bunch of curious nerds comment there” beats well over 80% of new sources. Of course the Fusion Power discussion board that still uses PHP4 powered text boxes will be way better.
Of course we must be aware of our "me,me,me" tendencies, its a good warning.
Of course we must be aware of our "me,me,me" tendencies, its a good warning.
“Beating 80% of other news sources” is completely orthogonal to being right. HN could indeed beat out 80% of the alternatives and still be brutally wrong.
And that’s long before we discuss the tendency of specialists to over-extend into other fields with predictably bad results.
And that’s long before we discuss the tendency of specialists to over-extend into other fields with predictably bad results.
Yes, yes we are at an inflection point. But maybe not the kind you are thinking of.
There will never be a commercial tokamak power plant. There has never, at any time, been any reasonable expectation of getting practical, commercial power from magnetic-confinement hot-neutron fusion.
Renewables, with practical energy storage, will always be much, much cheaper than fusion could ever have been, even if it could be made into a workable idea. Any practical fusion plant would have to absolutely huge -- an order of magnitude bigger than the biggest fission plant. Then, it would destroy its most expensive parts with neutron flux in short order. To continue using it, it would have be be rebuilt, frequently, and at even more ruinous expense, using robots.
"Break-even" is nowhere near enough to get practical power out, because the energy extraction process must be so inefficient, with two stages of heat exchange before you get a working fluid you can run through your turbine.
Tokamak fusion research is, first, foremost, and always, a jobs program to maintain a population of high-neutron-flux physicists as a population to draw upon for weapons work. Actual useful power has never been the point, or any sort of practical goal.
Thus, the burgeoning hype is meant to counter the dawning realization that the whole program always was, still is, and can only ever be a shuck. They need enough billions poured into the project to make it politically self-sustaining, where no amount of failure can ever threaten its funding, because so much has already been sunk that it would be too embarrassing to admit failure.
As it is, to ever actually break even, all the fusion plants that could be built would have to operate for decades just to pay back all the money that has already been sunk, without any commercial construction, before even starting to pay back any of the actual (huge) construction costs. But the only way to keep them operating would be via enormous public subsidies, because they could never compete on a level field with solar and wind. So, the longer they were operated, the deeper in the hole they would get.
There will never be a commercial tokamak power plant. There has never, at any time, been any reasonable expectation of getting practical, commercial power from magnetic-confinement hot-neutron fusion.
Renewables, with practical energy storage, will always be much, much cheaper than fusion could ever have been, even if it could be made into a workable idea. Any practical fusion plant would have to absolutely huge -- an order of magnitude bigger than the biggest fission plant. Then, it would destroy its most expensive parts with neutron flux in short order. To continue using it, it would have be be rebuilt, frequently, and at even more ruinous expense, using robots.
"Break-even" is nowhere near enough to get practical power out, because the energy extraction process must be so inefficient, with two stages of heat exchange before you get a working fluid you can run through your turbine.
Tokamak fusion research is, first, foremost, and always, a jobs program to maintain a population of high-neutron-flux physicists as a population to draw upon for weapons work. Actual useful power has never been the point, or any sort of practical goal.
Thus, the burgeoning hype is meant to counter the dawning realization that the whole program always was, still is, and can only ever be a shuck. They need enough billions poured into the project to make it politically self-sustaining, where no amount of failure can ever threaten its funding, because so much has already been sunk that it would be too embarrassing to admit failure.
As it is, to ever actually break even, all the fusion plants that could be built would have to operate for decades just to pay back all the money that has already been sunk, without any commercial construction, before even starting to pay back any of the actual (huge) construction costs. But the only way to keep them operating would be via enormous public subsidies, because they could never compete on a level field with solar and wind. So, the longer they were operated, the deeper in the hole they would get.
>”Break-even" is nowhere near enough to get practical power out, because the energy extraction process must be so inefficient, with two stages of heat exchange before you get a working fluid you can run through your turbine.
Correction: break-even is most of the way to a working plant. A “burning fusion plasma” is one that self heats. The plant requires very little power when the plasma is supplying most of its own heating. Keep the confining coils cool, keep the control systems (correction coils and heaters) running, and watch as the heat comes in. Q = 1 is the balance point. The distance (in terms of lawson criterion) between Q = 0.5 and 1 is much larger than Q = 1 and infinity,
Also, two stages of heat exchange are not needed and not a killer for power generation regardless. A liquid lithium wall blanket operates as tritium breeder and coolant. Run the lithium through a heat exchanger to boil water. Watch as the turbine spins. Very similar to PWRs.
Correction: break-even is most of the way to a working plant. A “burning fusion plasma” is one that self heats. The plant requires very little power when the plasma is supplying most of its own heating. Keep the confining coils cool, keep the control systems (correction coils and heaters) running, and watch as the heat comes in. Q = 1 is the balance point. The distance (in terms of lawson criterion) between Q = 0.5 and 1 is much larger than Q = 1 and infinity,
Also, two stages of heat exchange are not needed and not a killer for power generation regardless. A liquid lithium wall blanket operates as tritium breeder and coolant. Run the lithium through a heat exchanger to boil water. Watch as the turbine spins. Very similar to PWRs.
Liquid lithium wall blanket? I've heard the use of Lithium as a tritium breeder (which is important, assuming we're committed to duterium-tritium fusion), but never as a liquid. it makes sense though because in that case you don't have to completely disassemble the tokamak and replace the neutron blanket every few years(?). But again the technology to completely coat the inside of the tokamak in an even layer of liquid lithium has got to be daunting. What goes between the lithium and the plasma?
The Achilles Heel of fusion is low volumetric power density. This is because all the energy has to go through the first wall, which has limited area compared to the surfaces of fuel pins in a fission reactor.
So, there's been effort to try to maximize the power/area at the first wall. One part of that is the power that directly strikes the surface (ions, electrons, photons). The capacity to carry away this heat is limited by the strength of the wall material and its thermal conductivity, a fact that was pointed out by Pfirsch and Schmitter in the 1980s.
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2131865_1/component/file... (see section 4.1.1)
One could raise this limit by doing away with a solid wall (with its limits on thermal conductivity and stress) and instead using a liquid wall. This would also address erosion of the wall by sputtering, and help reduce damage from plasma disruptions (which may well otherwise be a showstopper for tokamaks.)
So, there's been effort to try to maximize the power/area at the first wall. One part of that is the power that directly strikes the surface (ions, electrons, photons). The capacity to carry away this heat is limited by the strength of the wall material and its thermal conductivity, a fact that was pointed out by Pfirsch and Schmitter in the 1980s.
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2131865_1/component/file... (see section 4.1.1)
One could raise this limit by doing away with a solid wall (with its limits on thermal conductivity and stress) and instead using a liquid wall. This would also address erosion of the wall by sputtering, and help reduce damage from plasma disruptions (which may well otherwise be a showstopper for tokamaks.)
Beryllium coated tungsten and a copper-tungsten weave. This is still a hot area of research. It will be part of the research done at ITER and DTT (Divertor Tokamak Test facility).
>There has never, at any time, been any reasonable expectation of getting practical, commercial power from magnetic-confinement hot-neutron fusion.
Not true. The existence of privately-funded fusion efforts implies that some people think there is a reasonable expectation, and are willing to put money behind it. This costing study suggests that $2-6/W could be achievable for some fusion concepts[0]. Using some rough calculations, that would translate to $20-60/(MW*hr), which is competitive.
>Any practical fusion plant would have to absolutely huge -- an order of magnitude bigger than the biggest fission plant.
Not necessarily. Fission power plans with low power density have been operated, and may even be desirable from a safety standpoint. The current crop of small modular reactors for fission seems to target power densities in the range of 1-10MW/m^3, rather than the 50-100 MW/m^3 of PWR reactors. This suggests that reduced power density may pay off in terms of reducing the costs associated with risk mitigation (highly redundant systems, large containment structures, etc). Fusion reactors could probably get to the 1-10MW/m^3 range.
> "Break-even" is nowhere near enough to get practical power out
Yes, there's a distinction between 'scientific breakeven' of gain > 1, and 'engineering breakeven' of gain > 10 (ish) which is necessary to have net power output. But we gotta crawl before we can run. It's an important milestone along the way.
>Tokamak fusion research is, first, foremost, and always, a jobs program to maintain a population of high-neutron-flux physicists
Not really -- the high-energy-density plasma physics research (which is not tokamak-related at all) is more relevant in terms of producing people with the skills to work on weapons.
> They need enough billions poured into the project to make it politically self-sustaining, where no amount of failure can ever threaten its funding, because so much has already been sunk that it would be too embarrassing to admit failure.
I'll admit that I see aspects of this, particularly with the failure of NSTX-U & politcally-motivated decision to repair it. However, what I mostly see with the DOE has been trying to get the most of the 'sunk costs' by slowly ramping down the program (ie, not investing in new devices to replace old ones that are shuttered). I suspect that Synakowski's reasoning was: "if a breakthrough happens somewhere around the world, it's worth having a skeleton program in the US that can be ramped up to take advantage of it at that time." Now that Van Dam has taken over, I think we may be seeing more optimism & willingness to invest, particularly if that means partnering with industry (which is trending in Washington).
[0]https://woodruffscientific.com/pdf/ARPAE_Costing_Report_2017...
Not true. The existence of privately-funded fusion efforts implies that some people think there is a reasonable expectation, and are willing to put money behind it. This costing study suggests that $2-6/W could be achievable for some fusion concepts[0]. Using some rough calculations, that would translate to $20-60/(MW*hr), which is competitive.
>Any practical fusion plant would have to absolutely huge -- an order of magnitude bigger than the biggest fission plant.
Not necessarily. Fission power plans with low power density have been operated, and may even be desirable from a safety standpoint. The current crop of small modular reactors for fission seems to target power densities in the range of 1-10MW/m^3, rather than the 50-100 MW/m^3 of PWR reactors. This suggests that reduced power density may pay off in terms of reducing the costs associated with risk mitigation (highly redundant systems, large containment structures, etc). Fusion reactors could probably get to the 1-10MW/m^3 range.
> "Break-even" is nowhere near enough to get practical power out
Yes, there's a distinction between 'scientific breakeven' of gain > 1, and 'engineering breakeven' of gain > 10 (ish) which is necessary to have net power output. But we gotta crawl before we can run. It's an important milestone along the way.
>Tokamak fusion research is, first, foremost, and always, a jobs program to maintain a population of high-neutron-flux physicists
Not really -- the high-energy-density plasma physics research (which is not tokamak-related at all) is more relevant in terms of producing people with the skills to work on weapons.
> They need enough billions poured into the project to make it politically self-sustaining, where no amount of failure can ever threaten its funding, because so much has already been sunk that it would be too embarrassing to admit failure.
I'll admit that I see aspects of this, particularly with the failure of NSTX-U & politcally-motivated decision to repair it. However, what I mostly see with the DOE has been trying to get the most of the 'sunk costs' by slowly ramping down the program (ie, not investing in new devices to replace old ones that are shuttered). I suspect that Synakowski's reasoning was: "if a breakthrough happens somewhere around the world, it's worth having a skeleton program in the US that can be ramped up to take advantage of it at that time." Now that Van Dam has taken over, I think we may be seeing more optimism & willingness to invest, particularly if that means partnering with industry (which is trending in Washington).
[0]https://woodruffscientific.com/pdf/ARPAE_Costing_Report_2017...
> Not true. The existence of privately-funded fusion efforts implies that some people think there is a reasonable expectation
Examine some of those efforts in detail and you will realize utterly bonkers nonsense can still get funding. One well known effort was told 20 years ago their scheme didn't work, but wishful thinking springs eternal.
Examine some of those efforts in detail and you will realize utterly bonkers nonsense can still get funding. One well known effort was told 20 years ago their scheme didn't work, but wishful thinking springs eternal.
Yes, government-subsidized hype is a fantastic generator of venture capital money, which just like gov't funding never needs to produce any ROI.
VC fusion seems relatively harmless, vs public subsidy, but each one is siphoning money away from projects that could actually work, particularly battery improvements, solar electrolysis catalysts, ammonia synthesis, and other renewables support.
VC fusion seems relatively harmless, vs public subsidy, but each one is siphoning money away from projects that could actually work, particularly battery improvements, solar electrolysis catalysts, ammonia synthesis, and other renewables support.
2040s? 20+ years from now!?! Too fuckin slow!!
For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.
For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.
I'm not a fan of this sentiment. Sometimes things are just really f'ing hard, and no amount of "pushing people" is going to change the reality of how long those things take.
I mean, if you look at both Tesla and SpaceX, nothing they've done was thought to be "impossible" from the outset from a scientific perspective. Electric cars already existed when Tesla was started, and we've been shooting rockets into space for decades. This isn't at all meant to minimize the huge achievements of those companies, but the science was never really in question.
Viable fusion is simply much harder.
I mean, if you look at both Tesla and SpaceX, nothing they've done was thought to be "impossible" from the outset from a scientific perspective. Electric cars already existed when Tesla was started, and we've been shooting rockets into space for decades. This isn't at all meant to minimize the huge achievements of those companies, but the science was never really in question.
Viable fusion is simply much harder.
While you are right that Musk favors engineering/cost improvements on existing ideas. I don't think there's a clear dividing line between science and engineering.
SpaceX has numberous "firsts", including reusable rockets and some engine designs. So it's not right to say they just do things we've been doing for decades.
And on the other end, the physics behind fusion is pretty well understood. The difficulties/expense are in building the thing, and dealing with issues like plasma instability. We call that "science" mostly because it is a state funded project. If a private company were doing the same thing, it would be called R&D.
SpaceX has numberous "firsts", including reusable rockets and some engine designs. So it's not right to say they just do things we've been doing for decades.
And on the other end, the physics behind fusion is pretty well understood. The difficulties/expense are in building the thing, and dealing with issues like plasma instability. We call that "science" mostly because it is a state funded project. If a private company were doing the same thing, it would be called R&D.
>We call that "science" mostly because it is a state funded project.
Interesting perspective. I agree that arguably most of the difficulties are more in the applied side of things, although calling it engineering might be going too far.
The big looming physics uncertainty is crossing the 'burning plasma' threshold, where the plasma becomes dominantly self-heating. There are two aspects to this: (1) will the plasma settle into a nice self-consistent steady state? (2) will the large quantity of fast fusion-born helium nuclei destabilize the plasma in an unexpected way? Theory says it should work, but the proof is in the experiment (which is why SPARC & ITER are being built).
Interesting perspective. I agree that arguably most of the difficulties are more in the applied side of things, although calling it engineering might be going too far.
The big looming physics uncertainty is crossing the 'burning plasma' threshold, where the plasma becomes dominantly self-heating. There are two aspects to this: (1) will the plasma settle into a nice self-consistent steady state? (2) will the large quantity of fast fusion-born helium nuclei destabilize the plasma in an unexpected way? Theory says it should work, but the proof is in the experiment (which is why SPARC & ITER are being built).
> I'm not a fan of this sentiment. Sometimes things are just really f'ing hard
You're putting the wrong construction on "too f'in' slow!!"
Technical difficulty is irrelevant to "too f'in' slow". If a technology is to make a difference now, when we need it to make a difference, it must already be deployed commercially at global scale.
Our menu of choices is: nuclear (fission), wind, and solar PV.
You're putting the wrong construction on "too f'in' slow!!"
Technical difficulty is irrelevant to "too f'in' slow". If a technology is to make a difference now, when we need it to make a difference, it must already be deployed commercially at global scale.
Our menu of choices is: nuclear (fission), wind, and solar PV.
I totally disagree, but accept that maybe Musk might have not been the best example.
Better ones, driven by the government (albeit during a hot and cold war): the Manhattan Project and landing humans on the Moon, respectively.
Both had insane timelines, no clear or certainty of success but the pressure, backing and motivation delivered.
We need more of this, and yesterday.
Better ones, driven by the government (albeit during a hot and cold war): the Manhattan Project and landing humans on the Moon, respectively.
Both had insane timelines, no clear or certainty of success but the pressure, backing and motivation delivered.
We need more of this, and yesterday.
> We need more of this, and yesterday.
But only where there would appear to be a benefit.
Fusion power generation will almost certainly operate like fission, in that it will need steam turbines, generators, elaborate cooling systems, and water treatment plants for the turbines and cooling.
The operation and maintenance on these alone is higher than that for wind or solar--never mind the operation of the reactor itself. The capital costs just for these modules are almost certainly higher too.
The project risk as seen by investors (delay, cancellation for social or undiscovered geotechnical reasons) is higher too.
So: generating electricity is not a use for fusion.
Fusion may have uses in scientific discovery. But a putative fusion power plant would operate well inside the limits of our knowledge, for reliability and safety reasons, so it would be no help there.
But only where there would appear to be a benefit.
Fusion power generation will almost certainly operate like fission, in that it will need steam turbines, generators, elaborate cooling systems, and water treatment plants for the turbines and cooling.
The operation and maintenance on these alone is higher than that for wind or solar--never mind the operation of the reactor itself. The capital costs just for these modules are almost certainly higher too.
The project risk as seen by investors (delay, cancellation for social or undiscovered geotechnical reasons) is higher too.
So: generating electricity is not a use for fusion.
Fusion may have uses in scientific discovery. But a putative fusion power plant would operate well inside the limits of our knowledge, for reliability and safety reasons, so it would be no help there.
> I'm not a fan of this sentiment. Sometimes things are just really f'ing hard, and no amount of "pushing people" is going to change the reality of how long those things take.
True, but the difference between too hard and only needing an organized push is often only obvious in hindsight.
True, but the difference between too hard and only needing an organized push is often only obvious in hindsight.
I read a letter in the Financial Times over the weekend...
> Forty years ago, when studying for my engineering degree, I learnt a rule of thumb that said that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. I was therefore reassured by the date given in the report (“Sites sought for Step change in energy supply”, December 3) for the Step nuclear fusion plant — 2040.
(Edit: Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall but will include the link anyway https://www.ft.com/content/e5af6548-a3a9-451f-8f92-268679d5d...)
> Forty years ago, when studying for my engineering degree, I learnt a rule of thumb that said that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. I was therefore reassured by the date given in the report (“Sites sought for Step change in energy supply”, December 3) for the Step nuclear fusion plant — 2040.
(Edit: Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall but will include the link anyway https://www.ft.com/content/e5af6548-a3a9-451f-8f92-268679d5d...)
For most of my life fusion has been perpetually 30 years away. Now it is only perpetually 20 years away. That's progress!
This graph often gets mentioned in the context of "always 30 years away": https://imgur.com/3vYLQmm
It's not on "schedule" because we aren't putting the resources towards it.
It's not on "schedule" because we aren't putting the resources towards it.
But we can spend ~$40B per year on our misadventures in Afghanistan. It's maddening.
Not just Afghanistan, Biden we'll get us back to bombing Libya and other nations soon
Whenever I see this graph, I wonder what’s supposed to represent. Total world investment in fusion, total world government spending, only US spending, or maybe only the part of the US Department of Energy earmarked for fusion research?
It probably is the last one, considering that the enacted 2012 budget of the US DOE for Fusion Energy Sciences was $401 MM ([1], p 16).
But then, why is only the US DOE supposed to invest in fusion?
In any case, as of 2020, this budget was increased to $671 MM [2].
[1] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/FY13Highlights.pdf
[2] https://www.aip.org/fyi/2020/final-fy20-appropriations-doe-o...
It probably is the last one, considering that the enacted 2012 budget of the US DOE for Fusion Energy Sciences was $401 MM ([1], p 16).
But then, why is only the US DOE supposed to invest in fusion?
In any case, as of 2020, this budget was increased to $671 MM [2].
[1] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/FY13Highlights.pdf
[2] https://www.aip.org/fyi/2020/final-fy20-appropriations-doe-o...
That graph was for a crash program under the assumption that tokamaks work better than it turns out they do.
So, if that money had been allocated, it would have been a failure. There was also not the appreciation then of the grave nature of the engineering challenges facing fusion, even if the plasma physics worked wonderfully.
The implication that we'd have had fusion if that money had been spent is not supported by the evidence.
So, if that money had been allocated, it would have been a failure. There was also not the appreciation then of the grave nature of the engineering challenges facing fusion, even if the plasma physics worked wonderfully.
The implication that we'd have had fusion if that money had been spent is not supported by the evidence.
Yeap. This is the real answer. I guarantee you, if every government of the world came together and everyone said, "Okay, we're all going to pitch in 1% of GDP until we crack this thing," we'd have nuclear fusion in under 10 years.
Turns out doing cutting edge science is expensive... Jesus Christ, who knew?!
Turns out doing cutting edge science is expensive... Jesus Christ, who knew?!
Both ITER is scheduled to be done and SPARC are trying to make net energy in 5 years. They probably won't hit those dates, but we aren't really talking about 20 years anymore. (I agree with several commenters on this thread that any project with a 20 years to completion timeline should be shelved for things with <10 year timelines).
So the horizon is approaching us at a what? logarithmic scale? What can we infer from this about the topology of the planning surface?
I'd argue that one of Musk's strengths is _not_ doing the very hard things, but finding projects that are relatively low-hanging fruit. Electric cars, multi-use rockets, driving AI. Those aren't the harder problems. Fusion, for example, is on a different level.
(I'm not a fusion expert)
I get the impression that there's still plenty of details that we don't understand how to do. It's not like solar + batteries where we have plenty of working solar + battery setups, and we just need to figure out how to make more of them more cheaply. It looks like there's still some fundamental research needed before fusion can generate more power than it consumes.
Heck, 10-ish years ago, I met someone who told me his cabin in the woods was off-grid solar because an off-grid system was cheaper than running electricity to the cabin. We're not even close to that state with Fusion.
I get the impression that there's still plenty of details that we don't understand how to do. It's not like solar + batteries where we have plenty of working solar + battery setups, and we just need to figure out how to make more of them more cheaply. It looks like there's still some fundamental research needed before fusion can generate more power than it consumes.
Heck, 10-ish years ago, I met someone who told me his cabin in the woods was off-grid solar because an off-grid system was cheaper than running electricity to the cabin. We're not even close to that state with Fusion.
>2040s? 20+ years from now!?! Too fuckin slow!!
I'm impatient too, but perspective is important here. Even the leading private efforts don't have plans to put power on the grid for at least 10 years. Also, before this report, there wasn't an official plan of any sort for the US federal fusion program to get to a pilot plant -- so this is progress. (FWIW, I participated in the early community input stages of this report.)
>For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.
Musk has a good nose for what's possible to commercialize in a medium-term (5-10 year) time horizon on a few $bn budget. I have reason to believe he's considered fusion (he has a background in physics after all). Instead, he's made a play in batteries & solar.
Now, if someone had ~$1-5bn to gamble, it might be possible to leapfrog the existing crop of private efforts by ~5 years. Just pick one concept and build the engineering-breakeven experiment (gain ~ 20) without the intermediate scientific-breakeven experiment (gain ~ 1). It would be significantly riskier, but it would save time if it worked.
I'm impatient too, but perspective is important here. Even the leading private efforts don't have plans to put power on the grid for at least 10 years. Also, before this report, there wasn't an official plan of any sort for the US federal fusion program to get to a pilot plant -- so this is progress. (FWIW, I participated in the early community input stages of this report.)
>For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.
Musk has a good nose for what's possible to commercialize in a medium-term (5-10 year) time horizon on a few $bn budget. I have reason to believe he's considered fusion (he has a background in physics after all). Instead, he's made a play in batteries & solar.
Now, if someone had ~$1-5bn to gamble, it might be possible to leapfrog the existing crop of private efforts by ~5 years. Just pick one concept and build the engineering-breakeven experiment (gain ~ 20) without the intermediate scientific-breakeven experiment (gain ~ 1). It would be significantly riskier, but it would save time if it worked.
And yet quite a few Musk promises perpetually planned in the coming years will probably end up with that kind of timeframe too.
That's a fair point. I can easily think of several examples too... the boring machine (still slow), self-driving (perpetually delayed), and the hypeloop. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
You can’t just get 9 women and make a baby in 1 month.
And fortunately soon Musk will need fusion for Mars travel and colonies. He just personally got extra 100B to burn - i think SpaceX will start to hire nuclear scientists and engineers soon :)
Fission seems like the better option for mars. The technology is ready now, and no one cares about a bit of nuclear waste on mars anyways.
Space probes require a minuscule amount of radioactive fuel, but launching that into space has still occasionally caused concern among environmentalists, as something might go wrong during launch. Can you imagine the resistance if someone wanted to launch enough processed uranium to support a Mars colony?
If it's a pebble bed design, easily.
Pebbles are uranium coated with multiple protective layers, extremely strong. They could be collected and reused if the launch vehicle plainly explodes on the launch pad.
Pebbles are uranium coated with multiple protective layers, extremely strong. They could be collected and reused if the launch vehicle plainly explodes on the launch pad.
I think the problem is more when it explodes when the rocket is already going mach 10 and the resulting explosion scatters thousands of radioactive pebbles across several thousand square kilometres of Atlantic ocean, possibly hundreds of metres deep.
Why's that a problem? The uranium won't leak out, the ocean will provide enough cooling, and even if it eventually does, it would be slowly and near the bottom, causing no problems at all.
The problem with space probes is that the radioactive fuel is highly radioactive plutonium. If probe explodes and plutonium disperses in atmosphere, that causes thousands deaths via lung cancer. Uranium does not causes that.
235U is not very dangerous at all before it has undergone a chain reaction. The oceans contains tens of millions of tonnes of the isotope.
Everything causes concern among environmentalists, even dihydrogen monoxide.
yes, technically the next generation of Starships flying to Mars would be fission powered. Unfortunately the regulatory regime makes any fission related development close to impossible. Add to that practical unavailability of fission fuel - even NASA has issues getting those mere kilograms of plutonium, and even Musk wouldn't be able to get nor breeder reactor, nor enrichment plant (here on Earth i mean).
As a result, the fusion "in 20 years" is much more plausible and feasible for the likes of SpaceX than fission.
As a result, the fusion "in 20 years" is much more plausible and feasible for the likes of SpaceX than fission.
the physics of Fission work better (or work at all, really) at scale. Fitting the weight and size of a fusion reactor on a rocket ship strikes me as impossible for the forseeable future.
Fusion should lead to unbeatable specific impulses, so the huge size of a reactor may not be a problem at all. (Or maybe it is, I don't think anybody can be sure before there are actually working reactors out there.)
> Fusion should lead to unbeatable specific [impulse]
No, because the effective specific impulse is so low, as a fusion reactor will only be able to fuse a small fraction of its mass before it is too radiation damaged to work. ITER, for example, would take 300,000 years to fuse its own mass in fusion fuel, but no DT reactor could operate more than a few years (if that) before parts need replacing.
If you want high effective specific impulse and high thrust at high specific impulse, beamed power is the way to go.
No, because the effective specific impulse is so low, as a fusion reactor will only be able to fuse a small fraction of its mass before it is too radiation damaged to work. ITER, for example, would take 300,000 years to fuse its own mass in fusion fuel, but no DT reactor could operate more than a few years (if that) before parts need replacing.
If you want high effective specific impulse and high thrust at high specific impulse, beamed power is the way to go.
Since we're talking about things that don't exist: -
We should be able to beat fusion's Isp with direct matter to energy conversion.
Certainly the mass of fuel needed will be 3 OM lower.
Edit to add: Isp is a measure of velocity. The thing about velocity is, energy goes quadratically but momentum imparted to the vessel (the impulse) only goes linearly with velocity.
Since no process can be 100% efficient, you're dealing with quadratically more and more waste heat from the engines. And space is an excellent insulator.
We should be able to beat fusion's Isp with direct matter to energy conversion.
Certainly the mass of fuel needed will be 3 OM lower.
Edit to add: Isp is a measure of velocity. The thing about velocity is, energy goes quadratically but momentum imparted to the vessel (the impulse) only goes linearly with velocity.
Since no process can be 100% efficient, you're dealing with quadratically more and more waste heat from the engines. And space is an excellent insulator.
Well, if you create a nice way to make and store anti-matter, you would basically solve rocketry on any place that humans could ever care about going to.
There are people researching that too, but not as many as fusion. And well, determining the capacity of things that don't exist is the first step on the work of making them exist.
There are people researching that too, but not as many as fusion. And well, determining the capacity of things that don't exist is the first step on the work of making them exist.
Solar works reasonably well on Mars, and if that's not enough fission is much easier.
Ok, say I've got a new design for a fusion reactor, but it takes me 5 years to convince anyone that it's worth investigating.
Fusion power has been set back 5 years.
Someone please help me evaluate my design. Please!
http://www.DDPROfusion.com
Fusion power has been set back 5 years.
Someone please help me evaluate my design. Please!
http://www.DDPROfusion.com
I can’t evaluate your design but I can evaluate your messaging. You need to do something to distinguish yourself from cranks and scammers, like write it up in a paper and get it published - and stop referring to yourself in plural.
I've tried to distinguish myself from cranks and con artists by being realistic, and explaining the principle clearly.
This isn't LENR with some mystic explanation requiring new physics. This is hot, thermal fusion contained by a novel, but very simple to understand set of fields.
I've talked to many, physicists and am open to criticism about the design. If I don't know the answer to a question I admit it.
Since it's such a new device, there hasn't been any rigorous analysis of it yet, so there is nothing to publish. It's a chicken and egg problem.
This isn't LENR with some mystic explanation requiring new physics. This is hot, thermal fusion contained by a novel, but very simple to understand set of fields.
I've talked to many, physicists and am open to criticism about the design. If I don't know the answer to a question I admit it.
Since it's such a new device, there hasn't been any rigorous analysis of it yet, so there is nothing to publish. It's a chicken and egg problem.
Not sure about the plural thing? In my own field a paper using singular forms would really stand out. Why remind readers and reviewers that you are working alone in every single sentence? Genuinely interested to hear your reasons! This is an issue for the paper I am currently working on. Naturally I would prefer to use the singular where it is accurate, and if I were better established I would.
This answer explains nicely why the “editorial we” is OK in papers...:
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/choice-of-...
Short version: because it can be read as “we, the author and the reader”.
But the site above uses phrases like “we have been granted a patent”, which come across as somewhat dishonest, making it appear on first glance as though this is the work of a team, corporate body, or at least two collaborators (and two is a huge step up from one in terms of credibility of any idea).
I’m not saying there was any dishonest intention on the part of this author - I’m just suggesting that radical transparency is a good technique for introducing an idea to a skeptical audience, in a domain which is very noisy with bad actors.
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/choice-of-...
Short version: because it can be read as “we, the author and the reader”.
But the site above uses phrases like “we have been granted a patent”, which come across as somewhat dishonest, making it appear on first glance as though this is the work of a team, corporate body, or at least two collaborators (and two is a huge step up from one in terms of credibility of any idea).
I’m not saying there was any dishonest intention on the part of this author - I’m just suggesting that radical transparency is a good technique for introducing an idea to a skeptical audience, in a domain which is very noisy with bad actors.
I've had several mentors and advisors and am doing everything I can to be inclusive without giving away equity. There was a legal entity created, and I have applied for several grants. Each time, I have put together a team or had lined up collaborators who could help if the grant had been awarded.
I'm working with suppliers, and discussing the concept openly with everyone who is interested.
Most of the time however, I am working alone.
Should I pay someone to sit around and twiddle their thumbs for semantic reasons?
I believe a royal "WE" is appropriate, but I could be wrong.
I'm working with suppliers, and discussing the concept openly with everyone who is interested.
Most of the time however, I am working alone.
Should I pay someone to sit around and twiddle their thumbs for semantic reasons?
I believe a royal "WE" is appropriate, but I could be wrong.
Are you trying to start a business or do scientific research? I think you’ll struggle to get investors interested in an idea that hasn’t been validated, and you’ll struggle to get academics interested in helping a money-making venture.
You might need to make a tough call to do one or the other.
You might need to make a tough call to do one or the other.
I'm not sure I really understand.
The research is obviously the most important thing at this point. Without validation it's all just conjecture.
I know I'll need solid evidence to back up the idea, but I've reached the end of my ability to evaluate the concept. I can't find a fatal flaw, and that's why I keep trying.
I'm really looking for an answer either way. I need help to prove it will work, or to show it's a dead end.
While it's in limbo I can't, in good conscience, drop it.
Do you really think having a patent and an LLC to organize under are fatal flaws?
The research is obviously the most important thing at this point. Without validation it's all just conjecture.
I know I'll need solid evidence to back up the idea, but I've reached the end of my ability to evaluate the concept. I can't find a fatal flaw, and that's why I keep trying.
I'm really looking for an answer either way. I need help to prove it will work, or to show it's a dead end.
While it's in limbo I can't, in good conscience, drop it.
Do you really think having a patent and an LLC to organize under are fatal flaws?
I've been helping with messaging for somebody looking for demonstration funding for an experimentally proven clean oil recovery technology and it makes me feel hopeless seeing there are so many people struggling to demonstrate potentially game changing technologies, often because people investing or allocating money have little technical competence.
for those curious: http://www.envirotechdme.com
If I could offer you some pointers:
- Separate the Youtube account you use for this technology from the one you use personally.
- Specify in nontechnical language the advantage this tech has over similar fusion technologies. (still working on this myself)
- Seek peer review and then highlight that peer review directly on your website. My intuition is that most people or departments who are capable of funding a demonstration are not capable of validating the science behind your technology.
- I would recommend writing and attaching a succinct summary of your technology distinct from your patent, and devoid of the legalese and cruft that fills up a patent.
for those curious: http://www.envirotechdme.com
If I could offer you some pointers:
- Separate the Youtube account you use for this technology from the one you use personally.
- Specify in nontechnical language the advantage this tech has over similar fusion technologies. (still working on this myself)
- Seek peer review and then highlight that peer review directly on your website. My intuition is that most people or departments who are capable of funding a demonstration are not capable of validating the science behind your technology.
- I would recommend writing and attaching a succinct summary of your technology distinct from your patent, and devoid of the legalese and cruft that fills up a patent.
Thank you for your advice. Communicating a new idea effectively is quite difficult. I have been thinking about doing some explainer videos.
I took a look at your site and had some thoughts I wanted to share with you.
I took a look at your site and had some thoughts I wanted to share with you.
Sorry for the late reply, if you want you can give me a shout at [email protected]
Fusion physicist here. What's to prevent you from evaluating it yourself? I would start with Todd Rider's PhD thesis https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11412
See if you can convince yourself that the arguments he makes about non-equilibrium systems don't apply to your concept, and then write a white paper explaining your argument.
See if you can convince yourself that the arguments he makes about non-equilibrium systems don't apply to your concept, and then write a white paper explaining your argument.
I've read Rider's thesis several times. The ions in my device have a thermal energy profile. The coordinated motion is a result of their rapid expansion and cooling in a very weak magnetic field.
The instant ions leave the hot thermal focus, each one flys off on its own independent cyclotron trajectory. Their collective motion results in another dense, hot, thermal focus one period later.
The instant ions leave the hot thermal focus, each one flys off on its own independent cyclotron trajectory. Their collective motion results in another dense, hot, thermal focus one period later.
Also, get an SSL certificate for your website. It's somewhat hard to believe you are able to create a safe and effective fusion reactor while at the same time connecting to your website uses an outdated and insecure protocol.
Meanwhile, reportedly China has already built one and is testing it now. So the USA is 20 years behind?
I’m guessing you’re referring to HL-2M which indeed in testing. But that tokamak is not designed to generate electricity but rather to study long pulse durations (~5s) at reactor relevant temperatures.
Building one is not the same as getting useful power out of it.
Yep, USA will make sure of that if Iran is any indication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#Affected_countries
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-china-nuclear-powered-artifici...
I'd say that China will have a fully functioning plant in 3-5 years.
I'd say that China will have a fully functioning plant in 3-5 years.
Any articles you'd recommend on their work?
Source?
The timing on this announcement sure is interesting considering what you mentioned that china just accomplished.
The big problem with fusion is the enormous costs associated with producing energy. I guess we need to generate large amounts of energy to justify the expenditures. Based on that, I believe that China is the only country that has both the money as well as the large-scale need to make fusion practical.
> to prepare to build a prototype power plant in the 2040s
this doesn't seem terribly "ambitious"
this doesn't seem terribly "ambitious"
I agree. However, it's better than not having any concrete plan at all, which was the case up to this point.
How much of the excess renewable energy is being wasted rather than stored? Maybe fuel generation like hydrogen or ethanol, or kinetic can help make nuclear less crucial?
Ethanol is wasteful, hydrogen is a beast to store, kinetic requires too many moving parts. If you want to store renewables you should turn them into methane, best storage volume, safe and proven hardware for storage, transportation and power generation. It’s even better if you can efficiently obtain atmospheric CO2 for the reaction, closes the loop.
Honestly, fission is probably the best 0 carbon power technology though, it just blows everything out of the water. We’re almost recovered from the no nuke nonsense of the 60s and the rumblings of new power plant designs and companies are growing louder so there’s hope yet.
Honestly, fission is probably the best 0 carbon power technology though, it just blows everything out of the water. We’re almost recovered from the no nuke nonsense of the 60s and the rumblings of new power plant designs and companies are growing louder so there’s hope yet.
> blows everything out of the water
I guess that's kind of what I am afraid of. Plus the issue of waste storage.
I guess that's kind of what I am afraid of. Plus the issue of waste storage.
Take a look at the actual volume of waste produced. It’s tiny even when not compared to the garbage we put into the atmosphere, mine tailings, oil spillage, etc. Nuclear fuel is highly compact and you only have to change it every 6 years, that’s about 16 changes in a century. What other fuel source can compete with that and have the same energy output. As for accidents and deaths just compare the numbers to any other power source. More people fall off ladders installing solar in a year than have died from nuclear accidents.
Storing hydrogen underground is demonstrated, practical, and very cheap.
Right now it's cheaper to deploy fossil fuels than using one of the more expensive storage technologies. Hopefully with time the price will come down though. Trends are quite promising.
Yes, but my understanding is that this relative cheapness is in large part due to externalizing the environmental costs to future generations
Don't forget the literal Trillions of dollars big oil gets annually, just from the U.S.
Take that away and the wells lose their competitiveness really quickly
Take that away and the wells lose their competitiveness really quickly
Very little; the term to look for is "curtailment", and it happens a few days a year.
If you go to the real time price page for ERCOT, you'll see prices often go negative there. Not just a few times a year, either.
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/contours/rtmLmp.html
Right as I post this there's a spot in NE Texas where the wholesale price of electricity is negative 6.275 cents per kWh.
There's a good reason everyone gave up building nuclear power plants in Texas.
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/contours/rtmLmp.html
Right as I post this there's a spot in NE Texas where the wholesale price of electricity is negative 6.275 cents per kWh.
There's a good reason everyone gave up building nuclear power plants in Texas.
I think that solar/wind + battery (e.g. Tesla Megapack) will make fusion irrelevant.
No one is giving you numbers for why this is wrong, so let me ballpark.
Typical solar irradiance is 1000W/m^2. Mean sunshine hours where I live is 3000hrs/y. Assuming 100% efficiency, 100% solar irradiance, perfect angle etc for those 3000hours, we get ~10^10J of energy. Those are bad assumptions, but very generous.
In a gram of deuterium, per e=mc^2, we get ~10^12J. There is 100x more energy in a single gram of deterium than a year of intense sunshine. Deterium is far from rare -- 1 part in ~10,000. Consider the vast amounts of deterium in the oceans and realize if fusion becomes a reality, nuclear, solar, oil, wind etc all become irrelevant overnight.
I recommend this https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/
for a layman's introduction of the energy scales involved here.
Typical solar irradiance is 1000W/m^2. Mean sunshine hours where I live is 3000hrs/y. Assuming 100% efficiency, 100% solar irradiance, perfect angle etc for those 3000hours, we get ~10^10J of energy. Those are bad assumptions, but very generous.
In a gram of deuterium, per e=mc^2, we get ~10^12J. There is 100x more energy in a single gram of deterium than a year of intense sunshine. Deterium is far from rare -- 1 part in ~10,000. Consider the vast amounts of deterium in the oceans and realize if fusion becomes a reality, nuclear, solar, oil, wind etc all become irrelevant overnight.
I recommend this https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/
for a layman's introduction of the energy scales involved here.
If energy density were proportional to cost, nuclear fission would already be dominating by a factor of 2,000,000x over fracked gas and coal. The reality is that complexities of systems needed in energy conversions end up coming into play. Getting net energy out of fusion was done in the 1950s (explosively, but still). Even given sustained controlled fusion, you still have to build a power plant around it and 'break even' on costs.
Right. The energy density argument is obviously wrong, and I marvel that people can still make it with a straight face.
The comment is mostly about energy scales -- Getting into the actual conversion rate, system efficiency, amortization etc is beyond the scope of a comment, especially when it's still an area of very active research.
This ignores the enormous cost involved in building and maintaining the machines to fuse that deuterium and capture the resultant energy.
You might end up being right, but I think it's actually very far from clear that fusion will ever win on cost.
You might end up being right, but I think it's actually very far from clear that fusion will ever win on cost.
> In a gram of deuterium, per e=mc^2, we get ~10^12J
Deuterium is not antimatter, where they entire mass of the substance is converted to energy. In nuclear reactions only a very small percentage of matter (~1%) is converted to energy.
Deuterium is not antimatter, where they entire mass of the substance is converted to energy. In nuclear reactions only a very small percentage of matter (~1%) is converted to energy.
So by your estimate (~1%), a gram of deuterium can provide power equivalent to a year of intense sunshine?
> year of intense sunshine
per square meter.
Both are fair small quantities.
From the Wikipedia, D+T fusion leads to 17.6MeV, while their total energy is around 4.5GeV, so 1% is overstating it a few times.
per square meter.
Both are fair small quantities.
From the Wikipedia, D+T fusion leads to 17.6MeV, while their total energy is around 4.5GeV, so 1% is overstating it a few times.
That statement doesn't make any sense without a unit for the amount of sunshine.
Also (too late to edit my previous comment), this assumes fusion converts all of the deuterium mass to energy, but actually it's only the change in nuclear binding energy between D + T and n + He-4, which is 17.6 MeV per reaction, or 2.8e-12 Joules (note minus sign). So this assessment above seems to be off by about a factor of 10^24, or 1 trillion trillion.
To get all the energy out of a deuteron, you need an anti-deuteron. This is dramatically less practical than thermonuclear fusion because we have no credible source of meaningful amounts of anti-matter fuel.
The linked ucsd page is pretty solid.
To get all the energy out of a deuteron, you need an anti-deuteron. This is dramatically less practical than thermonuclear fusion because we have no credible source of meaningful amounts of anti-matter fuel.
The linked ucsd page is pretty solid.
Miniaturized fusion (I know, a long way from this -- but so were computers) would revolutionize everything.
Including transit, shipping, airlines, and other industries where batteries won't quite cut it (not to mention deep-space exploration).
Including transit, shipping, airlines, and other industries where batteries won't quite cut it (not to mention deep-space exploration).
As far as we know, it's not possible to miniaturize fusion. The mass of the shielding alone for a hypothetical miniature DT fusion reactor would prevent it from being used in anything smaller than a large ship. 'Advanced fuels' with reduced neutron radiation are orders of magnitude below DT in power density for given reactor performance levels, so miniaturizing them is even more in the realm of science fiction.
Unless it's ready to replace ~all of our fossil energy within the next 20-30 years (ideally less) it's not good enough to stop climate change.
Solar+wind alone is also quite unlikely to stop climate change in that time frame and enough nuclear capacity will take decades to build. By all means keep converting to to cleaner energy but also build up the sea defenses and improve both building construction (better HVAC to deal with higher average temparature) and city infrastructure (better storm sewers to deal with predicted stronger storms and better electricity grid to deal with higher peak loads from HVAC and electric vehicle charging).
I still think weather does not allow this triplet to cover all scenarios. There are times in the PNW where you won't see the sun for 2-3 weeks, long enough to deplete almost any grid storage solution
While not due to cloud coverage, this is why Texas runs super large transmission lines from West Texas wind farms to Houston oil refineries.
[deleted]
Can you elaborate on this point please? I don't understand the analogy.
Generation doesn't have to be near consumption. If weather is bad in the PNW power can be move to it from other parts of the country. Texas does this with massive transmission lines that where built crisscrossing the state in the late 90's and 00's. These transmission lines allowed for a massive expansion in wind and solar without large subsidies because the electricity could be moved to wear it was needed and sold on the open market (the state operates an real time auction market to balance to help balance supply and demand). Today the state has more wind and solar than coal. Something like 30-40% of the states electricity comes from renewables.
> Generation doesn't have to be near consumption*
* As long as the generation and consumption both take place under the same government and the transmission infrastructure is safe from disruption.
So many plans about theoretical continental grids in Europe (with the extra mile of them being powered by solar in Africa) ignore the political reality that no government is going to give up significant chunks of the energy security of their country to something ouside their control.
* As long as the generation and consumption both take place under the same government and the transmission infrastructure is safe from disruption.
So many plans about theoretical continental grids in Europe (with the extra mile of them being powered by solar in Africa) ignore the political reality that no government is going to give up significant chunks of the energy security of their country to something ouside their control.
West Texas has a lot of empty desert or near-desert land, not a lot of people, and not a lot of industry. But it does have a lot of wind.
Houston is a big city. Its metro population is about 7 million. And Houston has a lot of industry, probably the most industrial of the major Texas cities.
Texas is big, and depending on what part of West Texas you're talking about, Houston is pretty far away from it. For example, it's a 350 mile (~550km) drive between Abilene and Houston, and it's a 600 mile (~950km) drive between Amarillo and Houston.
After lots of wind generation got built in West Texas, they had to add more power lines to bring the power to the more populated part of the state. And they did, and it worked.
Houston is a big city. Its metro population is about 7 million. And Houston has a lot of industry, probably the most industrial of the major Texas cities.
Texas is big, and depending on what part of West Texas you're talking about, Houston is pretty far away from it. For example, it's a 350 mile (~550km) drive between Abilene and Houston, and it's a 600 mile (~950km) drive between Amarillo and Houston.
After lots of wind generation got built in West Texas, they had to add more power lines to bring the power to the more populated part of the state. And they did, and it worked.
Refining oil takes power... and if you use (cheap) clean power to convert the rough hydrocarbons into refined gas fuel or other higher end hydrocarbons... you're making it pollute less (viewed from the lifecycle) and cheaper. So in a way, you're storing excess solar power in the gas, via reducing the need to burn gas to make more gas.
Well, maybe. We can probably meet our current energy needs with solar/wind and some kind of energy storage and more long-distance transmission lines, but it won't be cheap or easy. (Maybe it'll be cheap in the long run, but in the short run it's a lot of infrastructure to build out.)
Fusion shouldn't be considered an essential prerequisite to address climate change, but it would be better to have it as an option than not. Being able to generate constant power reliably is very convenient.
Fusion shouldn't be considered an essential prerequisite to address climate change, but it would be better to have it as an option than not. Being able to generate constant power reliably is very convenient.
Solar is the cheapest source of power in a wide range of markets. Storage will become economical long before fusion at this point.
Also storage isn't even a concern until solar/wind reaches far greater penetration.
Also storage isn't even a concern until solar/wind reaches far greater penetration.
Won't batteries run into the Lithium problem? I heard somewhere that the global Lithium reserves allow us to convert the entire car fleet of humanity to electric, but not anything beyond that, certainly not allowing large scale battery deployments that would make a dent.
There are concerted misinformation campaigns out there against anything that upsets the existing, and lazy, powers that control fossil fuels.
One of my favorite debunkers of these terrible rumors and studies is Auke Hoestra. One of his more recent debunkings, in addition to being very wrong on the facts, was funded by a shell of Aston Martin, and shilled without criticism by several "journalists" in UK papers:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/astongate-fake-emission-figur...
Those in the renewable industry are too busy building to mount much of a defense. Perhaps once they've become rich and indolent they can start acting this way.
Also, as a side note, a typical electric car battery is enough to power the typical US house for three days. Three days of storage is probably more than we will need to get to 100% renewable energy. The very idea of converting cars to electric entails an amount of batteries that most skeptics will say is impossible. Yet we know it won't be that hard, as new reserves are developed all the time.
One of my favorite debunkers of these terrible rumors and studies is Auke Hoestra. One of his more recent debunkings, in addition to being very wrong on the facts, was funded by a shell of Aston Martin, and shilled without criticism by several "journalists" in UK papers:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/astongate-fake-emission-figur...
Those in the renewable industry are too busy building to mount much of a defense. Perhaps once they've become rich and indolent they can start acting this way.
Also, as a side note, a typical electric car battery is enough to power the typical US house for three days. Three days of storage is probably more than we will need to get to 100% renewable energy. The very idea of converting cars to electric entails an amount of batteries that most skeptics will say is impossible. Yet we know it won't be that hard, as new reserves are developed all the time.
There’s more lithium in earths crust than Lead yet we mine ~50x as much lead. The only limitation on mining lithium is how concentrated is making it more or less expensive to extract. Currently raw Lithium is extremely cheap, it’s highly refined battery grade lithium that’s somewhat expensive.
Rank 33: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth...
Rank 33: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth...
Abundance in the crust is one thing, ability to mine it is another. That's why you need to look at reserves [0] instead of resources. And there are way more lead reserves (88 million tons in 2016 [1]) than lithium ones (17 million tons [2]).
[0]: https://newpacificmetals.com/mining-101/mineral-estimates-re...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#On_Earth
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves
[0]: https://newpacificmetals.com/mining-101/mineral-estimates-re...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#On_Earth
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves
Proven reserves are dependent on actual mining.
“Worldwide lithium resources identified by USGS started to increase in 2017 owing to continuing exploration. Identified resources in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 were 41, 47, 54, 62 and 80 million tonnes, respectively.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves
There is little to suggest this trend will suddenly stop unless we simply stop looking. Further, a 5x increase in lithium has minimal impact on the long term EV or grid storage economics. That’s a lot of wiggle room for more expensive extraction.
“Worldwide lithium resources identified by USGS started to increase in 2017 owing to continuing exploration. Identified resources in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 were 41, 47, 54, 62 and 80 million tonnes, respectively.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves
There is little to suggest this trend will suddenly stop unless we simply stop looking. Further, a 5x increase in lithium has minimal impact on the long term EV or grid storage economics. That’s a lot of wiggle room for more expensive extraction.
Not sure if you've seen my edited version of the comment or replied to the earlier version. There is a distinction between resources and reserves.
That’s my point, resources are probable sources of economically extractable resources. It’s mostly a long term vs short term question, so limiting things to reserves vastly underestimates availability in 2040+.
Even resources is an underestimation as again it’s based on economic assumptions that are quite flexible. New technology for example can change what’s considered economically feasible.
Even resources is an underestimation as again it’s based on economic assumptions that are quite flexible. New technology for example can change what’s considered economically feasible.
[deleted]
Because a single molecule of lead is significantly heavier than a molecule of lithium, that’s technically an order of magnitude more lithium. 2.22E12 moles of lithium vs. 3.85E11 moles of lead.
I think at the moment cobalt is more of a constraining resource (though not all rechargeable battery chemistries require cobalt).
The 'best' ones currently do, which is the challenge. To wit; LiFePO4 (I don't know how to do subscript on HN, sorry) chemistries aren't exotic, and tend to be more 'stable'. But, you lose about 14% capacity per volume. [0]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery...
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery...
From what I know, wind/solar cannot power industrial needs, only residential. So we can get power at home to heat our house and watch netflix, but there will be no TVs or heaters to run off of the power.
Wut?
Not enough output.
There are utility scale solar plants being planned/built that produce over a gigawatt of power. They rival the output of the largest power plants today. They can absolutely run industrial facilities as well as homes.
If only we had a way to combine the output from many power sources. Maybe we could call it a "grid".
That's easily fixed by building more turbines and panels.
Industry uses three-phase power unlike residential (USA perspective anyway). You'd need one of these for your solar farm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_micro-inverter
Industry often goes to great lengths to rectify 3-phase power. In some cases they'd much rather just have the DC anyway. But that's neither here nor there since utility-scale solar power feeds the AC grid and its alternating electrons are completely fungible and indistinguishable from other electrons.
Serious question: what happens after? Will it literally be 'free energy'? And are we ready as a society to handle this properly? How do we ensure that this will benefit everyone and not create an enormous imbalance by itself?
I guess the existing economics will be broken at some point if the cost of everything will be driven down in such a way. Are there any articles/works that explore this issue?
I guess the existing economics will be broken at some point if the cost of everything will be driven down in such a way. Are there any articles/works that explore this issue?
No, the cost structure of fusion is going to be much like fission: the cost of building the reactor has to be spread over time (with interest). Even though the fuel is cheap, you are (in a financial sense) 'burning' the reactor, which is expensive and must be bought up front. We don't know for sure how it will work out, but none of the predictions I've seen show fusion producing dramatically lower cost of electricity.
I'm just a layperson, I only know pop science level stuff here, but they seem clearly like the best game in town -- so, seriously, can a person in the physics world shed some light on why they aren't at least a small part of every article about fusion, but ITER is?
1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_(tokamak)
(And, for those with an interest who still haven't seen Zach Hartwig's absolutely excellent 2017 talk: https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk -- watch it!)