Fusion Power

[GMDino]

(12-12-2022, 01:55 PM)Stewy Wrote: The first step has been made.

Energy GAINED from a nuclear fusion reaction.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/nuclear-fusion-energy-us-scientists-climate/index.html

It is a long way from commercial application, but this was/is the first time ever that more energy was gained vs. used, and that is staggering.

Fusion isn't just about energy for us, but also it is the pathway to the stars.

Just thought I'd share.

I just watched a video on this last night.  I wouldn't even begin to say I understand any of it, but my question is about the containment part. I assume that that part is safe also.

But it's a fascinating leap!

[Stewy]

(12-13-2022, 10:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: I just watched a video on this last night.  I wouldn't even begin to say I understand any of it, but my question is about the containment part. I assume that that part is safe also.

But it's a fascinating leap!

My understanding based upon following this is that , unlike fission where lack of containment means meltdown, when a Fusion reaction breaks down that means it's lost it's magnetic fields that contain the reaction, and when the fields drop, the reaction stops.

The magnetic fields support and contain the reaction within the ball of plasma.  The magnetic fields create the "container", thus the more efficient the magnetic fields, the more efficient the reaction.  A LOT of progress has been made on magnetic fields over the last 5 years (magnets are getting smaller, stronger, more efficient, cheaper).  You hear tell of the plasma being heated to more than 10x the surface of the sun, and I believe the reason for that being needed is because we can't simulate the pressures in the core of the Sun, so we use elevated pressure for Fusion instead.

Finally, the comment above was made about the reaction ONLY generating enough heat to boil 10 kettles of water.  It takes ALOT of energy to boil 10 kettles of water and it was energy generated in only 5 seconds, which was the length of the reaction.

So moving forward they will be working on scaling up the process, efficiency and most importantly SUSTAINABILITY.

[Stewy]

A slight correction to what I previously posted in explanation to GMDino. I did some more research....

This was specifically a US based effort out in California.
-The US funded and sanctioned - Facility is called "Ignition"
-ITER is an international consortia Fusion effort of which the US is apart.
-A UK effort actually achieved positive energy from a reaction last year, but the % gain was very small, like less than 2%
-Ignition reaction generated OVER 50% more energy than was put into the reaction more than 50x the efficiency of the UK effort
-Ignition is a laser based approach, vs. the magnetic based approach of ITER and others
-Ignition uses 129 lasers, all focusing XRAYs constructively to start the fusion reaction
-ITER and other magnetic field fusion attempts use super strong magnetic fields to cause and contain the reaction
---I believe the laser based approach is pure "ignition" and not containment like the magnetic field version.
-Both methods use Deuterium (known as heavy water) as their fuel, which can be found and easily accessed from Seawater

Strangely, finding deep detail on Ignition (for we science geeks) is actually a struggle. :)

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-13-2022, 05:10 PM)Stewy Wrote: Strangely, finding deep detail on Ignition (for we science geeks) is actually a struggle. :)

Woohoo. I bet there are spies from around the world working on job applications for that program as we speak.

[Stewy]

(12-13-2022, 05:10 PM)Stewy Wrote: A slight correction to what I previously posted in explanation to GMDino.  I did some more research....

This was specifically a US based effort out in California.
-The US funded and sanctioned - Facility is called "Ignition"
-ITER is an international consortia Fusion effort of which the US is apart.
-A UK effort actually achieved positive energy from a reaction last year, but the % gain was very small, like less than 2%
-Ignition reaction generated OVER 50% more energy than was put into the reaction more than 50x the efficiency of the UK effort
-Ignition is a laser based approach, vs. the magnetic based approach of ITER and others
-Ignition uses 129 lasers, all focusing XRAYs constructively to start the fusion reaction
-ITER and other magnetic field fusion attempts use super strong magnetic fields to cause and contain the reaction
---I believe the laser based approach is pure "ignition" and not containment like the magnetic field version.
-Both methods use Deuterium (known as heavy water) as their fuel, which can be found and easily accessed from Seawater

Strangely, finding deep detail on Ignition (for we science geeks) is actually a struggle.  :)

(08-27-2023, 01:31 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sorry, too lazy to find the right thread...

What do you have to say about the recent replication of fusion gain?  Is it fully viable, or is the jury still out?  Is it possible to reach commercial scale within the next 30-50 years?

See my latest above about Ignition, and scroll up to find out more.  Assuming you read the above, my response to you would be:

ITER:  is an attempt to scale up a Magnetic Containmentinemnt based Fusion approach to a more commercial level.  Note:  The UK succeeded is producing more energy than it used, but only by 2%.  With that said, ITER ha been running into glitches, delays and cost over runs.  it doesn't help that Russia has a big hand in this and is having issues paying it's part of the bills.

Ignition:  See above, but laser based instead of Magnetic Containment.  This is solely a US funded effort, and I believe it is largely military, thus I wouldn't be surprised if the US keeps it tight to the vest, even with publications going out.  If Ignition can achieve a 50% energy gain (25x the magnetic), over the Mag Contain. methos, that is a HUGE competitive advantage for the US, and I'm betting the military will be loath to allow the scientists to share how to do it even for replication purposes.  If they believe in it and it works, then why share it?  The flip side could be that it's just a big hoax and they don't want to admit it (See Cold Fusion previously - google).

As for commercial viability.....I've said before and have never wavered that barring SIGNIFICANT and potentially unheard of breakthroughs, we are at least a century away from commercial fusion.  Why?  #1 - Mostly the reaction only last micro seconds before the fuel is used up;  #2 - ITER is an attempt to scale it up, but it is a colossal undertaking (look it up on youtube); #3 - Fusions Dirty little secret that no one talks about - Deuterium produces radioactive waste the same as Fission reactions, so it is no cleaner than Fission (currently).

Summary:  We're nowhere near commercial fusion.  We have to replace the current reactions, maintain the reactions, contain them, make the system more efficient, deal with the waste, THEN scale them up with technologies likely not even invented yet for commercial use.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-27-2023, 02:26 PM)Stewy Wrote: See my latest above about Ignition, and scroll up to find out more.  Assuming you read the above, my response to you would be:

ITER:  is an attempt to scale up a Magnetic Containmentinemnt based Fusion approach to a more commercial level.  Note:  The UK succeeded is producing more energy than it used, but only by 2%.  With that said, ITER ha been running into glitches, delays and cost over runs.  it doesn't help that Russia has a big hand in this and is having issues paying it's part of the bills.

Ignition:  See above, but laser based instead of Magnetic Containment.  This is solely a US funded effort, and I believe it is largely military, thus I wouldn't be surprised if the US keeps it tight to the vest, even with publications going out.  If Ignition can achieve a 50% energy gain (25x the magnetic), over the Mag Contain. methos, that is a HUGE competitive advantage for the US, and I'm betting the military will be loath to allow the scientists to share how to do it even for replication purposes.  If they believe in it and it works, then why share it?  The flip side could be that it's just a big hoax and they don't want to admit it (See Cold Fusion previously - google).

As for commercial viability.....I've said before and have never wavered that barring SIGNIFICANT and potentially unheard of breakthroughs, we are at least a century away from commercial fusion.  Why?  #1 - Mostly the reaction only last micro seconds before the fuel is used up;  #2 - ITER is an attempt to scale it up, but it is a colossal undertaking (look it up on youtube); #3 - Fusions Dirty little secret that no one talks about - Deuterium produces radioactive waste the same as Fission reactions, so it is no cleaner than Fission (currently).

Summary:  We're nowhere near commercial fusion.  We have to replace the current reactions, maintain the reactions, contain them, make the system more efficient, deal with the waste, THEN scale them up with technologies likely not even invented yet for commercial use.

Sounds like the best answer is still to design and build some modernized nuclear power plants (there has to be some significant upgrades we can make from the 1950s designs, no? Improved material technology at the very least) if we want reliable energy without oil and coal. Not sure how else they are going to meet energy needs with all the push for electric cars, electric stoves, and heat pumps if commercial fusion is that far away.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-27-2023, 02:26 PM)Stewy Wrote: See my latest above about Ignition, and scroll up to find out more.  Assuming you read the above, my response to you would be:Summary:  We're nowhere near commercial fusion.  We have to replace the current reactions, maintain the reactions, contain them, make the system more efficient, deal with the waste, THEN scale them up with technologies likely not even invented yet for commercial use.

Thanks.  Informative as always.  Although I feel like we've gotten to the top of the mountain, and 30 years is a LONG time for technical innovation that I think will solve the engineering challenges.  At least, seems like it's no longer "if" but "when".

Also, not sure of the half-life but the radioactive waste is low-level.  Still creates challenges on cost and durability, but hopefully a different game now that the idea is more than just a theory.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-27-2023, 03:20 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Sounds like the best answer is still to design and build some modernized nuclear power plants (there has to be some significant upgrades we can make from the 1950s designs, no? Improved material technology at the very least) if we want reliable energy without oil and coal. Not sure how else they are going to meet energy needs with all the push for electric cars, electric stoves, and heat pumps if commercial fusion is that far away.

I don't know what they've been doing the last 20 years.  Certainly wasn't because people thought fusion was just around the corner.  IMO, renewables have exceeded all but the most optimistic expectations, so I don't think people were sitting around waiting for renewables to take over, either.  But nuclear also isn't cheap, so maybe the fracking boom crowded out nuclear investment.

I think the bigger issue is cheap energy, and barring new discoveries or innovations, fossil fuels procurement will eventually become too expensive and lead to permanent global contractions until an alternative is found.  30 years?  50 or 100 years?  I don't know.  But now that we're starting to see some projects in the works and the narrative shifting on nuclear, maybe there's growing concern that day could be uncomfortably close.  Maybe Ukraine was both a reminder about the importance of energy independence, but also how fragile the balance of energy supply & demand is.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-27-2023, 02:26 PM)Stewy Wrote:  I'm betting the military will be loath to allow the scientists to share how to do it even for replication purposes.  If they believe in it and it works, then why share it?  

Obviously they already have it - how do you think their tic-tac is powered to fly around?  

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-27-2023, 03:20 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Sounds like the best answer is still to design and build some modernized nuclear power plants (there has to be some significant upgrades we can make from the 1950s designs, no? Improved material technology at the very least) if we want reliable energy without oil and coal. Not sure how else they are going to meet energy needs with all the push for electric cars, electric stoves, and heat pumps if commercial fusion is that far away.

From my understanding the risk of catastrophic failure is greatly reduced with new designs. Instead of cooling or emergency cooling relying on pumps and stuff that can fail. The cooling system was the problem at Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and Fukushima.

Apparently new cooling designs rely on good ole gravity. Not sure exactly how it works. I guess maybe the reactor sits above a tank of water and if a certain temp is reached it drops in?

[grampahol]

On the bright side flying cars have already been invented, but think about some drunk crashing his flying car right into the roof of your house? 

[CKwi88]

(08-28-2023, 04:28 PM)grampahol Wrote: On the bright side flying cars have already been invented, but think about some drunk crashing his flying car right into the roof of your house? 

People already have a hard time with an XY axis as it comes with driving. I can't imagine adding a z axis.