turn heat into electricity

[Aeronaut]

Axil, I’m glad to see that you’re open to other fuels. Let’s start with a FF timing diagram to see why fluid cavitation won’t work here. The cap bank discharge happens in around 1 microsecond, and the plasmoid life is hopefully in tens of nanoseconds. This rules out fluids and moving parts, and every last one of the hidden costs of adding any part to an elegant design. The reason that Q has to be so high for ‘competing’ designs is that all of their huge magnets, pumps, buildings, etc. present huge parasitic loads that must be powered before declaring unity, let alone profitable operation.

‘Competing’ designs also have Carnot’s Law crippling the idea before it can even get to a drawing board.

Before a utility can be expected to commit to distributing the production of tens of GWhrs across it’s entire local network, all the way down to the local transformer yards, let alone replace an entire boiler/turbine/generator module, they’re going to need to prove it for themselves, using one or few FF modules to power existing parasitic loads. If it works, their experiment only cost a megabuck or so, and is paid for both in fuel savings and increased billable output from their already installed technologies.

[Axil]

Brian H wrote: texas;
good posting; thanks for saving me the effort and time! 😉 But there is a change-of-paradigm issue (one of several, actually) Axil and others are responding to here: the sheer numbers of FF modules is overwhelming compared to existing large plant. The utilities and others are used to and comfortable with big. “Proliferation” of small units (though, as I discussed with A. and R. elsewhere, clusters and stacks are quite feasible) will present all kinds of choices and incentives to industrial, civilian, and military users that haven’t been at issue before. So there will certainly be much more distributed generation, often for projects and options that simply never existed previously.

As I said once or twice: once this genie is out of the bottle, there’s no stuffing it back in. By regulation or monopoly muscle or any other way. The dollar slope is just too steep, and expenses will aggressively seek the lower level.

But there is a change-of-paradigm issue…

The utilities and especially the NRC are not comfortable with “change-of-paradigm” issues in any way, sharp, or form. They consider it a threat and a risk. The nuclear industry is conservative in the extreme and the NRC leads the way on this.

…clusters and stacks are quite feasible…

Now this is an excellent idea; an idea I can get behind fully and with enthusiasm. A purpose built data acquisition and control system would need to be developed to get it to work, however.

But, the designers of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) tried to sell the cluster approach to the utilities with no success. Here, 10 PBMRs were to replace one Light Water Reactor (LWR).

The dollar slope is just too steep, and expenses will aggressively seek the lower level.

This is an absolute truth. A low cost/price structure will always rule the day and overcome any resistance. Low cost Conquers All.

But this is only possible is the boron fusion fuel cycle is made to work in a highly productive manner and that is soooo hard to do. A D-D fusion backup plan is prudent to consider.

[Brian H]

Axil wrote:

…

The dollar slope is just too steep, and expenses will aggressively seek the lower level.

This is an absolute truth. A low cost/price structure will always rule the day and overcome any resistance. Low cost Conquers All.

But this is only possible is the boron fusion fuel cycle is made to work in a highly productive manner and that is soooo hard to do. A D-D fusion backup plan is prudent to consider.

But the D-D option, as discussed above, carries a HUGE load of costs with it because it is lower yield and produces lotsa neutrons, some very energetic. AND it is a heat engine — back to the big boilers, nothankyewverymuch.

2H + 2H → 3H + 1H
………… → 3He + n
The optimum temperature for this reaction is 15 keV, only slightly higher than the optimum for the D-T reaction. The first branch does not produce neutrons, but it does produce tritium, so that a D-D reactor will not be completely tritium-free, even though it does not require an input of tritium or lithium. Most of the tritium produced will be burned before leaving the reactor, which reduces the tritium handling required, but also means that more neutrons are produced and that some of these are very energetic. The neutron from the second branch has an energy of only 2.45 MeV, whereas the neutron from the D-T reaction has an energy of 14.1 MeV, resulting in a wider range of isotope production and material damage. Assuming complete tritium burn-up, the reduction in the fraction of fusion energy carried by neutrons is only about 18%, so that the primary advantage of the D-D fuel cycle is that tritium breeding is not required. Other advantages are independence from limitations of lithium resources and a somewhat softer neutron spectrum. The price to pay compared to D-T is that the energy confinement (at a given pressure) must be 30 times better and the power produced (at a given pressure and volume) is 68 times less.

Wikipedia

[Brian H]

Axil wrote:
…
But this is only possible is the boron fusion fuel cycle is made to work in a highly productive manner and that is soooo hard to do.
…

Mebbe so, mebbe no. That’s kinda the point of the whole FF design and experimental project. If Eric’s modelling and theorizing pan out, it’s actually (and this is the point, surely) much easier given its energy profile at high temps. As long as those temperatures are very brief and very small, they don’t require supercooled superconductors and heat sinks to contain.

[Axil]

Your labor costs/staffing levels for FF are off by about a factor of 30. So the labor costs are similar, while the capital costs for the hybrid are higher than FF ($50-$100/kW) by about a factor of 10-20.
So say again why the hybrid is cheaper?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a concept called “self protection”. When a reactor and/or its fuel is self protected, any human that gets to within a meter of the reactor will die in 5 minutes or less.

If a reactor and/or its fuel is not self protected and its can be subject to proliferation, it must be guarded against any credible threat.

Unless this IAEA security requirement (aka security plan) is met, the NRC will not license the reactor.

The new small reactors (nuclear batteries) are buried 30 meters underground sometimes incased in reinforced concrete; but none of these nuclear batteries have been licensed. It is yet to be seen if this protection strategy will be allowed.

If allowed, these nuclear batteries when shipped, installed, or decommission, these processes will be monitored in shipment or on site to assure security.

In order for the FF reactor to be licensed by the NRC, if the FF reactor is not buried underground, a security force will be required to repel any credible threat 24/7/365. Most probably, the size of that force will be the same as the guard force that protects the current fleet of light water reactors.

[Rematog]

“A purpose built data acquisition and control system would need to be developed to get it to work, however. “

This is referred to as a DCS (Distributed Control System). It would need to be purchased, designed and installed, not “developed”. You can Wiki “Distributed Control System” for background.

DCS hardware is off-the-shelf and available from a number of suppliers, such as Honeywell, Foxboro, Allen Bradly, ABB, Westinghouse, General Electric…

Yes, the system has to be designed, logic written, hardware installed, wiring/fiber pulled and tuning done. The design and logic for each application would be custom, but this is commerically available hardware and services, no problem (if you can pay for it) rough guess for a 100-200 or so FF module site, $5M to $10M installed. Not including the building to put it in.

In addition to control, these systems provide information gathering and storage, alarming (warning that a parameter is outside of set limits) and other services. The same fiberoptic system used for DCS communications can carry information networks and security camera feeds.

[Tulse]

Axil wrote: If a reactor and/or its fuel is not self protected and its can be subject to proliferation, it must be guarded against any credible threat.

Unless this IAEA security requirement (aka security plan) is met, the NRC will not license the reactor.

[…]

In order for the FF reactor to be licensed by the NRC, if the FF reactor is not buried underground, a security force will be required to repel any credible threat 24/7/365. Most probably, the size of that force will be the same as the guard force that protects the current fleet of light water reactors.

Proliferation of what? Decaborane? The reason the NRC and IAEA worry about fission reactors is that their fuel can be used for bombs, and is highly radioactive. FF devices have extremely low levels of radioactivity, and their fuel isn’t useful for making weapons. I doubt the IAEA would even see a FF device as falling within its mandate (at least no more so than a hospital cyclotron), and similarly the NRC is going to care much less about a FF device than a nuclear battery filled with uranium.

There are plenty of devices in the world that produce X-rays and ion beams and neutrons. Many of those are used for industrial and medical purposes. FF isn’t really doing anything new, and is not a proliferation threat.

[Brian H]

Tulse wrote:

If a reactor and/or its fuel is not self protected and its can be subject to proliferation, it must be guarded against any credible threat.

Unless this IAEA security requirement (aka security plan) is met, the NRC will not license the reactor.

[…]

In order for the FF reactor to be licensed by the NRC, if the FF reactor is not buried underground, a security force will be required to repel any credible threat 24/7/365. Most probably, the size of that force will be the same as the guard force that protects the current fleet of light water reactors.

Proliferation of what? Decaborane? The reason the NRC and IAEA worry about fission reactors is that their fuel can be used for bombs, and is highly radioactive. FF devices have extremely low levels of radioactivity, and their fuel isn’t useful for making weapons. I doubt the IAEA would even see a FF device as falling within its mandate (at least no more so than a hospital cyclotron), and similarly the NRC is going to care much less about a FF device than a nuclear battery filled with uranium.

There are plenty of devices in the world that produce X-rays and ion beams and neutrons. Many of those are used for industrial and medical purposes. FF isn’t really doing anything new, and is not a proliferation threat.
Absolumentally keerect. The FF isn’t even a reactor in the sense of any reactor produced to date, since there are no successful fusion reactors, just sub-Q experiments. It’s questionable whether the NRC’s mandate even stretches to cover it. Declaring aneutronic fusion a hazard would be as stupid as, say, listing CO2 as a pollutant. :coolcheese:

[Tulse]

Brian H wrote: It’s questionable whether the NRC’s mandate even stretches to cover it.

It appears that the NRC plans to regulate fusion reactors, at least “whenever such devices are of significance to the common defense and security, or could affect the health and safety of the public”. I’m not sure if FF would be covered by the first criterion, and public health and safety is extremely little impacted by FF. While I don’t doubt that the NRC would want to extend its mandate as far as it can, I think a strong case can be made that, by their own criteria, FF shouldn’t fall under their jurisdiction.

[Brian H]

Tulse wrote:

It’s questionable whether the NRC’s mandate even stretches to cover it.

It appears that the NRC plans to regulate fusion reactors, at least “whenever such devices are of significance to the common defense and security, or could affect the health and safety of the public”. I’m not sure if FF would be covered by the first criterion, and public health and safety is extremely little impacted by FF. While I don’t doubt that the NRC would want to extend its mandate as far as it can, I think a strong case can be made that, by their own criteria, FF shouldn’t fall under their jurisdiction.
“The Commission has approved [that] … the Commission asserts (authority over fusion reactors)….” I wonder by what legal authority? A Commission that defines its own reach is essentially omnipotent, and I somehow doubt the enabling legislation contemplates that!

[Rematog]

hmmm… the EPA just determined that CO2 is a pollutant that they can regulate…. and they just determined that even thought flyash passes the leach tests, it’s now going to be ruled “hazardous waste”, because the EPA want’s to regulate it.

Be glad OSHA and EPA regs don’t apply to peoples homes…..

[Brian H]

Rematog wrote: hmmm… the EPA just determined that CO2 is a pollutant that they can regulate…. and they just determined that even thought flyash passes the leach tests, it’s now going to be ruled “hazardous waste”, because the EPA want’s to regulate it.

Be glad OSHA and EPA regs don’t apply to peoples homes…..

Heh. That’s why I used CO2 regulation as a ridiculous exaggerated example.
Rembo, I’d like to know if you picked up on and read the physics article I referenced elsewhere: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4 . It not only demolishes Atmospheric Greenhouse theory, it shows that IR blocking has nothing to do with a glass greenhouse. Pure convection restriction, irrelevant to atmospheres.

[Phil’s Dad]

Tulse wrote:

It’s questionable whether the NRC’s mandate even stretches to cover it.

It appears that the NRC plans to regulate fusion reactors, at least “whenever such devices are of significance to the common defense and security, or could affect the health and safety of the public”. I’m not sure if FF would be covered by the first criterion, and public health and safety is extremely little impacted by FF. While I don’t doubt that the NRC would want to extend its mandate as far as it can, I think a strong case can be made that, by their own criteria, FF shouldn’t fall under their jurisdiction.

There will always be places where the NRC has no mandate. Perhaps they should get FF first. :coolsmirk:

[Henning]

Phil’s Dad wrote: There will always be places where the NRC has no mandate. Perhaps they should get FF first. :coolsmirk:

e.g. China

[Axil]

Tulse wrote:

If a reactor and/or its fuel is not self protected and its can be subject to proliferation, it must be guarded against any credible threat.

Unless this IAEA security requirement (aka security plan) is met, the NRC will not license the reactor.

[…]

In order for the FF reactor to be licensed by the NRC, if the FF reactor is not buried underground, a security force will be required to repel any credible threat 24/7/365. Most probably, the size of that force will be the same as the guard force that protects the current fleet of light water reactors.

Proliferation of what? Decaborane? The reason the NRC and IAEA worry about fission reactors is that their fuel can be used for bombs, and is highly radioactive. FF devices have extremely low levels of radioactivity, and their fuel isn’t useful for making weapons. I doubt the IAEA would even see a FF device as falling within its mandate (at least no more so than a hospital cyclotron), and similarly the NRC is going to care much less about a FF device than a nuclear battery filled with uranium.

There are plenty of devices in the world that produce X-rays and ion beams and neutrons. Many of those are used for industrial and medical purposes. FF isn’t really doing anything new, and is not a proliferation threat.

Hi Tulse thanks for the reply.

… similarly the NRC is going to care much less about a FF device than a nuclear battery filled with uranium.

It goes deeper than that. There is an economic war underway between nuclear and gas/renewables right now and the greens are winning. The greens are doing their best to undercut nuclear as a replacement for coal. To do this, the greens are well funded by the gas industry.

Recently, I even saw a windmill ad on the TV paid for by the gas industry.

Small fusion is not on the greens target screen yet. But, if small fusion shows promise, it will receive a first class slander campaign equal to its threat to the gas industry.

If FF is as powerful as you say, it will come down to a life and death struggle. You will look back fondly on this time of anonymity.

Facts won’t matter. The NRC will respond to any doubt real or perceived in small fusion, it has always reacted so and this is not likely to change.

Along the same lines, I have always wondered why federal money has always been directed to every big fusion debacle like ITER and LIFE instead of polywell and FF.

It very well might be that a huge monstrosity of a fusion reactor is hard to steal or divert to unapproved and uncontrolled purposes; whereas, a small fusion reactor can be loaded into a pickup and fail below the horizon of authorized control. Control is of upmost importance.

Also, there is a desire for a pure fusion bomb to enable the elimination of the world’s nuclear arsenals and the elimination of all current designs of nuclear weapons by treaty. A small fusion trigger feed by a chemical/electric power source could provide the first stage of a multistage fusion bomb instead of a small fission device trigger.

For example as follows:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/darpas-handheld-nuclear-fusion-reactor/

“ …the Chip-Scale High Energy Atomic Beams project had a budget of just $3 million, and rather shorter timescales; the plans for fiscal year 2009 include: “Develop 0.5 MeV [mega electron-volt] proton beams and collide onto microscale B-11 target with a fusion Q (energy ratio) > 20, possibly leading to self-sustained fusion”

I think this project has turned BLACK.

If the Chip-Scale High Energy Atomic Beams project does not work out, FF could also turn black.

[Author]

Posts