Small Lab Makes Big Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion Tech(oilprice.com)
oilprice.com
Small Lab Makes Big Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion Tech
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Small-Lab-Makes-Big-Breakthrough-In-Nuclear-Fusion-Tech.html
27 comments
Ugh. LPP is not credible, this 'journalist' did not do his homework.
can you elaborate or attach some source why LPP is not credible?
I did not know about this device so I did a quick research: it's essentially an optimised version of early plasma devices that use instabilities to create a very compact, dense structure that can reach really high ion temperatures. The main problem I see is that this structure is very short-lived: on the order of 10 nanoseconds.
These devices existed for a long time and have been used as X rays or neutron sources but not for fusion power. LPP have explained the exact machanism at the basis of the DPF fusion and have optimised the radiation losses and electron heating to reach higher temperatures but from this to claiming viable fusion power is quite a stretch.
These devices existed for a long time and have been used as X rays or neutron sources but not for fusion power. LPP have explained the exact machanism at the basis of the DPF fusion and have optimised the radiation losses and electron heating to reach higher temperatures but from this to claiming viable fusion power is quite a stretch.
Lerner comes across as a bit of a nut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner
The board of advisors doesn't have a single physicist on it -- makes me suspicious as well.
https://lppfusion.com/investing-in-lppfusion/our-plan-to-net...
Then there's this bit: "switching to pB11 fuel will give us a 100-fold increase in yield" -- compared to deuterium. That's straight-up backwards. pB11 power density is actually more like 100 times less. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Yes, he's published papers about his experiments, but there's nothing in them about how he's going to get to net energy output -- so that part is not peer reviewed.
The board of advisors doesn't have a single physicist on it -- makes me suspicious as well.
https://lppfusion.com/investing-in-lppfusion/our-plan-to-net...
Then there's this bit: "switching to pB11 fuel will give us a 100-fold increase in yield" -- compared to deuterium. That's straight-up backwards. pB11 power density is actually more like 100 times less. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Yes, he's published papers about his experiments, but there's nothing in them about how he's going to get to net energy output -- so that part is not peer reviewed.
I guess it’s good that they reached higher temps? It does not seem like this is quite the breakthrough that will make fusion possible.
Will fusion be achieved iteratively? Or will it need key new insights we have not yet discovered?
Will fusion be achieved iteratively? Or will it need key new insights we have not yet discovered?
MIT Sparc/Commonwealth Fusion Systems seem to have a chance at breakeven in a shorter time that the government and international labs. The problem is that now that fusion is commercial research we won't get updates until somebody wants to brag or a public lab make a breakthrough.
Might also be that the problem of neutron contamination of the hull turns out so bad that normal nuclear power plants and breeder reactors sound better.
Misleading headline. No recent breakthrough has been mentioned in this article, except one made in 2016.
Misleading title: Not a breakthrough. Nuclear power plants are just as far away as always. (indefinite)
We have a pretty solid roadmap to fusion power plants. ITER and DEMO don't have tremendous risks attached to them. But funding has been insufficient for fast progress. Funding is also insufficient for fast parallel exploration of non-tokamak designs.
The real question is whether fusion will ever be economically competitive with renewables+storage.
The real question is whether fusion will ever be economically competitive with renewables+storage.
The real question is:
Will renewable (without storage) can replace 4% of our energy (not just electricity) production each year from 2019 to 2050?
I think 2019 (or was it 2018?)was the first year with more renewable installed than coal plants, if you look at max charge. Good news at least.
I think 2019 (or was it 2018?)was the first year with more renewable installed than coal plants, if you look at max charge. Good news at least.
2050 is probably too late (it probably is already too late!), but you're right of course. In any case fusion won't play a role before we decided our climatological fate.
> The real question is whether fusion will ever be economically competitive with renewables+storage.
Could you elaborate on what storage you have in mind? The only effective way we have to store large amounts of electricity right now is [pumped-storage hydroelectricity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...), which is interesting but also very sensitive to the geography.
Could you elaborate on what storage you have in mind? The only effective way we have to store large amounts of electricity right now is [pumped-storage hydroelectricity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...), which is interesting but also very sensitive to the geography.
There are some technologies that might be improved to achieve the required efficiency (eg power-to-gas[1] or cryogenic storage).
[1] https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-wit...
[1] https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-wit...
I'm by no means an expert, but as far as I know a combination of batteries for fluctuations in the dozens-of-hours range and Power-to-{Methane,Hydrogen,Ammonia} for seasonal variations is what experts think feasible.
Fusion also isn't possible right now of course.
There's still more risk than you'd be lead to believe.
(1) There could always be unknown-unknowns related to stability or confinement with a self-heating plasma. ITER is still a science experiment.
(2) The disruption problem hasn't be solved. There's an attitude of "it'll get solved because we need it to get solved."
You hit the nail on the head with the economics issue, though.
(1) There could always be unknown-unknowns related to stability or confinement with a self-heating plasma. ITER is still a science experiment.
(2) The disruption problem hasn't be solved. There's an attitude of "it'll get solved because we need it to get solved."
You hit the nail on the head with the economics issue, though.
> We have a pretty solid roadmap to fusion power plants. ITER and DEMO don't have tremendous risks attached to them.
The costs of ITER have grown to be more than 4x as much as what was planned (and it is still in early stages so that's probably not the end of the story). I would not call that "solid".
The costs of ITER have grown to be more than 4x as much as what was planned (and it is still in early stages so that's probably not the end of the story). I would not call that "solid".
Almost all large construction projects overshoot their costs. Things we built for the first time are even more likely to do so.
Do have we actually have a net positive energy generator yet?
Not indefinite but always 40 years from the present.
funding has been basically nonexistent and dwindling. Achieving nuclear fission required $23 billion (today dollars) and 0.1% of the US population to work on it (Manhattan project)
Fusion funding is measured in tens of millions and does not have 350.000 people working on it.
Fusion funding is measured in tens of millions and does not have 350.000 people working on it.
ITER alone "is expected to be in excess of €20 billion" says Wikipedia, so fusion has gotten more funding than those $23b.
It costs about the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project though, I would suspect, much of the cost of the Manhattan project was probably never accounted for, because much of the work was done by the military or other personnel paid for either way. You know, war time and such. But I haven't looked for any data on that, it could be it was all accounted for to the penny.
ITER is an international, purely scientific, peaceful project that is already going on for many more years than the original Manhattan project. Also fusion doesn't just happen by itself, when you "put the right elements close together". The problem that ITER tries to solve, even considering the advances over last 80 years, is quite a bit harder than nuclear fission in my opinion. Both are very hard, don't get me wrong, but fusion is considered the harder problem of those two.
It is good to ask, whether something is effective, efficient or at least has meaning. But with such endeavours, you can only really judge afterwards because it has never been done before. So the whole ITER project, with machinery that redefines the meaning of custom, costs about 4x as much, as the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport or 4x times as much as the current Lufthansa bailout. I wouldn't consider both to be very efficient spending of public money, but I am no expert. ITER is financed by most of the developed countries in some capacity, the compared projects are only financed by Germany.
ITER is an international, purely scientific, peaceful project that is already going on for many more years than the original Manhattan project. Also fusion doesn't just happen by itself, when you "put the right elements close together". The problem that ITER tries to solve, even considering the advances over last 80 years, is quite a bit harder than nuclear fission in my opinion. Both are very hard, don't get me wrong, but fusion is considered the harder problem of those two.
It is good to ask, whether something is effective, efficient or at least has meaning. But with such endeavours, you can only really judge afterwards because it has never been done before. So the whole ITER project, with machinery that redefines the meaning of custom, costs about 4x as much, as the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport or 4x times as much as the current Lufthansa bailout. I wouldn't consider both to be very efficient spending of public money, but I am no expert. ITER is financed by most of the developed countries in some capacity, the compared projects are only financed by Germany.
Two side remarks: ITER is expected to cost >€20B, achieving fission cost $23B as estimated in hindsight. You say the cost of fission is roughly equals that of fusion, but fission is ITER + past projects + perhaps future project.
1. That implies that the total cost of past fission projects was a very small fraction of ITER's cost.
2. I find it difficult to believe that an eleven-digit hindsight estimate excludes military costs, let alone that the beancounters couldn't/wouldn't estimate "much of the cost".
1. That implies that the total cost of past fission projects was a very small fraction of ITER's cost.
2. I find it difficult to believe that an eleven-digit hindsight estimate excludes military costs, let alone that the beancounters couldn't/wouldn't estimate "much of the cost".
Not just misleading, badly written. This is like what you get when you pit something through Google translate twice just to see what happens...
I recently found out atomic nuclei can be bosons. Astonishing but apparently true: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/158070/helium-nu...
I wonder if this could be used to lower the temperature needed for fusion?
I wonder if this could be used to lower the temperature needed for fusion?