Nuclear Fusion in China

[Steven Sesselmann]

Tulse wrote: Presumably the most appropriate metric in the end is (likely) cost per kilowatt/hour of generated electricity.

Yes, but we don’t need to start with megawatt power levels, as long as we can generate power. The first motorized automobil moved along at walking speed, which in itself was an achievement , and enough for investors to get excited.

So far, no fusion reactor has demonstrated that it can even power a reading lamp, so how can we expect investors to come forward.

We need to demonstrate a method by which a simple lightbulb is powered by a self sustaining fusion reaction (the equivalent of a wax candle burning).

Now go to the ITER web site and look at the pictures of the building site, then ask yourself if we are putting the cart before the horse!

It needs it’s own power station to run 🙂

Steven

[jamesr]

Building a tokamak fusion power plant is not a scientific problem, but an engineering one.
The science works and says for a stable plasma with the temperature & density gradients at the edge manageable, then the device needs to be very big. ITER is just about the smallest size that can achieve Q>1.

Just because the first ‘candle’ of fusion needs to operate on a scale larger than our everyday human interactions should not surprise us. Its still a lot smaller than the Sun.

[delt0r]

If we only invested in things that already work, there would be no laser, transistor, generators etc. Before there was a “first car that moved slowly” there was a bunch of internal combustion engines that didn’t work at all. You just don’t remember them or care about them. But without that R&D there would be nothing to remember!

Did you know that one of the first internal combustion engines that was proposed used gun powder!

[Rezwan]

jamesr wrote: Building a tokamak fusion power plant is not a scientific problem, but an engineering one.
The science works and says for a stable plasma with the temperature & density gradients at the edge manageable, then the device needs to be very big. ITER is just about the smallest size that can achieve Q>1.

Just because the first ‘candle’ of fusion needs to operate on a scale larger than our everyday human interactions should not surprise us. Its still a lot smaller than the Sun.

Perhaps we could modify our “energy (in)efficiency” poster on this page (scroll down when you get there) to show the possibilities of ITER. We want a star on earth, without all that mass. And think how much more efficient it is than the sun. It’s like indoor skiing.

To ski, you don’t need a mountain, you just need a slope.

Likewise, for the fusion alternatives, you don’t need to gut the mainline fusion approaches. You need to come up with an assessment of how much money and resources you need, and then look for a diverse revenue base to fund that.

Attached files

[jamesr]

It’s good that stars burn their fuel so slowly. This comes from the fact that the fusion cross-section for normal proton-proton fusion is around 20 orders of magnitude smaller than for D-T (since it has to rely on the weak nuclear force, rather than the strong force).

Trying to contain D-T fusion is more like trying to contain a Supernova!

[Author]

Posts