111–120 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the opposite. Achieving fusion power is so critical to the long term sustainability of human technological civilization that we cannot afford to put all of our eggs in one basket, and hope that we picked the right one.
Fair enough. And I agree. However, to be clear, that's __not__what this article says. Per the quote I pulled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they had a clear path to fusion and money were the only thing in the way, money would flow into it from every direction. The problem is that nobody knows how to build a functioning reactor yet or if it's even possible to build a functioning reactor. It's very possible that we could throw trillions of dollars at this and still not figure it out.
It's very possible that we could throw trillions of dollars at this and still not figure it out. Possible, but unlikely (imo). It's just that private business doesn't really do large-scale multi-decade pure research efforts with far-off ROI, and governments have chosen to spend money elsewhere. Hence, progress is steady, but slow.
Fusion power has the potential to be a serious game changer and everybody should have access to it.
With fusion devices having trouble to confine the plasma for long times, I wonder if a massively-parallel fusion plant woud be feasible. Let's assume that plasma destabilisation does not damage the device, and is a mundane event. Build 10 or even 20 fusion devices (economy of scale!) feeding the common heat buffer, e.g. a large reservoir of a molten salt or metal. Feed conventional turbines off the heat of the heat t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confining the plasma is easier in a larger reactor, so you might be better off building one big reactor instead of 20 small ones.
If confinement is easier in a large machine, why are not very large machines being built? If this is economically infeasible, then again, building piecemeal may be better, in the same way as taking a credit and paying interest on it might be better if you can't secure the upfront sum anyway.
That's the plan. But first you have to figure out a lot of details in smaller machines.
Experiments like Wendelstein remind me that the only thing holding back fusion power is money for research like this. Every year, we spend billions on fossil fuel exploration because the return on investment is quick - just think about all the wells going in to extract shale oil. What if we collectively had the will to invest this much into fusion?
If the Stellerator, or any of its descendants, turn out to be the answer to practical fusion, it would have been contingent on vast quantities of computational power being available cheaply. It does not matter how much money you poured into your Stellerator project in 1970, you could never have built the 7-X, because there would have been no way to produce that design in the first place. Personally, I think one of th…
Fusion would be similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is a huge range of great options for storing electricity Producers of wind and solar power would love to hear about them! Re SPOF: since the fusion devices are much less reliable, as of now, than reservoirs of hot liquids, I suppose the reservoir is much less of a concern. I understand that fusion efficiency grows with size; this is why we are surrounded with colossal self-initiated fusion reactions, and have…
> Maby we could still Early computers where huge and broke down all the time. They where built that way because it was the easiest option at the time. Nobody wants to build multi billion dollar devices if you could get away with spending 1/10th as much or even test several designs at the same time they would. PS: The grid absorbs solar and wind interment nature just fine without much in the way of storage. That might…
I was under the impression that this was because we have a bunch of natural-gas power plants that are turned on when necessary to meet peak load.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A company like Apple has a quarter trillion in cash laying around, they could jump start fusion and control near-limitless energy in several decades. I wish there was more of a visionary drive among institutions for intellectual curiosity and pushing the boundaries of humankind. And yes, I know why they don't... shareholders business plans risk blah blah blah. Reality is just so BORING. Maybe one day we'll find a way…
The problem might be that patents are only valid for about 20 years. That might be the time required to perfect the technology and reach the break-even point.
Experiments like Wendelstein remind me that the only thing holding back fusion power is money for research like this. Every year, we spend billions on fossil fuel exploration because the return on investment is quick - just think about all the wells going in to extract shale oil. What if we collectively had the will to invest this much into fusion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you think fusion would be a great alternative source of energy since you're comparing it to fossil fuel exploration. However, this is not necessarily true. It not only has to work, it also has to be economical and not have significant drawbacks. I think that's very much up in the air. Compare it to fission - we know how to build those power plants, but it's just so damn hard that it's too expensive, co…
I agree. I hear the comments about a lack of funding but to me it isn't necessarily a lack of vision from politicians and businessmen. I have a Ph.D. in physics and even worked for 6 months full-time in the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab as an undergraduate and I still hav mixed feelings about fusion power, particular vs other non-fossil fuel options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 7-X design was computed in the late 80s? Source for that? Looking at the German Wikipedia entry, the HELIAS method was invented in the late 80s. I don't see anything about the 7-X design actually having been computed back then. In fact, even the 2002 experiment Wendelstein 7-AS wasn't fully optimised. Also, Tokamaks were invented in the 1950s. JET started operating in 1983. ITER was proposed in 1987. Given even jus…
Another factor in W7-X being possible today and not a few decades ago, from my understanding, is the proliferation of and improvements in precision of CNC tools. All the design computations in the world go to waste if it can't be built to spec. Which it can be, today, at a reasonable cost.