Merged How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion

[Puppycow]

UK government announces plans to build first prototype commercial fusion power reactor with plan for it to be running by 2040s.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-63119465

FTFY

I'm skeptical that this will actually produce usable surplus power. We'll see. They claim it will be:

"The plant will be the first of its kind, built by 2040 and capable of putting energy on the grid, and in doing so will prove the commercial viability of fusion energy to the world."

That seems like quite a bold claim to me. I hope it's true. If so, that would mean that fusion power is now 18 years away. I'm glad they put a date certain on it though.

 

[Puppycow]

Sure, but they don't have to compete for energy costs.
The idea of a small reactor was to be something portable - which sets a limit on weight and hence shielding.

Portable in what sense? By a person? By a large vehicle like a truck or train? I don't think that portability like that is a necessary feature. You decide where you want to put it and you build it on site and leave it there I would think.

 

[arthwollipot]

That seems like quite a bold claim to me. I hope it's true. If so, that would mean that fusion power is now 18 years away. I'm glad they put a date certain on it though.

I think it's ambitious, to be sure. Mind you "capable of putting energy on the grid" doesn't say how much of the baseline load it will support.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Isn't the actual problem failing to decide to build them? There are something like seven gen III designs approved by the NRC some of which that can be certified and built in less than a decade if someone just decides to do it.

But there aren't that many companies in the world able to build reactors - so even if we handed out building permits like candy, we wouldn't get them build much faster.


The other limiting step for nuclear power is Cooling: many reactors operating today have to shut down in the hottest weeks of the year, as cooling them would heat up the rivers and lakes they are at to levels unsafe for flora and fauna.
And that will get worse with climate change, severely limiting the locations we can build a power plant with an expected lifetime of 50 years plus, given the dropping water levels in most rivers.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Portable in what sense? By a person? By a large vehicle like a truck or train? I don't think that portability like that is a necessary feature. You decide where you want to put it and you build it on site and leave it there I would think.

The common concepts are trucks.
A barge might be more feasible.

 

[Planigale]

Sure, but they don't have to compete for energy costs.
The idea of a small reactor was to be something portable - which sets a limit on weight and hence shielding.

The key word here is modular. It is the individual modules that are transportable not the whole reactor.

The concept is rather than the reactor being constructed (and deconstructed) on site, most of it is 'mass' produced at a factory and the modules are joined on site. At end of life the fuel module can be removed to a decommissioning factory. It is the 'mass' production (and decommissioning) concept that is the key cost saving measure rather than having to effectively have the factory built on site for each reactor.

The UK industry will be based on the reactors for nuclear submarines, so using a well known technology, the modules will probably be road transportable, but given the factory is on the coast and most sites are coastal, it is possible that most of the distance may be by sea.

 

[wobs]

But there aren't that many companies in the world able to build reactors - so even if we handed out building permits like candy, we wouldn't get them build much faster.

This is similar to an argument we once heard about offshore wind in the UK. We now see rather large wind farms off the coast near us.

I would also point out that the UK started setting up nuclear related degrees many years ago. When the market is hungry for something, someone is likely to step up and built it. and the brains to do it is already out there.

The other limiting step for nuclear power is Cooling: many reactors operating today have to shut down in the hottest weeks of the year, as cooling them would heat up the rivers and lakes they are at to levels unsafe for flora and fauna.
And that will get worse with climate change, severely limiting the locations we can build a power plant with an expected lifetime of 50 years plus, given the dropping water levels in most rivers.

Also, solar PV loses it's efficiency at such temperatures.

As for water availiability, we tend to build them on the coast, and abstract from well below the surface. In addition, there are studies being carried out to look at fresh water avialibility here in the UK* with the onset of climate change.

Cooling systems in general need to adapt to climate change. This is something that we can do.


* - Sorry for UKcentricism.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Are the problems of nuclear power solvable?
Sure, within two to four generations of reactor designs; that's 80 in human years.

 

[wobs]

Are the problems of nuclear power solvable?
Sure, within two to four generations of reactor designs; that's 80 in human years.

I disagree fully. There are many new designs of reactor, that address a range of issues. And many criticisms to nuclear power and thoroughly misplaced:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/th...nuclear-energy-for-climate-mitigation/618137/

But the question remains about why don't we build CANDU reactors for supplying fusion reactors. It might not fit in with people's feel good approach to energy, but in terms of safety, I really can't see a safer energy source (unless we just build regular reactors). If the alternative is going to the moon to get helium-3, then a CANDU reactor to produce tritium, has to be safer by multple orders of magnitude, espoecially as nuclear power is teh safest energy source we currently have.

And the cost of nuclear is addressed in the link.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Inching forward.

Nuclear Fusion Experiment Reveals Unexpected Physics Inside ‘Burning Plasma’

Researchers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a device at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), recently celebrated the milestone of creating what’s known as a “burning plasma,” which is an energized state of matter that is mostly sustained by “alpha particles” created by fusion reactions. The NIF has also reached the threshold of producing “ignition,” meaning fusion reactions that are self-sustaining, which is a major breakthrough, though it will likely still take decades to develop a fusion reactor—assuming it is possible at all.

And here's the paper:

Evidence for suprathermal ion distribution in burning plasmas

We observe a departure from the relationship expected for plasmas where the ion relative kinetic energy distribution is Maxwell–Boltzmann, when the plasma begins to burn. Understanding the cause of this departure from hydrodynamic behaviour could be important for achieving robust and reproducible ignition.

 

[Puppycow]

A setback for ITER:



Full story here:

https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3818

KEY COMPONENTS TO BE REPAIRED

When building a machine as large and as complex as ITER, difficulties and setbacks do not come as surprises—they are an integral part of manufacturing, assembling and installing first-of-a-kind components. From the first stages of fabrication to the final insertion in the Tokamak pit, component challenges are a constant and familiar companion. Sometimes, however, in the midst of ordinary, almost daily issues, a concern of a larger dimension arises—one which demands in-depth examination, creativity in devising corrective actions, and time and budget to repair. Two-and-a-half years into its machine assembly phase, ITER is facing a concern of this nature: defects have been identified in two key tokamak components, the thermal shields and the vacuum vessel sectors.

Apparently the problem is so dire that a module that had already been installed must be removed and disassembled in order to make repairs.

How much time this will add I'm not sure, but I would guess quite a substantial amount of time.

 

[William Parcher]

Did CNN get tricked by free energy kooks?

CNN: US scientists reach long-awaited nuclear fusion breakthrough, source says

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

This is just another nothingburger, right?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The question in your title seems a little bit harsh.

The article itself appears quite reasonable.

I guess we could wait until the official announcement from the DOE on Tuesday.

About two decades away.

 

[theprestige]

My impression is that achieving sustainable net positive fusion reactions requires a large number of extremely challenging scientific and engineering breakthroughs, some of which won't even be well understood as problems until certain precursor solutions have been accomplished. This appears to be one of those precursor solutions. So, yes a major breakthrough, but only one of many small, equally challenging steps towards the goal.

 

[Ziggurat]

CNN: US scientists reach long-awaited nuclear fusion breakthrough, source says

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

This is just another nothingburger, right?

The significance of this announcement isn't clear yet. But it's not "free energy" and it's not kooks. It's laser ignition fusion. Laser ignition fusion isn't free, not by a long shot. It uses deuterium and tritium fuel, which do in fact contain massive amounts of potential energy.

I don't know if laser ignition fusion will end up working (in the sense of being able to generate usable energy - we can already make fusion occur with laser ignition). There are still massive hurdles, we're not on the cusp of application. But it's very much legitimate science and engineering.

 

[lobosrul5]

US scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California ... sure doesn't sound like CNN was tricked by "kooks". If we do indeed have kooks working at our national labs, at high end positions, then we are in pretty serious trouble.

Now may they have misrepresented what the breakthru actually is? Sure, I mean the media does that with scientific discoveries all the time.

 

[dudalb]

There have been so many false stories about nuclear fusion one has to be cautious, but let's wait and see what the DOE has to say.
Question is has enough progress bene made to justify the expense of a Manhatten Project style effor to get fusion energy?
And you will have some fools who are against ANY form of nuclear power.
And comparing nuclear fusion to the free energy craziness is just plain wrong.

 

[Puppycow]

Achieving fusion isn’t the real challenge. Technically we already did that long ago with nuclear weapons. As Ziggurat rightly points out, the problem is how to make the fusion generate useful energy as opposed to simply destructive energy.

The question is how can this lead to power that is practical for mass consumption. It has to be scalable and not crazy expensive.

 

[shemp]

Now we're only 18 years away!

 

[lionking]

CNN: US scientists reach long-awaited nuclear fusion breakthrough, source says

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

This is just another nothingburger, right?

Where on earth did you get “free energy” from?