Merged How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion

[rjh01]

I missed this yesterday; yes of course it's everywhere - tightly bound in molecules it has to be split from, which requires energy, and therein lies the problem, surely you can see that?

Actually it is not any hydrogen that can be fused. You need some neutrons as well. Best if the hydrogen atom has two neutrons. But that does not accur much in nature. The cost to produce it is expensive. There are alternatives, but they come with their own problems.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The solar panels on your roof and mine convert about 20% of the incident radiation of a very distant fusion reactor into electrical energy. So far, none of the fusion reactors on earth have produced any electrical energy. It is possible that they never will. Isn't it better to invest money to advance technology that works, instead of taking an expensive gamble on unproven technology?

That depends on who you are.

If you are a nuclear physicist then working on a hard problem like fusion is far more interesting and profitable, especially if you luck onto a 'breakthrough'.

Similarly, if you are filthy rich and/or own a 'big energy' company and still want more, cornering the fusion market is too big an opportunity to miss.

Finally, if you want a scam with low risk of being called out that will keep the money flowing for decades, fusion is your man!

 

[arthwollipot]

Not only battery technology, my friend. How about steel flywheels spinning on friction-less magnetic bearings in vacuum chambers, as this company is doing?

How about pumped storage in abandoned deep mines? Here (USA) and here (South Africa).

The solar panels on your roof and mine convert about 20% of the incident radiation of a very distant fusion reactor into electrical energy. So far, none of the fusion reactors on earth have produced any electrical energy. It is possible that they never will. Isn't it better to invest money to advance technology that works, instead of taking an expensive gamble on unproven technology?

There you go again. One thing or the other. Investing money in two (or sixteen) things at the same time appears completely foreign to you.

 

[BrettM]

I am not against spending money on research. I object to money being spent unwisely. Let me give you an analogy.

Spending money on renewable power storage research is like investing in government bonds. Not a spectacular investment, but safe.

Spending money on nuclear fusion research is like buying tickets to a lottery. You might win big, but the chances of losing are even greater.

But wait, there's more! Money is just part of the equation. Time is the other part. After numerous delays, ITER (the poster child for nuclear fusion power) is scheduled to produce its first plasma in 2025, and go full fusion in 2035. The follow-up DEMO plant (the one that's actually supposed to produce power) is scheduled to come on line in the 2050's. By that time the world will be in deep trouble.

Returning to our analogy: Imagine buying lottery tickets, and being told that the winner will be announced in 30 years' time. Wouldn't you think there are better ways to invest your money?

 

[arthwollipot]

No, in the 2050s the world will not be in deep trouble, because in the meantime the investment in renewables and in grid storage will be paying off.

Again, it's not like investing in fusion research is going to prevent investment in other technologies.

 

[Roboramma]

Isn't it better to invest money to advance technology that works, instead of taking an expensive gamble on unproven technology?

By this logic, we shouldn't have invested money into developing solar photovoltaics given that we already had technologies that worked (coal fired power plants for instance, but also nuclear fission).

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Or helium

 

[wobs]

Not only battery technology, my friend. How about steel flywheels spinning on friction-less magnetic bearings in vacuum chambers, as this company is doing?

How about pumped storage in abandoned deep mines? Here (USA) and here (South Africa).

The solar panels on your roof and mine convert about 20% of the incident radiation of a very distant fusion reactor into electrical energy. So far, none of the fusion reactors on earth have produced any electrical energy. It is possible that they never will. Isn't it better to invest money to advance technology that works, instead of taking an expensive gamble on unproven technology?

The technologies you suggest for storage are mature, meaning they are unlikely to become more economic/more efficient in any meaningful sense.

Solar panels will become more efficient in time, but how much is open to debate. What we do know is that there is a limit to how efficient we can make them, and they will always depend on storage if you want to rely on them for prolonged periods. The goes for wind turbines of course, and using them together will not solve that.

There is an economic issue with this, as installing more and more storage (and/or excess capacity) rapidly becomes less and less economic, the more you install. This means that you are limited by how much you can reasonably install, which is why we need fission currently, and fusion in the long term.

Although it is likely that we will always need fission to supply fusion in the long term. In theory, you can use fusion without fission, but I find it unlikely.

 

[Darat]

I missed this yesterday; yes of course it's everywhere - tightly bound in molecules it has to be split from, which requires energy, and therein lies the problem, surely you can see that?

Fusion is a tad different to most speculative research. We know fusion happens, we know it can happen and produce "excess" energy. Everything else is just engineering!

 

[BrettM]

By this logic, we shouldn't have invested money into developing solar photovoltaics given that we already had technologies that worked (coal fired power plants for instance, but also nuclear fission).

One of the earliest uses for photovolataics was to power satellites, like Vanguard 1 (1958). This was considered to be more practical than using coal fired power stations. The early photovoltaics were expensive and not very efficient. But they were known to work, and formed the foundation for subsequent developments.

The same can be said for EV's. The earliest electric vehicles were slow and had limited range. But they were known to work. The modern EV is the culmination of the evolutionary process for EV's.

Nuclear fusion projects like ITER have a number of potential killer faults that were brushed aside when the project was submitted for approval. Here's one:

ITER is designed to run on the deuterium-tritium cycle. The world's supply of tritium is about 20 kg. Most of this was produced by CANDU heavy-water reactors. This number is dwindling all the time, because tritium has a short half-life, and because a number of CANDU reactors will be shut down over the next decade. There should be enough tritium to run the ITER experiments. It is doubtful that there will be sufficient tritium to start up DEMO in 30 years' time. What is Plan B?

 

[BrettM]

The technologies you suggest for storage are mature, meaning they are unlikely to become more economic/more efficient in any meaningful sense.

Solar panels will become more efficient in time, but how much is open to debate. What we do know is that there is a limit to how efficient we can make them, and they will always depend on storage if you want to rely on them for prolonged periods.

You are quite correct. Solar panels are mature technology, and the law of diminishing returns applies. But there are still some areas worthy of research.

The first generation solar panels have reached the end of their lives. It is difficult to recycle solar panels, so most of them will find their way to landfill sites. There is still a need to develop better ways of packaging and assembling solar panels, so that they are easier to disassemble and recycle. Not exactly rocket science. Not as glamorous as fusion physics, either, but someone has to do it, and that person has to be paid to do it.

The same applies to storage batteries. Batteries used in EV's generally contain cobalt, so there is some incentive to recover that. LiFePO4 batteries, typically used in home energy storage systems do not contain cobalt. There is very little incentive to recover the lithium in spent LiFePO4 batteries. The accumulation of old batteries in landfill sites is not going to do renewable energy any favours. Once again, battery architecture needs to be revised and standardized to make them more recyclable.

I feel that it is better to spend money on this low hanging fruit, than to fund pie in the sky nuclear fusion research.

 

[Roboramma]

One of the earliest uses for photovolataics was to power satellites, like Vanguard 1 (1958). This was considered to be more practical than using coal fired power stations. The early photovoltaics were expensive and not very efficient. But they were known to work, and formed the foundation for subsequent developments.

Sure, but it certainly wasn't know that photovoltaics could ever compete economically with other power generation technologies.

Similarly, we've had fusion technology here on earth since the H bomb was developed. That didn't mean that we could develop an economical way to use fusion as a power source, but neither did the early solar powered satellites demonstrate the same for solar power.

 

[arthwollipot]

I feel that it is better to spend money on this low hanging fruit, than to fund pie in the sky nuclear fusion research.

Why not both?

 

[wobs]

ITER is designed to run on the deuterium-tritium cycle. The world's supply of tritium is about 20 kg. Most of this was produced by CANDU heavy-water reactors. This number is dwindling all the time, because tritium has a short half-life, and because a number of CANDU reactors will be shut down over the next decade. There should be enough tritium to run the ITER experiments. It is doubtful that there will be sufficient tritium to start up DEMO in 30 years' time. What is Plan B?

Plan B: Build more CANDU reactors to feed DEMO.
Plan C: Go to the moon for more
Plan D: Actually get fusion to work in an efficient way so they don't need more CANDU/moon rocks. Probably unlikely.

Plan B more likely looking at these, given we know how to build them and going to the moon is a PITA.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Plan B: Build more CANDU reactors to feed DEMO.
Plan C: Go to the moon for more
Plan D: Actually get fusion to work in an efficient way so they don't need more CANDU/moon rocks. Probably unlikely.

Plan B more likely looking at these, given we know how to build them and going to the moon is a PITA.

Canada to the rescue! We're working on this option.

Ontario wants to expand Bruce Power, Canada's first new large-scale nuclear build in 3 decades

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Canada to the rescue! We're working on this option.

Ontario wants to expand Bruce Power, Canada's first new large-scale nuclear build in 3 decades

Oops. It looks like I'm wrong on this. SMRs are planned not CANDUs.

Three More BWRX-300 SMRs Planned for Canada’s Darlington Site

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh. Oh. The UK needs to catch up!

Why Britain is falling behind in the race for world’s first nuclear fusion reactor

And while recent breakthroughs around ignition in the US are hugely significant in the quest for commercial fusion, all agree that there are still hard yards ahead.

Hawker says: “It’s like lighting the fire, right? We’ve lit the kindling, and now you need to build the rest of the fire.”

A spokesman for the Government said: “The UK aims to lead the world in the commercialisation of fusion technology and we’re investing over £700m in research programmes and facilities over the next three years.

Money well spent.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

But don't worry too much UKers you are ahead in other areas.

A fusion rocket designed to travel 500,000 mph is under construction

Pulsar Fusion, a UK startup, is creating a fusion rocket to cut Mars travel time. Current space travel poses health risks from extended exposure to microgravity and radiation. Using nuclear fusion, Pulsar's rocket could dramatically increase travel speeds, aiming for tests by 2025 and fusion temperatures by 2027.

To Infinity and beyond!

 

[Puppycow]

More vaporware. And I don't agree that "recent breakthroughs around ignition in the US are hugely significant in the quest for commercial fusion". This method cannot produce a net energy gain nor is it affordable for "commercial" power generation.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

More vaporware. And I don't agree that "recent breakthroughs around ignition in the US are hugely significant in the quest for commercial fusion". This method cannot produce a net energy gain nor is it affordable for "commercial" power generation.

Oh ye of little faith!

Fusion Rocket Capable of Travelling at 500,000 MPH is Under Construction

“A fusion rocket could allow us to send people to see the rings of Saturn or the moons of Jupiter,” stated Dr. Adam Baker, representing Pulsar Fusion.

It's under construction!

Tickets to be available from Virgin shortly?

And more details here:

British nuclear fusion rocket start-up backed by government in US partnership

It's backed by the US Government, so there.