Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion

[nwdiver]

They don't have any of the drawbacks of fission reactors.

They actually have almost all the drawbacks of fission reactors. They're high cost, thermal and there will still be radio active waste. The only 'problem' fusion solves is that of long-term waste storage which is more than manageable.

One of worst radio nuclides produced in nuclear reactors is cobalt-60. That's not a consequence of fission but iron and neutrons. Unless the fusion plant lacks iron or neutrons Co-60 will be produced.

The space requirements for solar and wind are minuscule and you can co-opt space. Parking lots should have solar canopies providing both covered parking and more daytime energy than we can use. Land used for cattle grazing can be used for wind without sacrificing any grazing land. Once we're able to convert surplus wind and solar into H2 cost effectively that will negate any weather related variability.

The days that there was a benefit to 'cheap' 24/7 GWs aka 'base load' are over and becoming less important with every EV and power wall sold. We're now in a new era where demand can be matched to supply more easily than it ever was to match supply to demand. Wind increasing from 15GW to 30GW at 2am? Ok... have all the networked EVs start soaking up that surplus. Wind ramping down as morning demand ramps up? Ok... end all networked EV charging and request V2G vehicles sell back into the grid.

 

[Skotty]

Thinking big and very long term, the reason a civilization needs to master fusion power is so that it can travel beyond it's solar system of origin. I suppose you could get away with using fission, but fusion would be better for interstellar spacecraft.

 

[mangrove79]

They actually have almost all the drawbacks of fission reactors. They're high cost, thermal and there will still be radio active waste. The only 'problem' fusion solves is that of long-term waste storage which is more than manageable.

IMHO, if technology and cost are not prohibitive, the only two reasons against adoption are meltdowns and wastes. Fusion is not a chain reaction, meaning any accidents or disasters would stop the reaction right away. There is no meltdown in a fusion reactor - Chernobyl, TMI or Fukushima will never happen. When accidents do happen, power is cut and the reactor cools below the necessary temperature for fusion.

As for waste, any radioactive byproducts of fusion is short-lived. Unlike fission, the main source of fuel in fusion will never be radioactive before or after. Okay, tritium is, but the reactor needs so tiny amount of it, and its half-life is only 12.5 years. Cobalt-60's half-life is 5.3 years, and scientists are still researching metals with even lower activation to be used for reactor wall. Compare those to the twenty-thousand-year half-life of Plutonium waste, they're literally nothing. But yeah, like you said "more than manageable".

"High cost and thermal" are technological problems that can be solved, though I concede it could take much longer than "30 years".

 

[mangrove79]

Thinking big and very long term, the reason a civilization needs to master fusion power is so that it can travel beyond it's solar system of origin. I suppose you could get away with using fission, but fusion would be better for interstellar spacecraft.

Great point. Starship Enterprise probably can't run on solar and wind. But on a more serious note, the amount of energy to lift an empty grain silo (ahem, SpaceX Starship) into earth orbit is insane, let alone a spaceship that can support its own eco-system for hundreds of years. The "generation spaceships" depicted in movies are likely a million times heavier than Musk's. Of course, version one won't the Nauvoo, but it's still a good example for a thought exercise. I think fusion is the most feasible technology among all alternatives.

 

[nwdiver]

"High cost and thermal" are technological problems that can be solved, though I concede it could take much longer than "30 years".

Not really.... because physics. You can't technology your way out of physics. There's a thermodynamic limit to the Y useful energy you can get from X heat. This is generally ~34%. So for every unit of electrical energy you get you have to get rid of 2. It's physically impossible to compete economically with Solar PV, wind or storage which doesn't have this issue.

Meltdowns and waste have essentially become 'straw man' arguments against fission. That's what I find so frustrating. Those problems DO have technological solutions. What can't be solved is the cost.

 

[Skotty]

Not really.... because physics. You can't technology your way out of physics. There's a thermodynamic limit to the Y useful energy you can get from X heat. This is generally ~34%. So for every unit of electrical energy you get you have to get rid of 2. It's physically impossible to compete economically with Solar PV, wind or storage which doesn't have this issue.

Meltdowns and waste have essentially become 'straw man' arguments against fission. That's what I find so frustrating. Those problems DO have technological solutions. What can't be solved is the cost.

This is a good argument. One I can agree with. I'm theoretically supportive of nuclear, but cost has long been a problem that I haven't seen a solution for, and probably better if we use primarily wind and solar. However, wind and solar will never be as cool as fusion.

 

[mangrove79]

Meltdowns and waste have essentially become 'straw man' arguments against fission. That's what I find so frustrating. Those problems DO have technological solutions.

This part I do agree with wholeheartedly.

 

[nwdiver]

This part I do agree with wholeheartedly.

The irony is that they're 'straw man' arguments against fission... in support of fission. The nuclear industry would much rather discuss problems they've solved (waste and safety) than the problems that cannot be solved (Cost, Cost, Cost and Cost).

A replacement for fission needs to do one thing most of all. Be more affordable. WAY ,WAY, WAAAY more affordable. Nuclear is >5x more $ per MWh and ~15x more $ per MW than renewables. That needs to be <2x and <5x to be economically viable.

 

[Takumi]

Whoah!

 

[Tam]

Whoah!

It took 33 years since 1989 to successfully prove that fusion is possible.

It might take another 3 decades to scale up the experiment to practical use.

The question is who would have all the money to continue the work?

 

[Takumi]

I would think this is going to be something someone who wants to go, say Mars, might want?

I think it'll be compressed. We live in S-curves.

 

[Electroman]

I am surprised this was not posted here. It is that time of the year and there is yet another breakthrough in the fusion technology. This article has not much details, except to say that scientists were able to produce net gain in energy - about 50% more, enough to boil 2.5 gallons of water.

Nuclear fusion breakthrough a milestone for the future of clean energy, US officials say | CNN

US Department of Energy officials announced a history-making accomplishment in nuclear fusion Tuesday: For the first time, US scientists produced more energy from fusion than the laser energy they used to power the experiment.

www.cnn.com

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I am surprised this was not posted here. It is that time of the year and there is yet another breakthrough in the fusion technology. This article has not much details, except to say that scientists were able to produce net gain in energy - about 50% more, enough to boil 2.5 gallons of water.

Nuclear fusion breakthrough a milestone for the future of clean energy, US officials say | CNN

US Department of Energy officials announced a history-making accomplishment in nuclear fusion Tuesday: For the first time, US scientists produced more energy from fusion than the laser energy they used to power the experiment.

www.cnn.com

"repeated explosions at the rate of 50 times per second". Well, that should be easy. We've been doing more than that with combustions engines for ages.

 

[nwdiver]

I am surprised this was not posted here. It is that time of the year and there is yet another breakthrough in the fusion technology. This article has not much details, except to say that scientists were able to produce net gain in energy - about 50% more, enough to boil 2.5 gallons of water.

Nuclear fusion breakthrough a milestone for the future of clean energy, US officials say | CNN

US Department of Energy officials announced a history-making accomplishment in nuclear fusion Tuesday: For the first time, US scientists produced more energy from fusion than the laser energy they used to power the experiment.

www.cnn.com

Pretty good explanation of how this net energy gain isn't really a net energy gain.

 

[miimura]

Not only do you have to get net energy gain, but you also need to convert that energy into electricity. The dollar cost to not only do the energy conversion from mass to heat, but from heat to electricity means that this will never be cheaper than (or even close to) the cost of wind and solar generated electricity.

 

[petit_bateau]

@nativewolf posted this synopsis of it on the Energy News thread yesterday. If this approach can simply catch up with the torus approach I'll be very impressed, and that is decades away from practical unity.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[Electroman]

Not only do you have to get net energy gain, but you also need to convert that energy into electricity. The dollar cost to not only do the energy conversion from mass to heat, but from heat to electricity means that this will never be cheaper than (or even close to) the cost of wind and solar generated electricity.

.. well for now what you say may be true. But when the efficiency doubles and you produce twice as much as you expend then the equation changes. These are still early days to write this off.

 

[nwdiver]

.. well for now what you say may be true. But when the efficiency doubles and you produce twice as much as you expend then the equation changes. These are still early days to write this off.

They used 400MJ of electricity to yield 2.5MJ of thermal energy which optimistically will yield ~1.2MJ of electricity. So they need to double their efficiency ~9 more times to actually break even.

 

[DOCAL]

It's great news, but I wish they'd clarify the numbers to more media outlets.

2MJ of laser energy input produced 3MJ of output. However, to produce that 2MJ of laser energy took 300MJ when you look at the whole system. Some good news there is the 3MJ was with only 4% of the fuel burning, so lots of potential for improvement.

 

[Takumi]

It's great news, but I wish they'd clarify the numbers to more media outlets.

2MJ of laser energy input produced 3MJ of output. However, to produce that 2MJ of laser energy took 300MJ when you look at the whole system. Some good news there is the 3MJ was with only 4% of the fuel burning, so lots of potential for improvement.

@28:47