Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 82 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1078
    mjv1121
    Participant

    I was trying to get a handle on what the expectations are for Fo-Fu in terms of efficiency and net energy.

    This is what I have been able to discern so far:

    – the reactions in the plasmoid will produce about 1.8 times (180%) of the input energy (variable, depending on simulation parameters)

    – the two methods for recovering the energy are x-rays via the photo-electric “onion”, and the ion beam via a super-duper induction coil thingy

    – the energy will be split roughly 50/50 between the ion beam and x-rays (variable, depending on simulation parameters)

    – so the ion beam and x-rays will both contain about 90% of the input energy and it is hoped that both can be made perhaps 80% efficient

    – thus the recovered energy would be 144% of the input energy, with 100% going back to the capacitor bank for the next pulse and 44% net energy, amounting to about 5MW of electricity.

    Is this a reasonable assessment of what is hoped for? and if not, by how much have I misunderstood?

    With regards to waste heat; Eric has mentioned “several megawatts” of heat and a maximum central electrode temperature of up to 700 degrees. Obviously the most important issue is to cool that central beryllium electrode. It just seems a shame to throw away all that heat. Heat-exchanger/turbine/generator are pretty much out of the question due to cost and complexity issues. Anyhow, I was swinging from a tree eating a banana the other day when I had a thought …thermoelectric. A quick google for “thermoelectric materials” reveals that the subject has some ongoing scientific interest. Also, I saw an article a couple of weeks ago about a new material (lead telluride with nano-inclusion) that can convert as much as 14 percent of the waste heat passing through it to electricity. The article is here:
    http://www.dailytech.com/New+Material+Can+Convert+14+Percent+of+Waste+Heat+to+Electricity/article20699.htm
    There’s plenty of comments, but the second one down might be a good place to base one’s reality – “Capturing heat from real world sources is much more difficult. No doubt there will be useful applications, but this material is not going to be a panacea that returns 14% of the energy lost across a very complex system.”

    Presumably the electrode mounting assembly will have to include channels for some sort of liquid coolant. If we’re expecting temperatures up to 700 centigrade in a radiation environment then molten salts may be a possible solution – or maybe cryogenic gas or perhaps just pressurised water and a really big radiator. Anyway, it may be possible to include a suitable thermoelectric material and recover some of the heat as electricity and thereby increase the overall efficiency of the device, and maybe even reduce the load on the cooling system in the process. On the hand it may add too much cost and complexity.
    If net energy is in the region of 30-50%, then an efficient cooling system is all that is needed and just get rid of the heat. My point is though, if energy production in the plasmoid, or ion beam conversion, or x-ray conversion falls below expectation, then net energy may start to become a bit more tenuous. At that point clawing back 1-10% of the waste heat might look more attractive.

    Any comments or insults gratefully accepted, particularly with regard to putting my numbers right.

    #9627
    zapkitty
    Participant

    The projected low cost of an FF unit forces any thermal recovery system to have a very low price if it’s to make sense at all… and such systems are not known for their low pricing.

    As you noted classic recovery systems start out costing as much as 1 or 2 complete FF units and only provide a fraction of the power of those new units… and so far “nano” anything has only been cheaper when placed in the context of the current status quo in power plants.

    #9628
    mjv1121
    Participant

    Both GM and Ford and probably others are looking to wrap the exhaust in thermoelectric (TE) material in the hope of increasing vehicle efficiency by a few percent, perhaps 5% or so – this becomes particularly relevant for hybrids. One must presume that the cost of such a system would not be too high relative to the cost of the vehicle. Of course adaptation of such a technology may not be suitable or possible, but is it not certain that cost will be a barrier. As I said before, if there is an over abundance of net energy then no worries, but it does no harm to consider backup plans. Also, in 4-5 years time when hopefully a Focus Fusion prototype is well under-way it is not inconceivable that may be fairly common place in the automotive industry – I’ll dust dust off my crystal plasma ball and see what the future holds……… yes I can see it now – lots and lots of plasma!

    #9630
    mjv1121
    Participant

    More TE automotive food for thought – here’s a slide presentation entitled “Advanced Thermoelectric Energy Recovery Systems in Future Vehicle Systems” by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory :
    http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/ahhps/pdfs/epri_hendricks.pdf

    #9631
    Brian H
    Participant

    mjv;
    It’s important to keep the order of magnitude cost differences in mind here. IMO it’s barely going to be worth the $$ to pipe the excess (low-grade = too low-temp and diffuse for steam or industrial use) heat to local buildings, etc. Remember, ANY use you make of the “waste heat” is going to take equipment. It better cost less than 5¢/W, and produce the heat equivalent of 1 kwh for less than 0.3¢, or it would be easier, more efficient, and cheaper to simply install another FoFu2+ and use its electricity for the application. I suspect that thermoelectric is not even much within 2 orders of magnitude of either of those numbers.

    So straight venting to the atmosphere is likely to be the “solution”. Don’t let it bother you; the basic ultra-efficiency of the energy production cycle of FF is so high that net waste heat (which, afterall, is a finally going to be almost all of the output, after entropy has its way) is less than any alternative. (Passive “collector” systems like solar may appear to be an exception, but after you get through dealing with availability and density limitations, capital and real-estate costs, etc., it is a very localized and limited alternative. Note the recent CA environmentalists’ lawsuits blocking the state from putting a solar farm IN THE DESERT, because it displaces too much “sensitive” ecology. As Bastiat says, always look for the ‘unseen’ secondary costs. )

    #9632
    mjv1121
    Participant

    Is my grasp of expected efficiency more or less accurate then (see the top half of my first post)

    #9634
    Brian H
    Participant

    mjv1121 wrote: Is my grasp of expected efficiency more or less accurate then (see the top half of my first post)

    Yes, as far as I understand.

    Here’s the new paper http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/images/stories/theory_and_experimental_program_for_focus_fusion__lpp_jan2011.pdf free download PDF.

    #9636
    vansig
    Participant

    mjv1121 wrote: Is my grasp of expected efficiency more or less accurate then (see the top half of my first post)

    There are some differences. Notably, there is residual charge remaining in the capacitors after the shot. If i recall, Eric mentioned that about 70% of the energy goes into the plasmoid; the other 30% is recovered in a second capacitor bank. The amount of x-rays is not fully worked out, and depends on the optimization of the magnetic field.

    #9637
    Brian H
    Participant

    Here’s a new development in the Heat Recovery area:
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-nanomaterials-unlock-new-electronic-and-energy-technologies

    The scientists invented a versatile method for creating these atom thin nanosheets from a range of materials using common solvents and ultrasound, utilizing devices similar to those used to clean jewelery. The new method is simple, fast, and inexpensive, and could be scaled up to work on an industrial scale.

    “Of the many possible applications of these new nanosheets, perhaps the most important are as thermoelectric materials. These materials, when fabricated into devices, can generate electricity from waste heat. For example, in gas-fired power plants approximately 50% of energy produced is lost as waste heat while for coal and oil plants the figure is up to 70%.

    However, the development of efficient thermoelectric devices would allow some of this waste heat to be recycled cheaply and easily, something that has been beyond us, up until now,” explained Professor Jonathan Coleman, Principal Investigator at CRANN and the School of Physics, Trinity College Dublin who led the research along with Dr Valeria Nicolosi in the Department of Materials at the University of Oxford.

    “Our new method offers low-costs, a very high yield and a very large throughput: within a couple of hours, and with just 1 mg of material, billions and billions of one-atom-thick nanosheets can be made at the same time from a wide variety of exotic layered materials,” explained Dr Nicolosi, from the University of Oxford.

    It all comes down to costs, of course. If it can drop below “replacement” cost of simply using another FoFu, it might have some application in heat-recovered power generation.

    #9638
    mjv1121
    Participant

    Whether in a car, power station or some other industrial process, a few percent of waste heat recovered could make a significant difference to the efficiency of the system overall – dependent on cost and complexity – clearly TE devices have the potential to provide this in some applications.
    Another perspective to take with regard to Fo-Fu is robustness and reliability. Any improvements in energy recovery may give the option to run at a lower frequency. Less pulses per second should result in improved reliability and a longer maintenance schedule – think third world – sorry, I mean “developing countries” or is that “emerging markets”. There’s also marine and eventually space applications where design priorities will likely differ.

    I originally considered the subject of heat recovery due to “net energy paranoia”, hopefully the numbers will be quite sufficient. but its always nice to have options.

    #9640
    Aeronaut
    Participant

    Ever work somewhere that adds value to plastic flakes by molding them into parts? They use some impressively HD cooling water chillers, which presents a bleak outlook for TE recovery. But those places are ‘self-heating’.

    #9650
    vansig
    Participant

    Some of these materials, boron nitride included, have intriguing semi-conductive properties. Cheap large-scale fabrication is the key, and the use of something simple like ultrasound could definitely help, quite a bit.

    #9658
    Aeronaut
    Participant

    vansig wrote: Some of these materials, boron nitride included, have intriguing semi-conductive properties. Cheap large-scale fabrication is the key, and the use of something simple like ultrasound could definitely help, quite a bit.

    Plastic molding plants are abundant over here. We weld with ultrasound, and some of the sputtering target coating machines we use might lend themselves to layering onions- if you can keep the onion cool enough in operation.

    #9796
    redsnapper
    Participant

    Thanks for starting this thread, because it gets directly at the topic of most interest to me. I joined FFS about a month ago (i.e. signed up with an email address so I can do posts) and have been mulling things over. I’d love to engage in some serious engineering dialog. Just so you know where I’m coming from, my education (BSE and MSME degrees) is in Mech Engr, with specialization in heat transfer and energy systems. For the last twenty years, my career has revolved around the thermal management of semiconductor devices. To me, a *large* amount of power dissipation is anywhere from 5 to 200 W. (That’s W, not kW, or MW.) Nevertheless, the basic laws of heat transfer don’t change, you just slide up the scale (a few orders of magnitude :cheese: ).

    Now in the first post, you suggest that waste heat might be something like 144% of the net usable electrical energy out. If I understood correctly, a portion of the energy produced went directly back into the capacitor bank. This implies, I think, that my own assumption is slightly more pessimistic – but at least it’s in the same ballpark, and a ballpark is the place to start. Based on what I’d heard/read elsewhere on the DPF topic, I simply assumed that we had an overall net useable energy production efficiency of 50%; thus if you were building a 5MW powerplant (net usable electrical output), you’d have 5MW of waste heat. That’s my starting point, and obviously everything has to be taken with that initial assumption in mind.

    The main point is, getting 5MW thermal out of a breadbox is no mean feat. It’s not impossible (I think), but to put it in perspective, the flux density at the surface of the sun is about 60MW/m^2. If you were trying to pull 5MW thermal from a 6″ diameter, 6″ long DPF core (again, for simplicity, I assume the plasma loses 5MW thermally to the walls of the core – all other energy exits via Xrays or current), you’d have a surface area of roughly 0.073m^2, and the flux density would be 68MW/m^2. So what we’re trying to do is cool an object that emits thermal energy at approximately the flux density of the sun – only the sun’s surface runs at about 5000K, and we need to do it at 1000K. This is just so you can go “wow.” It’s not saying it can’t be done, it’s just setting the stage for the intuitive grasp that it ain’t gonna be a slam dunk.

    With that perspective, what are some possibilities?

    Let’s suppose we want to keep the maximum temperature of the DPF core at 700C. If you want to drop 500degC (leaving 200C at the “outside” to deal with carefully) while passing 5000000W, that requires a thermal resistance of about 0.0001degC/W. (These are the basic units of thermal resistance when we’re sizing cooling systems in the electronics world. But jeese – I think 0.1 is a small thermal resistance!) The best reasonably inexpensive material for conducting heat is copper. (Diamond is better, and some other exotic materials are somewhere in between, but we’re trying to think inside the box for the moment.) The thermal resistance of a solid (hollow) sphere of copper with a 6″ diameter spherical cavity in the center, and a 22″ outer diameter, is 0.002degC/W. At 20x larger than the target thermal budget, that’s a problem. (It means, those 5MW actually came at the expense of a 10000C temperature drop, so we kind of melted the core.) You might ask: why did I pick 22″ outer diameter? Just for convenience, but it happens to have a surface area of 1.0m^s, so at that distance from the heat source (again, we’ve wrapped the DPF core inside solid copper, with no contact resistance, etc. – i.e., best possible case for non-exotic materials) – we’ve still got a 5MW/m^2 flux to deal with at our hoped-for external surface temperature of 200C. But, as I say, we’ve already exceeded our thermal budget by a factor of 20. Diamond, in fact, isn’t even 20x better than copper, so this is saying that if you could mount the DPF core inside a solid diamond crystal 22″ in diameter, it would still melt in the middle and you’d still have 5MW/m^2 to deal with at the surface. Not good. In fact, things are going to be a lot worse than this, I fear, because that 6″ to 22″ space is probably where we want the X-ray absorber – and the X-ray absorber probably has an effective thermal conductivity somewhat worse than copper.

    I think where this takes us is something like impingement cooling. The only way, with state-of-the-art heat transfer mechanisms, to remove heat that quickly is by using a phase change. Water, for instance, at a flow rate of a paltry 2kg/s, if you vaporize it, can remove 5MW of thermal energy. And as somebody in a previous post has suggested – if you’ve got that much thermal energy to remove, it seems a shame not to use it. And if the only way you can get it out of the small space is by turning water into steam, you’ve now at least got it in a form that ME’s have been dealing with for a couple of centuries. I’d say to consider heat pipes (known for their phenomenally high flux capability and low effective thermal resistance), except that we’ve still got the issue of rejecting that 5MW at the other end of the heat pipe. So whether with closed heat pipes or an open system, if we impinge the outer surface of the DPF core with water, we’ll have 2kg/s of high quality steam that can be carried a long way away fairly easily, and that’s where we actually do the main cooling job.

    It was suggested in the first post as well, I think, that thermoelectric conversion might be a possibility. I think these above back-of-the-envelope calculations show that there are some serious issues that have to be considered before this heat even gets safely to the place you might consider thermoelectric conversion. But this post is about to run out of space, so I’d better close. The idea is to get people thinking seriously about this cooling problem.

    #9797
    zapkitty
    Participant

    What are the basic parameters of your helium system?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 82 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.