Homepage Forums Environmental Forums Policy Integration: Energy, Water, Desalination…etc.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7049
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    vansig wrote:
    do remember that focus fusion power is entirely dispatchable: there need be no excess power, at all,
    since you can adjust number of pinches/second as demand requires.

    I thought there was an efficiency hit when running at less than 330hz?

    vansig wrote: so, really, the question becomes
    whether it is cheaper, or safer, to deliver a fusion generator, and install it, than to distribute power to a needy neighbour over wires.

    … and at the beginning of deployment you will have both the demand for any
    excess power that you can spare and you will have the means to distribute it.

    So again… the situation will resolve itself.

    That is, unless we let our lords and masters deliberately screw us over in their
    inevitable attempts to enrich themselves at our expense.

    #7051
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    Aeronaut wrote: Here’s the direct link, Rezwan. http://www.legion.org/magazine/2529/power-power-domestic-dilemma . Only problem is that it’s a tease to get subscribers. Here’s the Google search results for Jay Stuller, the author. We can learn a lot from him and maybe get mentioned in the reprint of the book he wrote the article to promote. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=jay+stuller&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=jay+stuller&fp=Li-R6mbKWrc

    the author is mixing his terms. he writes,
    “any attempt to phase out fossil fuels runs smack into a dilemma: electric motor technology simply can’t produce enough energy to move heavy trucks and aircraft, which need diesel and jet fuel.”

    it is not the electric motor technology, but the battery energy density that is the problem.

    #7054
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    vansig wrote:

    Here’s the direct link, Rezwan. http://www.legion.org/magazine/2529/power-power-domestic-dilemma . Only problem is that it’s a tease to get subscribers. Here’s the Google search results for Jay Stuller, the author. We can learn a lot from him and maybe get mentioned in the reprint of the book he wrote the article to promote. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=jay+stuller&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=jay+stuller&fp=Li-R6mbKWrc

    the author is mixing his terms. he writes,
    “any attempt to phase out fossil fuels runs smack into a dilemma: electric motor technology simply can’t produce enough energy to move heavy trucks and aircraft, which need diesel and jet fuel.”

    it is not the electric motor technology, but the battery energy density that is the problem.
    L.A. Port is putting electric trucks for moving and delivering containers into operation as fast as it can, after very successful trials. There is a substantial savings, and the drivers and others at the docks find them much more pleasant to work with. They are using trucks with about 50 mile range, plenty for the daily work they do. Long distance rigs would use larger batteries, of course, or might even be able to use onboard FF (and plug into the grid and sell electricity when idle?) :cheese:

    #7055
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    So if FFs can be run at say… 75kWe… without issues then that would make
    integration into current spacecraft architectures much, much easier… and yet
    would still give ample opportunity for expansion and growth if designed with
    such growth in mind…

    I can haz sub-MW FFs?

    #7057
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    zapkitty wrote: I can haz sub-MW FFs?

    the lower bound is about capacitor leakage rate; the upper bound, about cooling.

    #7063
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    vansig wrote:

    I can haz sub-MW FFs?

    the lower bound is about capacitor leakage rate; the upper bound, about cooling.

    … which gets very particular about the exact specs and application of the capacitors
    in question. Anyone got a part number for the FFX caps? 🙂

    #7080
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    i don’t have specifics, but if leakage resistance were as low as 1 MΩ, (generally considered poor quality for a capacitor, some having leakage resistance as high as 10^12 Ω),
    this would yield self-discharge current of 45 mA at 45kV. If τ0 = RC is the time constant, then a 33,000 μF cap would have τ0 = 33,000.

    With these parameters i think we could run a pinch every few minutes without significant loss.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_capacitor

    #7089
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    vansig wrote: i don’t have specifics, but if leakage resistance were as low as 1 MΩ, (generally considered poor quality for a capacitor, some having leakage resistance as high as 10^12 Ω),
    this would yield self-discharge current of 45 mA at 45kV. If τ0 = RC is the time constant, then a 33,000 μF cap would have τ0 = 33,000.

    With these parameters i think we could run a pinch every few minutes without significant loss.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_capacitor

    The intention is to run at 330Hz, which is once every 3ms or so. So leakage control has to be a lot better than that!

    #7092
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    Brian H wrote:
    The intention is to run at 330Hz, which is once every 3ms or so. So leakage control has to be a lot better than that!

    note that’s 45 milliamps, above. at 3 ms per pinch, leakage wont be a problem

    #7097
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    So, as I said over on the FF jet engines thread, the standard FF setup would be
    giving 15151.51 joules of net power per pinch.

    At 5 Hz that would be 75,757.55 watts… 75.75 kWe is plenty to run ISS on with
    ample margins for growth.

    (Those huge solar arrays spend a lot of power during the “daylight” portion of
    each orbit charging up some very large battery packs for the “night” portion of
    each orbit)

    So a test unit that could take ISS from proof-of-concept to current power levels
    to 5 MWe as the tech is proven, radiators are developed, and a backup
    module installed.

    All without the overhead and upkeep of said same huge solar arrays, their rotating
    joints, and the MMOD erosion that inevitably afflicts them.

    #7099
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    also, at 5 pinches/second, anode life would be 66 times longer than it is at 330 pinches/s. a 90-day maintenance schedule would be extended to 16 years

    #7100
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    vansig wrote: also, at 5 pinches/second, anode life would be 66 times longer than it is at 330 pinches/s.
    a 90-day maintenance schedule would be extended to 16 years

    All that remains is handling the fuel.

    If it’s still decaborane then there will be contamination control issues. Not the
    NIMBY FUD discussed elsewhere but the simple fact that the ISS ecosystem
    extends exactly just as far as the air revitalizer in the next module over from
    yours. Contamination by any neurotoxin, however minute the traces, can not
    and will not be allowed.

    If the reactor can be refueled by a cartridge that is isolated from the module
    air system and offers no chance of blowback either when changing cartridges
    or in case of cartridge failure… that would be a big help.

    A cartridge that sits in the vacuum side of the system and can be inserted
    through an external hatch in the module without ever being brought into a
    hab… that would go over well despite the extra expense involved…

    #7110
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    zapkitty wrote:
    A cartridge that sits in the vacuum side of the system and can be inserted
    through an external hatch in the module without ever being brought into a
    hab… that would go over well despite the extra expense involved…

    i see no good reason for any of such a system to be in the hab.
    it should be protected by a whipple shield, but otherwise entirely external

    #7112
    Avatarzapkitty
    Member

    vansig wrote:

    A cartridge that sits in the vacuum side of the system and can be inserted
    through an external hatch in the module without ever being brought into a
    hab… that would go over well despite the extra expense involved…

    i see no good reason for any of such a system to be in the hab.
    it should be protected by a whipple shield, but otherwise entirely external

    For the “let’s get acquainted with this gear in zero g” part of the development cycle it will be somewhat useful to be able to pressurize the power module on demand for access and repair work…

    … and it’s highly likely that such access will be needed before you’re ready to turn station power over to the module 🙂

    … after all these years spacewalks are still hazardous endeavors to be avoided wherever possible.

    #7163
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    zapkitty wrote:

    … and at the beginning of deployment you will have both the demand for any
    excess power that you can spare and you will have the means to distribute it.

    So again… the situation will resolve itself.

    That is, unless we let our lords and masters deliberately screw us over in their
    inevitable attempts to enrich themselves at our expense.

    As I have opined elsewhere, Eric’s plan to make licenses available to all comers world-wide will ensure no jurisdiction dares block FF, or even drag its feet. The ones that do implement it will immediately acquire a decisive economic “competitive advantage”. Imagine two states, side-by-side, one with power at 0.5¢/kwh and the other at 5¢ or 15¢. Where ya gonna locate? And whose products and services will be lower priced? Across the board? The same applies internationally. Imagine the Chinese adding a 10X power-cost advantage to their labor cost edge.

    As an instructive example, look up the power costs for aluminum refiners. It’s about 40% of total manufacturing cost. They will stampede to cut that by 10X, or even 5X (many get favorable concession pricing now, so the ratio would be lower than retail’s). Even steel production uses electric furnaces. The examples are myriad.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.