Big announcement about fusion energy coming soon (Dec-2022)

[bob012345]

Sounds like practical use of fusion might have gone from 30 years away to 29 years...

That's actually quite good news since it's been stuck at 30 for the past 50.

I belong to a Makerspace and we have a Science group which is making a 'Fusor'. People ask "When will you finish it?" We say "in two weeks". The funny thing is it's been two weeks away for about two years now. There's just something about fusion...

 

[topsquark]

I've got this really good idea about cold fusion.

The mango flavor, with a bit of 7-Up, on the rocks!

-Dan

 

[Vanadium 50]

I did as doubletake of the title. I think it means

(Big announcement about fusion energy) coming soon

and not

Big announcement about (fusion energy coming soon)

If someone has the time and wants to perform a service to the community, it would be interesting to find out the history of "20 (or 30, or 50) years away". When was it first said? When was it last said? By whom? In what context?

 

[pinball1970]

I did as doubletake of the title. I think it means

(Big announcement about fusion energy) coming soon

and not

Big announcement about (fusion energy coming soon)

If someone has the time and wants to perform a service to the community, it would be interesting to find out the history of "20 (or 30, or 50) years away". When was it first said? When was it last said? By whom? In what context?

A Quick search found this

• 1955
  • At the first Atoms for Peace meeting in Geneva, Homi J. Bhabha predicts that fusion will be in commercial use within two decades. This prompts a number of countries to begin fusion research; Japan, France and Sweden all start programs this year or the next.

from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion#1920s

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is why Wikipedia is such a lousy source. It's uncited. I have not been able to get to a primary source, but I did find somn secondary sources that say Bhaba said "“I venture to predict that a method will be found for liberating fusion energy in a controlled manner within the next two decades."

Saying that once in 1955 doesn't really warrant "it's always been 20 years away". Further, Bhaba was right. He doesn't say commercial. He doesn't even say breakeven. He says "controlled", and that was achieved in the late 1950's.

Further, Bhaba's view seems not to be universal. Teller - who knew a thing or two about fusion - said it was "similar to the stage at which flying was about 100 years ago".

It would be a service if someone were to follow the breadcrumbs and get a clear and accurate picture of the story, not just "well, everybody knows..."

 

[topsquark]

Personally, I don't care about fusion. I want to see about those "chromodynamic light sources" that Janeway referred to on ST Voyager. The sounds way cooler.

-Dan

 

[Vanadium 50]

If I may venture a prediction, I would say we're $100B away as an order of magnitude. That's a more useful view of the work it would take than a time with no associated level of resources.

The US puts $700M in per year. The rest of the world, a similar amount. You can do the math.

The world GDP is $100T/year. Just to compare.

 

[gmax137]

I would say we're $100B away as an order of magnitude

Maybe that crypto guy in the Bahamas can chip in...

 

[Vanadium 50]

I want to see about those "chromodynamic light sources" that Janeway referred to on ST Voyager.

"Get this cheese to sickbay".

 

[bob012345]

If I may venture a prediction, I would say we're $100B away as an order of magnitude. That's a more useful view of the work it would take than a time with no associated level of resources.

The US puts $700M in per year. The rest of the world, a similar amount. You can do the math.

The world GDP is $100T/year. Just to compare.

The issue as I see it is a lack of new, workable ideas not money. This is why my bet is on the startups with novel ideas.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The issue as I see it is a lack of new, workable ideas

Really? Is this based on anything? It seems odd to be saying this the day after breakeven was announced using old ideas.

 

[bob012345]

Really? Is this based on anything? It seems odd to be saying this the day after breakeven was announced using old ideas.

New fusion startups are typically using either new ideas or twists on old ideas. NIF is about two orders of magnitude away from breakeven. Do you see any reasonable possibility a practical, commercial fusion reactor will come out of the NIF? How efficient can the high power lasers be made? I'm skeptical they can be made efficient enough to make true breakeven with this concept without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. They also would have to do many shots per second on a continual basis not once in 1.5-2 hours at their best now. I believe NIF is primarily a way of testing the nuclear weapons stockpile.

https://lasers.llnl.gov/for_users/pdfs/2012user_guide.pdf

 

[TeethWhitener]

The issue as I see it is a lack of new, workable ideas not money. This is why my bet is on the startups with novel ideas.

Counterpoint:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-015-0732-y/figures/4
Selected quote: "The rate of increase in tokamak performance has outstripped that of Moore’s law for the miniaturisation of silicon chips (Pitts et al. 2006)."

Most of the information I've been able to find on fusion startups indicates that they aren't using particularly new ideas. Magnetic confinement, electrostatic confinement, inertial confinement, pick one. My gut says that fusion is simply a really really hard engineering problem (duh) and ignition will probably be achieved by really smart people continually improving and refining the existing ideas, ekeing out small gains bit by bit. It's not sexy, but it's far more likely to yield results than sitting around hoping for someone to have a revolutionary new idea.

Also, I don't think anyone realistically expects NIF to be the model toward fusion power production.

 

[DaveC426913]

Made a PSA infographic.

 

[Astronuc]

While still waiting for data.

LLNL, December 8, 2022

By imbedding a target capsule in a strong magnetic field, inertial confinement fusion (ICF) researchers have demonstrated a potential path to sustained high-energy-yield NIF implosions.

Recent low-power tests using a magnetized room-temperature gas-filled capsule have achieved a 40 percent increase in hot-spot temperature and more than tripled the implosion’s energy yield compared to similar non-magnetized targets.

https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/magnetized-targets-boost-nif-implosion-performance

The current experiments, which created a 26-Tesla magnetic field around the capsule that grew to an estimated 4,700 Tesla during the implosion, resulted in a 40 percent increase in ion (hot-spot) temperature and a factor of 3.2 increase in neutron yield, a measure of energy production (26 Tesla is about 500,000 times more powerful than the Earth’s magnetic field).

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/169

I'd like to know how much mass of (D,T) is used per target, which is important to know in order to determine the conversion efficiency.

 

[russ_watters]

If I may venture a prediction, I would say we're $100B away as an order of magnitude. That's a more useful view of the work it would take than a time with no associated level of resources.

The US puts $700M in per year. The rest of the world, a similar amount. You can do the math.

The world GDP is $100T/year. Just to compare.

@mfb pointed out something similar. Those numbers basically buy you ITER and DEMO at $50 billion apiece. The tone seems to be complaining that the funding commitment is low, and I tend to agree. By comparison the US spent $260 B over 13 years on the early human space program (all up through Apollo). That's considered one of the greatest achievements in human history. The ISS cost $150B and the US currently spends $3B a year on it. Viable commercial fusion electricity would be bigger, and is definitely far more important than either. And not for nothing, the US also spent $4T on COVID stimulus/relief (some with a payback, some without). If scientists (3rd party reviewers, not the scientists involved in the project) think there is a significant likelihood the ITER and DEMO projects will succeed, as in, for real succeed not fake succeed, then I think a large increase in funding is warranted. And if we spend $100B and prove that fusion will likely never be viable, that's an important if expensive lesson too.

The question of timing still remains though, even with ample funding. Research and engineering projects just take time, and time is not inversely proportional to funding. It's hard to see how the two projects could be sped-up to be complete in less than 30 years.

So it's important to recognize that fusion will not help us defeat climate change by the self-imposed 2050 deadline (realistically we have basically no chance of that anyway). Nor will it come in time to replace our aging fleet of fission plants. We'll still need new power plants in 2075 though, so it would be nice to have figured out fusion one way or the other by then.

 

[bob012345]

Counterpoint:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-015-0732-y/figures/4
Selected quote: "The rate of increase in tokamak performance has outstripped that of Moore’s law for the miniaturisation of silicon chips (Pitts et al. 2006)."

Most of the information I've been able to find on fusion startups indicates that they aren't using particularly new ideas. Magnetic confinement, electrostatic confinement, inertial confinement, pick one. My gut says that fusion is simply a really really hard engineering problem (duh) and ignition will probably be achieved by really smart people continually improving and refining the existing ideas, ekeing out small gains bit by bit. It's not sexy, but it's far more likely to yield results than sitting around hoping for someone to have a revolutionary new idea.

Also, I don't think anyone realistically expects NIF to be the model toward fusion power production.

I think if progress is that incremental then fusion will miss its window of opportunity and be replaced by something else. Perhaps a form of fission breeder technology that is safer and sustainable.

 

[TeethWhitener]

I think if progress is that incremental then fusion will miss its window of opportunity and be replaced by something else.

1) It's impossible to replace something that doesn't already exist, like fusion power.
2) This is an odd comment; it implies that you think fusion will only be a temporary power production method while we work out a better one. Since we can't even do fusion right now, why wouldn't we just opt for a method we know produces power while we work toward the better one? This seems like an argument against funding any fusion power research.

 

[bob012345]

1) It's impossible to replace something that doesn't already exist, like fusion power.

What would have been a fusion economy in the minds of long term industry forecasters and government planners might be replaced by a different energy economy.

2) This is an odd comment; it implies that you think fusion will only be a temporary power production method while we work out a better one. Since we can't even do fusion right now, why wouldn't we just opt for a method we know produces power while we work toward the better one? This seems like an argument against funding any fusion power research.

If fusion remains unfulfilled after many more decades then other forms of generation would likely be substituted and if/when those forms become entrenched it is unlikely society will decide to junk them anytime soon for fusion assuming it eventually works. So, maybe fusion will someday dominate but the transition could be delayed decades or a century or more. It's not an argument against funding any fusion power research, it's an argument that the those doing the research are too conservative and not taking enough risks to make the development faster. We might end up with the good enough instead of the best.

 

[Astronuc]

The problem with (d,t) fusion:17.6 MeV/fusion (3.5 alpha, 14.1 n), 5 amu (D, T)

$\frac{17.6 MeV}{5 amu(d+t)} * (1.6021 E-13 J/MeV) / (1.66054 E-27 kg/amu)$ =

3.396 E14 J/kg(D+T) - That's a lot of energy.

https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ukg
1.660 539 066 60(50) x 10-27 kgWant to produce 3000 MJ per second for 1 year

8.8336 E-6 kg for 3000 MJ (3.0E9 J) thermal which could be used to produce 1000 MJ electricity with a 33.4% conversion efficiency, or more if one could separate the charges (alpha particle and electrons)

Seconds in one year = 3.15576 E7

So 8.8336 E-6 kg/s * 3.15576 E7 s/yr = 278.77 kg/yr * 0.6 T/(D+T) = 167.26 kgT (that's a lot of T). It means capturing the neutrons from the fusion reaction in Li, usually Li-6, if the neutrons are thermalized, in order to take advantage of the high thermal cross section for the 6Li(n,alpha)T. And these numbers assume 100% conversion of (D,T). If the efficiency is 50%, then the D,T fuel must be doubled, and the unused D,T has to be captured/recovered and recycled. If the efficiency is only 0.10, then that requires a lot of D,T and a lot of recovery/recycling.The recent IFE shot produced 3.15 MJ using input of 2.05 MJ, but the system had to use around 500-600 MJ (still waiting to learn the actual number) just to get 2.05 MJ into the hohlraum - and that is one shot. Doing this for 3.15576 E7 s doesn't appear to be on the horizon any time soon, and probably not ever.

Note also, that T has a half=life of 12.3 years, so some T will decay to He3 while waiting to be used, and the He3. A d+3He reaction (18.3 MeV) would be ideal, but it requires a higher temperature/compression.

It's both a physics and engineering problem.

 

[TeethWhitener]

it's an argument that the those doing the research are too conservative and not taking enough risks to make the development faster.

Saying “Researchers, make more discoveries!” fundamentally misunderstands how research works, and fundamentally misunderstands how incremental real research is.

Now, you can certainly encourage those funding the research to add risk to their portfolios. But you’ll have to convince them that “good enough” won’t cut it, and that the benefits of “the best” outweigh the reduced risk of “good enough.” That’s not a scientific or engineering problem, though.

 

[hutchphd]

From NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/science/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough.html?fbclid=IwAR20QCbLkhFGuLj-vDHBl-gsTkQjDbwuMlk8rY8LMbLfOTZm3BUVRG_4yaM#:~:text=Major Fusion Energy Breakthrough to Be Announced by Scientists

The characterization of a very modest milestone as a "breakthrough" by a reputable newspaper is a telling indicator of this country's declining scientific capability. Of course there was that Robert Goddard error way back when. Ignorance is the enemy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, "There was a breakthough a year, year and a halfr ago, but we didn't report it then. Now that there is incremental improvement and they've crossed an arbitrary threshold milestone" seems a bit long-winded.

 

[geordief]

I think some of you are giving these headline writers a hard time.

I let a pot of tea go cold a while ago and ,a week later,when I found it and lifted the lid, I found that it was super conducive to getting a skin of mould on top of the liquid inside.

 

[russ_watters]

I think some of you are giving these headline writers a hard time.

IMO it's the NIF PAO that's the bigger problem. Yes, the news outlets should know better too, but NIF is a pretty official source and should be trustworthy.

 

[bob012345]

Saying “Researchers, make more discoveries!” fundamentally misunderstands how research works, and fundamentally misunderstands how incremental real research is.

Yes, that would but that's not what I said.

Now, you can certainly encourage those funding the research to add risk to their portfolios. But you’ll have to convince them that “good enough” won’t cut it, and that the benefits of “the best” outweigh the reduced risk of “good enough.” That’s not a scientific or engineering problem, though.

It's not the people, it's the organization. It's too risk averse. That's why corporate fusion programs are more likely to succeed quicker in my view. It's the difference between NASA and SpaceX.

 

[mfb]

So 8.8336 E-6 kg/s * 3.15576 E7 s/yr = 278.77 kg/yr * 0.6 T/(D+T) = 167.26 kgT (that's a lot of T). It means capturing the neutrons from the fusion reaction in Li, usually Li-6, if the neutrons are thermalized, in order to take advantage of the high thermal cross section for the 6Li(n,alpha)T. And these numbers assume 100% conversion of (D,T). If the efficiency is 50%, then the D,T fuel must be doubled, and the unused D,T has to be captured/recovered and recycled. If the efficiency is only 0.10, then that requires a lot of D,T and a lot of recovery/recycling.

For a power plant tritium has to be bred in the reactor, there is no other viable source. 6Li + n -> 4He + T is producing a tritium nucleus from a neutron, but there is also 7Li + n -> 4He + T + n', producing tritium from a fast neutron and leaving behind a slower neutron that can produce another tritium nucleus. Fuel recycling and tritium breeding and extraction has to be good enough to produce an essentially closed tritium cycle.
D + D fusion is a minor side reaction that produces either tritium or a neutron, both are useful.

 

[Astronuc]

7Li + n -> 4He + T + n', producing tritium from a fast neutron and leaving behind a slower neutron that can produce another tritium nucleus.

On the other hand, the reaction has a rather low cross section, and more likely, such a fast neutron would likely pass through a mass of Li and leak out of the system, or be absorbed by the structural material surrounding the Li.

The experimental results show that the ⁷Li(n,n’t)⁴He cross section is very insensitive to neutron energy in the 7- to 9-MeV range, and the value 372 mb (±3.8%) was obtained for the average cross section in this region.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/NSE81-A21369

Other experimental work show a decreasing cross section for energies > 9 MeV, here in the range 13-16 MeV. From d,t fusion one would be concerned with neutron energies of 14.1 MeV or less.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/22/018/22018125.pdf

I did not find an appropriate plot of the cross section data.

 

[gmax137]

Of course there was that Robert Goddard error way back when. Ignorance is the enemy.

I had to google that one. I don't think I have ever heard that story before. Thanks, @hutchphd !

Here's one of many hits
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionas...apologized-to-robert-goddard/?sh=4d8042c74543

 

[bob012345]

From NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/science/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough.html?fbclid=IwAR20QCbLkhFGuLj-vDHBl-gsTkQjDbwuMlk8rY8LMbLfOTZm3BUVRG_4yaM#:~:text=Major Fusion Energy Breakthrough to Be Announced by Scientists

The characterization of a very modest milestone as a "breakthrough" by a reputable newspaper is a telling indicator of this country's declining scientific capability. Of course there was that Robert Goddard error way back when. Ignorance is the enemy.

I think it's worse now. I see the politics of big money science funding at work as scientists, science spokespersons and institutions, all who should be more skeptical, willingly and wildly hype the results. It's like they feel they have to say nothing bad at all or the unwashed masses will want to defund science.

The best way to have an informed public is not to pull the wool over their eyes with unbridled hype especially when it comes to spending public money.I think Bill Nye's response is an example. It seemed the CNN reporter at least tried to nuance the discussion. Should have been the other way around.

 

[neilparker62]

We already have a fully functional fusion reactor - just need to tap into it a a bit better!

 

[DaveC426913]

He's not wrong.

 

[Frabjous]

I thought they turned it off at night.

 

[neilparker62]

I thought they turned it off at night.

I don't think the fusion reactor in question knows anything about "night" unless it's something like Sagittarius A!

 

[PAllen]

I thought I might find sourcing for the idea that everyone always said commercial fusion was 20 to 40 years away. Certainly that is my impression, having followed the field at varying levels of expertise since the early 1960s. However, instead, I found a booklet from the USAEC on controlled fusion by the eminent Samuel Glasstone (from 1964) that concludes “how long it takes to achieve is impossible to predict. There are problems of enormous difficulty to be solved …”