• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion

I don't Iter will be the solution. Laser fusion is far ahead and past break even.

Not even close to break even

Depends how you measure it. Energy produced by fusion has exceeded energy input to trigger the fusion, and if that's your metric, then yes, we're past break even. But this is a somewhat arbitrary and useless milestone. In order to generate power, you need to compare total energy spent (not just energy pumped into the reaction) to useful energy captured (not just energy released by the reaction. That has to get past break even for power generation to even be possible, and we aren't close to that point. And even when we get to that point it won't be enough, because you don't only need to generate net power, you need to generate enough net power to be economically worthwhile.

I don't know if laser fusion or magnetic confinement will get there first (or at all), but we're a long, long ways away from that end goal.
 
Depends how you measure it.
Indeed.

So they put in 2.05Mj and got out 3.15Mj. Sounds great, but to be self-sustaining it has to generate at least enough electricity to keep itself going. Converting the heat to electricity will be ~40% efficient at best. 3.15 * 0.4 = 1.26Mj. Oops!

Then there's the cost.

One thing they didn't tell us is how much tritium was consumed to get that 1.1Mj. Tritium currently costs $30,000 per gram. If the power plant needs 1kg per year (2.7g per day) that's around $30 million annually. Even if they manage to reduce the input power by 50% the net output will only be ~600kW. It might be cheaper to just buy in electricity from elsewhere and route it straight to the output. :rolleyes:

But let's say by some miracle they manage get the input power down to a small faction of the output. They're still spending $30M per year for fuel, on top of construction and maintenance costs. How much would the equivalent wind, solar and battery storage cost? A tiny fraction of that.

Even if fusion power can be made practical technically it still won't be cost-effective. The amount of tritium being produced today is only enough to power a few plants, after which you will need more nuclear fast breeder reactors to produce the fuel. Perhaps the cost will eventually come down to match renewable energy, but by then there will be so much of it we won't need fusion.
 
Last edited:
Tritium is indeed a fuel that is unlikely to ever be produced at the scale a fusion based power production would need.

But there are other fuels one could use for fusion, if you can reach high enough temperatures. Also, fusion reactors can be used as breeders for fuel, reducing overall efficiency to gain extra fuel.

The biggest concern IMO is what kind of emnissons a Fusion reactor produces: everything that creates a lot of fast neutrons is bad, as it weakens the reactor, reducing lifetime and/or increases maintenance costs.

A commercial fusion reactor design will balance fuel availability, efficiency, running costs and stability.

Meaning that even if we got one working today, it will be another 25 years+ before it could be a part of the energy mix.
 
argue with them

Fusion breakeven was first achieved when they invented thermonuclear weapons. The problem is getting useful energy out of the process rather than merely destructive energy. In that respect all they really did was to create a small thermonuclear explosion.

The other thing is that the 2.05 MJ of laser emission energy required a lot more energy to produce:

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/fusion-breakeven-is-a-science-breakthrough

Despite NIF’s accomplishment, the scientific gain discussed here only takes into account the energy delivered to the target by the laser instead of the electrical energy needed to power the laser array itself, which is an inefficient process. Engineering gain, which defines the total electrical energy output from fusion divided by the total electrical energy input to heat the fusion fuel, is the relevant but non-scientific metric for practical commercial fusion.

NIF’s UV lasers use inefficient infrared amplification because they were low-cost options at the time of design and construction in the 1990s. In the announced NIF experiment, roughly 300 MJ of electrical energy was consumed to generate only 2.05 MJ of laser emission energy to trigger fusion. That 2.05 MJ of laser energy produced 3.15 MJ of fusion thermal energy output. The result is only a ~0.0105 (or 1.05 percent) engineering gain, not including the conversion of fusion thermal energy to electrical energy. The laser system itself only operates at a ~0.68 percent efficiency. State-of-the-art solid-state lasers could operate at 10 to 20 times that efficiency, but that is nowhere near efficient enough to reach breakeven engineering gain.

Conversion of thermal fusion energy to electrical energy for consumption would undergo further losses in the range of perhaps 20 to 40 percent. For a NIF-like design to be practical for energy applications, and ignoring economic considerations, fusion target gains would likely need to reach the range of 20 to 80 (or 2,000 to 8,000 percent) instead of the announced 1.54 (or 154 percent).

The true denominator should therefore be 300 MJ, the amount of energy needed to power the lasers, rather than 2.05 MJ which is the amount of energy output by the lasers. That's why it's not even close to break even. If we are being generous, and assume that more efficient "state of the art" lasers are used, that's still around 15 MJ of power consumed to yield 3.15 MJ of energy (and more losses would be involved in actually converting that back into electrical power).
 
Last edited:
Depends how you measure it. Energy produced by fusion has exceeded energy input to trigger the fusion, and if that's your metric, then yes, we're past break even. But this is a somewhat arbitrary and useless milestone. In order to generate power, you need to compare total energy spent (not just energy pumped into the reaction) to useful energy captured (not just energy released by the reaction. That has to get past break even for power generation to even be possible, and we aren't close to that point. And even when we get to that point it won't be enough, because you don't only need to generate net power, you need to generate enough net power to be economically worthwhile.

I don't know if laser fusion or magnetic confinement will get there first (or at all), but we're a long, long ways away from that end goal.

Exactly. They used the amount of energy output by the lasers as the denominator rather than the amount of energy consumed by the lasers.
 
Fusion breakeven was first achieved when they invented thermonuclear weapons. The problem is getting useful energy out of the process rather than merely destructive energy. In that respect all they really did was to create a small thermonuclear explosion.

The other thing is that the 2.05 MJ of laser emission energy required a lot more energy to produce:

Despite NIF’s accomplishment, the scientific gain discussed here only takes into account the energy delivered to the target by the laser instead of the electrical energy needed to power the laser array itself, which is an inefficient process.
Very disappointing. I suspected as much, but gave them the benefit of the doubt. So the article was a lie and it's nowhere near 'break even', let alone over it. :mad:

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nif-fusion-breakeven-peer-multiple.html
the team at NIF used 2.05 megajoules of energy to power the lasers
No, they didn't - you idiots!

How many people are now thinking Fusion is in the bag due to this gaff?
 
Read the release "scientific breakthrough" It was worded carefully
UPDATE 16 APRIL 2024: As IEEE Spectrum contributor Edd Gent wrote in February, the road to practical fusion energy remains very long, even after the National Ignition Facility’s late 2022 breakthrough. The NIF team has now confirmed the results of the experiment, meaning that the facility did, in fact, produce more energy as a result of a fusion reaction than was required to kickstart it.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/national-ignition-facility-impractical

as opposed to "no they didn't":rolleyes:

During NIF’s 5 December laser shot, the amount of energy produced by the fusion reaction (3.15 megajoules) exceeded the laser energy (2.05 MJ) aimed at the capsule. Put another way, for the briefest blink of a moment, the deuterium and tritium within the capsule underwent a self-sustained reaction. From a scientific point of view, this is a tremendous step.

“The fusion reaction is heating the fusion reaction, which is making more fusions happen,” says Steven Cowley, director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. “It’s like the fire has been lit. This is the first controlled fusion ignition that we’ve ever seen, and that’s spectacular.”

From a practical standpoint, this is just one tiny step on the long and unclear road to commercial fusion power.

Outright dismissal of the acknowledged breakthrough is as foolish as any claims of commercial success soon to come.
 
Read the release "scientific breakthrough" It was worded carefully

https://spectrum.ieee.org/national-ignition-facility-impractical

as opposed to "no they didn't":rolleyes:

Outright dismissal of the acknowledged breakthrough is as foolish as any claims of commercial success soon to come.

You said "Laser fusion is far ahead and past break even."

In what sense is it "far ahead" though? "Far ahead" as in closer to commercial success?

As Ziggurat pointed out "In order to generate power, you need to compare total energy spent (not just energy pumped into the reaction) to useful energy captured (not just energy released by the reaction. That has to get past break even for power generation to even be possible, and we aren't close to that point."

This may be an interesting scientific result, but I don't see it as a viable path to commercial power production.
 
I think storage tech and renewables will win the race for power and still hope that fission reactors continue to be built.
Including fast reactors. Fears of them and nuclear power are overblown and ridiculous.
There are far more immediate threats.

The materials science learned in attempting fusion is useful knowledge.
 
Last edited:
I think storage tech and renewables will win the race for power and still hope that fission reactors continue to be built.
They are and will be, where economic.

Including fast reactors.
Fears of them and nuclear power are overblown and ridiculous.
It's not ludicrous to fear that unregulated development of a new type of nuclear reactor by companies more interested in profit than safety could lead to disaster. The nuclear industry knows this too.

There are far more immediate threats.
Indeed. Nuclear plants take years to build and new types will take even longer to get the bugs out of, so there's little immediate threat from them.

If only we could convince people how immediate the threat of global warming is. But no, they keep burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow.

The materials science learned in attempting fusion is useful knowledge.
Sure. But it would be better if we got more out of it than just science. We need technology that produces sustainable low-carbon energy now, not in 10 or 20 years time (if ever).
 
They are and will be, where economic.

It's not ludicrous to fear that unregulated development of a new type of nuclear reactor by companies more interested in profit than safety could lead to disaster. The nuclear industry knows this too.

Indeed. Nuclear plants take years to build and new types will take even longer to get the bugs out of, so there's little immediate threat from them.

If only we could convince people how immediate the threat of global warming is. But no, they keep burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow.

Sure. But it would be better if we got more out of it than just science. We need technology that produces sustainable low-carbon energy now, not in 10 or 20 years time (if ever).

You know that kind of technology is not just produced on demand; even it full spped ahead mode of reserch it could take ten years to get there?
 
problem I have with the Anti Nukes is even if a safe fusion reactor is discovered, they would sitll oppose it just because it is nuclear. The whole "anything Nuclear is evil" idea is just too much a part of their belief system.
 
They are and will be, where economic.

It's not ludicrous to fear that unregulated development of a new type of nuclear reactor by companies more interested in profit than safety could lead to disaster. The nuclear industry knows this too.

Indeed. Nuclear plants take years to build and new types will take even longer to get the bugs out of, so there's little immediate threat from them.

If only we could convince people how immediate the threat of global warming is. But no, they keep burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow.

Sure. But it would be better if we got more out of it than just science. We need technology that produces sustainable low-carbon energy now, not in 10 or 20 years time (if ever).

I have a feeling if it was TeslaXFusion your post would sound different.
/jerky statement, I apologize.

What I do wonder, should fusion power ever come about productively, how would it function in a capitalist society? Not that it wouldn't, I'm just wondering about market forces and stuff. I can see advances in energy being cleaner, but I doubt it will ever reduce my energy costs. Not trying to sound selfish, I'm fine paying the same rate for cleaner energy, just curious
 
problem I have with the Anti Nukes is even if a safe fusion reactor is discovered, they would sitll oppose it just because it is nuclear. The whole "anything Nuclear is evil" idea is just too much a part of their belief system.

So far they are 100% correct. Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build. And the long-term waste disposal system has not been implemented in many countries that use nuclear power. It is the only type of power plant that if everyone suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke would cause significant environmental problems.
 
Nuclear Power made a huge chunk of our Space Exploration up to this point possible, and will be used in the future, too.
It is a very useful technology - but at this point, it is NOT a sustainable one.
Not because of fundamental problems, but because of governments and companies not willing to address the entire chain of production, building all the way to decommissioning seriously, deciding to leave those problems for the future generations and future taxpayers.

There is just a fundamental dishonesty in commercial nuclear power, a Corporate Socialism that puts all the risks and long-term effects on the public and all the profits on the shareholders.
 
So far they are 100% correct. Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build. And the long-term waste disposal system has not been implemented in many countries that use nuclear power. It is the only type of power plant that if everyone suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke would cause significant environmental problems.

I disagree with everything you wrote here.
Expensive?: Compared to a full wind/solar grid with storage it is far cheaper.

Long time to build?: If you look at outliers, sure, but we should look at the average, which is 6-8 years. Agree on a design, and build many of them, which would greatly speed up the process.

Compare this with building wind farms in the UK, where many are delayed by over 10years owing to problems building the extra infrastructure.

Long term disposal continues to be a non-issue, no matter how many times it is brought up.

It is the only type of power plant that if everyone suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke would cause significant environmental problems.
This is so wrong I hardly know where to begin. Modern designs use passive shutdown, so again, a non-issue.

The opposition to nuclear power is based upon fear, and nothing else.
 
I disagree with everything you wrote here.
Expensive?: Compared to a full wind/solar grid with storage it is far cheaper.

Long time to build?: If you look at outliers, sure, but we should look at the average, which is 6-8 years. Agree on a design, and build many of them, which would greatly speed up the process.

Compare this with building wind farms in the UK, where many are delayed by over 10years owing to problems building the extra infrastructure.

Long term disposal continues to be a non-issue, no matter how many times it is brought up.


This is so wrong I hardly know where to begin. Modern designs use passive shutdown, so again, a non-issue.

The opposition to nuclear power is based upon fear, and nothing else.


It's amazing how all CEOs and Investors refuse to make tons of money because they are scared.
 
So far they are 100% correct. Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build. And the long-term waste disposal system has not been implemented in many countries that use nuclear power. It is the only type of power plant that if everyone suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke would cause significant environmental problems.

Now compare the storage issues of nuclear waste to the storage issues of the waste products of fossil fuels. How many people have died from exposure to nuclear waste? How many people have died due to exposure to air and water pollution from fossil fuels?
 
I disagree with everything you wrote here.
Expensive?: Compared to a full wind/solar grid with storage it is far cheaper.

Long time to build?: If you look at outliers, sure, but we should look at the average, which is 6-8 years. Agree on a design, and build many of them, which would greatly speed up the process.

Compare this with building wind farms in the UK, where many are delayed by over 10years owing to problems building the extra infrastructure.

Long term disposal continues to be a non-issue, no matter how many times it is brought up.


This is so wrong I hardly know where to begin. Modern designs use passive shutdown, so again, a non-issue.

The opposition to nuclear power is based upon fear, and nothing else.

Your post is unsourced. Here is a reference for you https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/

The problems it lists are
1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation
2. Cost
3. Weapons Proliferation Risk
4. Meltdown Risk
5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk
6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution
7. Waste Risk
 
I have been doing some more reading. Nuclear power plants can be built quickly. To do this you need to build several of them all with the same design. Then you learn how to build them without making mistakes. The USA have not built many recently, so the few they are constructing are taking a long time.
 
Your post is unsourced. Here is a reference for you https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/

The problems it lists are
1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation
2. Cost
3. Weapons Proliferation Risk
4. Meltdown Risk
5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk
6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution
7. Waste Risk

This has all been addressed in the actual thread on nuclear power, rather than this fusion thread.

But anyway...
Time to build:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time

Cost - That would involve reading a book, but a ref is here:
To evaluate the costs of different strategies for deep decarbonization of electricity generation, the team looked at nearly 1,000 different scenarios involving different assumptions about the availability and cost of low-carbon technologies, geographical variations in the availability of renewable resources, and different policies on their use.

Regarding the policies, the team compared two different approaches. The “restrictive” approach permitted only the use of solar and wind generation plus battery storage, augmented by measures to reduce and shift the timing of demand for electricity, as well as long-distance transmission lines to help smooth out local and regional variations. The “inclusive” approach used all of those technologies but also permitted the option of using continual carbon-free sources, such as nuclear power, bioenergy, and natural gas with a system for capturing and storing carbon emissions. Under every case the team studied, the broader mix of sources was found to be more affordable.

The cost savings of the more inclusive approach relative to the more restricted case were substantial. Including continual, or “firm,” low-carbon resources in a zero-carbon resource mix lowered costs anywhere from 10 percent to as much as 62 percent, across the many scenarios analyzed. That’s important to know, the authors stress, because in many cases existing and proposed regulations and economic incentives favor, or even mandate, a more restricted range of energy resources.
https://news.mit.edu/2018/adding-power-choices-reduces-cost-risk-carbon-free-electricity-0906

Going 100% wind/solar is not economic, owing to the huge amount of storage & excess wind/solar capacity that would have to have installed. Although these are currently cheap, it would get far more expensive the more excess capacity you install, as they would spend much of the time idle.

Weapons proliferation: Really? You're trying that one.. A commercial plant is not a risk to this.

Meltdown risk: Perhaps you could show how this could occur in a modern design? And while you're at it, compare the risks with wind & solar in terms of risk to life.

Mining: see any mining activity.

Waste: already addressed.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have.

Again, this is about fission, in a fusion thread.
 
I have been doing some more reading. Nuclear power plants can be built quickly. To do this you need to build several of them all with the same design. Then you learn how to build them without making mistakes. The USA have not built many recently, so the few they are constructing are taking a long time.

Every . Single . Time someone tried to do this, it failed: no two locations are alike enough to use an "off the shelf" design.
The attempts have cost overruns in time and money when components had to be modified.

The only way to save on money&time is to build monster-size complexes with many reactors running in parallel.

It is just baffling that people think companies and investors wouldn't have already done already this if the ROI was there.

"Doing your own research" should be preceded by a Qui Bono analysis of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Every . Single . Time someone tried to do this, it failed: no two locations are alike enough to use an "off the shelf" design.
The attempts have cost overruns in time and money when components had to be modified.

The only way to save on money&time is to build monster-size complexes with many reactors running in parallel.

It is just baffling that people think companies and investors wouldn't have already done already this if the ROJ was there.

"Doing your own research" should be preceded by a Qui Bono analysis of the problem.
So build the same design and at the same time. Learn from countries who have actually succeeded in this:
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea

S.Korea actually brought the cost down. Although that may be limited in the US.
 
Instead, Gates and others are going the opposite way, trying to build smaller, single reactors instead of 8 regular ones to a site.
Small reactors come with pretty much all the problems and then some, but to compensate they cost more per output and have a shorter lifespan.

It is really, really not the all-powerful environment lobby, with its millions in campaign contributions and army of Washington lobbyists that is standing in the way of nuclear reactor construction.
 
Every . Single . Time someone tried to do this, it failed: no two locations are alike enough to use an "off the shelf" design.

Why would location change the design that much?

Because of cooling. The cooling infrastructure required on a large nuclear reactor is the ONLY thing that significantly varies from location to location. The location has nothing to do with the design of the pressure vessel, for example.

But cooling needs are much less, and thus much simpler, with a small reactor. Which means small reactors can have common designs.
 
The key difference between Wind/Solar and Nuclear when it comes to Regulation and Planning is that the former can be build and dismantled within a decade and still return a profit.

A Reactor has to run for 50 years.

Because of this longevity, nuclear power needs orders of magnitude more regulation and planning.
And with Climate Change "drying up" many of the former sources of Cooling, now or in a few decades, finding a place for a reactor that is going to be a good place in 50 years is hard.

If a solar or wind farm needs to be moved, no problem.
 
The key difference between Wind/Solar and Nuclear when it comes to Regulation and Planning is that the former can be build and dismantled within a decade and still return a profit.

A Reactor has to run for 50 years.

Because of this longevity, nuclear power needs orders of magnitude more regulation and planning.
And with Climate Change "drying up" many of the former sources of Cooling, now or in a few decades, finding a place for a reactor that is going to be a good place in 50 years is hard.

If a solar or wind farm needs to be moved, no problem.

That's not a disadvantage. A nuclear plant can last over 50years, so will be producing energy for most of the time.

Compare this with wind turbines, where they can last up to about 20 years.... although many have been lasting for far less than this, owing to unforeseen gear box issues, caused by their operating pattern.

You could get around this by direct drive systems, but that would involve far more rare earth materials (for the magnets). And weight & cost.

Water:
Siting nuclear power plants is not that difficult. I think all of our UK sites are on the coast, but even if they aren't we also have estuaries, and rivers where drying up is unlikely. But its just like other plants that need water.
 
Last edited:
It's a huge problem all across Continental Europe - France can't use half its reactors in summer because the rivers run too hot and low
 
It's a huge problem all across Continental Europe - France can't use half its reactors in summer because the rivers run too hot and low

Perhaps you could point to nuclear sites in European countries other than France that have had this problem.

And in 2022, when the problem was there, it was down to temperature rather than drought. They reduced output rather than shut them down. And it wasn't just nuclear plants that had to reduce its water intakes, but other thermal plants as well.

High river temperatures and curtailment

As for the output curtailments due to river conditions, such weather-related incidents are an increasing reality for all energy industries amidst the changing climate. But they are a manageable issue. Importantly, they did not represent a binary “available/unavailable” reliability issue either — the plants were able to keep running safely but were forced as a matter of regulation to reduce output for the sake of river ecosystems downstream (French law requires such reductions when water temperatures reach certain thresholds, or when river levels and flow rates are low). River-sited fossil fuel and hydroelectric plants sometimes reduce output for similar environmental reasons.

No generation source, including renewable energy, is immune from seasonal weather variations. Wind power in the EU, for example, generated less than half its yearly high over the summer of 2022, and there are sometimes multiple days and weeks where wind output is negligible throughout the region. Dramatic variations in seasonal availability also exist for solar energy. While energy storage can address daily fluctuations for wind and solar, multi-week and seasonal wind and solar droughts are not practically addressable with current storage technology.
https://www.catf.us/2023/07/2022-french-nuclear-outages-lessons-nuclear-energy-europe/

And renewables have also been impacted, as wind was down. for the same period, but more greatly impacted.
See above

Speaking of climate change... solar PVs suffer from higher temperatures, as they lose efficiency. Which is why you often find solar thermal plants in hotter climates.
 
Last edited:
and temperature is getting worse all across Europe.

Again, if this was such a no-brainer, why do you think companies don't want to invest in it?

How are you able to see it and they are not?
 
Last edited:
Again, if this was such a no-brainer, why do you think companies don't want to invest in it?

How are you able to see it and they are not?

Who said we see anything that they don't? The hurdles aren't technical, they are political. But companies need to consider political hurdles, because they can destroy a company. Nobody in favor of nuclear energy denies that. In fact, that's largely what we seek: removal of the political hurdles that are preventing nuclear energy adoption.
 
Back
Top Bottom