benf
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
benfParticipantNo afraid not. I tried but didn’t receive a response. If anyone has any info as to what transpired, please let us know.
benfParticipantThanks for posting this announcement Nakile. I’m in the region and will try to attend (if I can pass the qualifications requirements). Thus far ARPA-E hasn’t been supportive, but as you say, this may be a step in the right direction.
benfParticipantThe report show a much improved image of the spiraling filaments and plasmoid. Great also to have the readings on contaminates.
September 17, 2013 at 5:03 am in reply to: NASA returns to DPF (and others): fusion for spaceflight. #12928benfParticipantGiven that Eric Lerner’s Focus Fusion research was once funded by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labs, are they now trying to reinvent the wheel? They should also set up shop in Middlesex NJ…
benfParticipantThere is this LLNL research going on that if proven feasible and desirable, Focus Fusion could possibly tie into…
benfParticipantDoes this represent progress?
Excerpt from the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (pg. 95-96)
Senator Feinstein:The Committee is concerned by the lack of a strategic vision,
which includes research and future facility needs, to advance the
domestic fusion energy sciences program. The Committee directs
the Secretary to submit a 10-year plan, not later than 12 months
after enactment of this act, on the Department’s proposed research
and development activities in magnetic fusion. The report shall (1)
identify specific areas of fusion energy research and enabling technology
development in which the United States can and should establish
or solidify a lead in the global fusion energy development
effort and (2) identify priorities for facility construction and facility
decommissioning.The Committee recommends $183,502,000 for the U.S. contribution
to ITER. No funding shall be made available for the U.S. contribution
until the Secretary submits to this Committee a baseline
cost, schedule, and scope estimate consistent with project manage96
ment principles in DOE Order 413.3B of the U.S. contribution
needed for completing all construction activities.
The Committee is concerned by the rising costs of the ITER
project and the impact to the domestic program. The cost range for
the U.S. contribution for construction activities was between
$1,450,000,000 and $2,200,000,000. The most recent estimate is
$2,400,000,000 and this estimate only fulfills U.S. obligations for
first plasma, rather than all construction activities. The Committee
is further concerned that the latest cost estimate does not properly
account for the technical risk of building the most complicated engineering
facility in the world. The most recent cost range was developed
when the design for ITER was less than 40 percent complete.The Committee also directs the Office of Science to include a
project data sheet with details of all project costs until the completion
of the project for ITER in the fiscal year 2015 budget submission.
The Committee understands that the Department provides
funding for ITER as a Major Item of Equipment rather than a line
item construction project, which would be consistent with DOE
Order 413.3B. However, the Committee feels that a multi-billion
dollar project, especially of this scale and complexity, should be
treated as a construction project and follow DOE Order 413.3B
guidance.benfParticipantMaya wrote:
66 kJ ? Not even a power figure here? And all for just a “few million amps”!!? You’re killing me over here.Maybe people don’t want the expensive, behemoth steam driven turbine AC generators anymore after the Fukushima experience and the problems with our grid. So we see the advent of the SMR, the small modular reactor. Unfortunately at this point the trend for those is going to be steam driven turbine AC fission technology.
For a large number of people even a hundred watts is a very big deal. (They aren’t living in ivory towers).
Maybe there is an issue of pressure in any size or form of fusion we could dream up. Great if you have it figured out! Bring the idea to the people in a way that’s
useful to them soon. In the meantime other approaches will have to be tested as well, that’s just reality.You never know, 5MW could also light up a lot of folks lives.
benfParticipantWelcome to the Forum Ed and thanks for posting. Your link returned a “page not found” to me so I’m posting a different &searchHistoryKey;=]link to your publication.
June 12, 2013 at 5:42 am in reply to: volunteers needed to map out environmental, clean energy news sites #12717benfParticipantExcellent….we’ll look forward to seeing it! 🙂
May 30, 2013 at 6:17 am in reply to: volunteers needed to map out environmental, clean energy news sites #12698benfParticipantHere are a few that would possibly be receptive:
benfParticipantI haven’t been having problems posting myself (assuming this post appears), but sorry to those who have been experiencing them. We’ll be monitoring the issue, which is hopefully temporary and isolated.
benfParticipantThis could be wrong, but I have a feeling “for CIF” should be “about ICF”…. Still though, a good idea to do a write up answering the questions by explaining how the DPF would work…
benfParticipantThat’s really interesting, Breakable. Antimatter is highly unstable however and would be tough to use as a fuel. But maybe it’s something that could be combined with the DPF Fusion? Antimatter for initial boost followed up with DPF sustained output?
I’m thinking there should be a heading for “Space Propulsion Technologies” within this Fusion Contenders section. It’s an important topic for discussion made more timely by this recent NASA Roadmap: In Space Propulsion on the subject.
-
AuthorPosts
