Live data from Hacker News

Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

ipp.mpg.de

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#201
post #3

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?

On top of what everybody else has said, I also don't think it's a given, even if/once we crack the technology, that anybody will actually use it to generate power. I think there's a totally plausible outcome where somebody builds a fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes and said reactor has essentially infinite, essentially free fuel, but the design they come up with costs $20 billion a pop to buil…

Even coal power plants cost several billion. I don't think an order of magnitude reduction in cost is foolish to count on.

The issue is the design of extremely specialized components, not necessarily the raw materials (except when they're novel superconducting magnets designed for that purpose).

I think schedule delays are what is making ITER so expensive.

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#202
post #3

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 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.

Depending on your definition of "reactor", it was either done decades ago, about to be done (or at least the scientific community is very confident they know how to do so), or several decades away.

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#203

"Although Wendelstein 7-X is not designed to generate energy, the device is intended to prove that stellarators are suitable for use in power stations. With Wendelstein 7-X the intention is to achieve for the first time in a stellarator the quality of confinement afforded by competing devices of the tokamak type." This was at the very end. While competition is certainly a positive, this doesn't sound like they're int…

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.

Fusion is only necessary for long-term sustainability if you're talking about interstellar travel (and even then, fission may be fine).

There's a real physical ceiling to how much power can be consumed on Earth's surface, regardless of its source.

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#204
post #5

Does anyone have any idea how do they take pictures of the plasma? That seems quite hard considering the temperatures and the strong magnetic field.

I operate a fast camera at W7-X. It's a normal high-speed camera that records light in the humanly visible range, and the plasma emits in that range and reflects off the walls. IR cameras are most often used to gauge the temperatures of vessel wall components. Our camera looks through a pinhole in the vessel wall, but it sits a few meters away from the machine and gets that view through a bundle of optical fibers. Th…

That's just awesome, thanks for the explanation!

As a side note, you gotta love HN... where you ask a question about some obscure thing and often get an answer straight from the source.

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#205

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…

Here's a source, unfortunately paywalled, from 1989: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/FST90-A29178 I do research at W7-X, so I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge, the design was computed a long time ago. Building the actual device took a while.

Thank you! That's why I love HN :-)

Would you happen to know what kind of compute power was required? Was it run on a colleague's PC or workstation or did it require supercomputer time?

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#206
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a source, unfortunately paywalled, from 1989: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/FST90-A29178 I do research at W7-X, so I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge, the design was computed a long time ago. Building the actual device took a while.

Do you have any links to a high level description of how this would be hooked up to a powerplant? Would this be used to heat water as per a typical fission plant?

"The Helias (Helical Advanced Stellarator) reactor is based on the Wendelstein stellarator line and takes into account the design criteria of a power reactor."

http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Sofia/pdf/P4_192.pdf

Alas, it "just" seems to talk about extending the coil design for a reactor, not the rest. I am guessing most of that would be similar as for other fusion reactors, see for example MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#207
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any links to a high level description of how this would be hooked up to a powerplant? Would this be used to heat water as per a typical fission plant?

"The Helias (Helical Advanced Stellarator) reactor is based on the Wendelstein stellarator line and takes into account the design criteria of a power reactor." http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Sofia/pdf/P4_192.pdf Alas, it "just" seems to talk about extending the coil design for a reactor, not the rest. I am guessing most of that would be similar as for other fusion reactors, see for example MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy: http…

Thanks for the links. Had a bit of a google for Helias. Looks like the Wendelstein team are exploring using something called a "Helium Cooled Pebble Bed Blanket", which was designed for ITER. To me it looks like a closed loop heat exchanger using helium. This would then be fed into a typical steam system.

Though I don't really understand the significance of the "pebbles" in this system.

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#208
I thought the main problem with nuclear fusion is neutron capture converting the structural materials which are no longer fit for purpose.

I'm quite keen on aneutronic fusion, Boron 11 + a neutron, which converts to three alpha particles which can lose their energy to magnetic fields generating electricity, no need for any Victorian steam engines.

The huge downside is that works at much much higher temperatures, but if you can't solve the neutron capture issue...

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#209
post #65

If this ends up being the right design for fusion, it may be the most weirdly shaped human artifact, where the shape is fundamental to its operation and not decorative. It's far more complex than a mere turbine blade or venturi. Or can anyone suggest a weirder one? (Define weirdness as the Kolmogorov complexity of the shape, within the precision needed to work properly.)

The weird design makes me as a layman skeptical of the tech's potential, but I'd love to hear why I'm wrong: - The randomness and lack of symmetry suggest that we are lacking insight into the problem, like an inelegant physics explanation or an over-fitted model. It's not just that it's complex, but it doesn't even seem to have "parts" that work together. Conceptually fusion seems pretty simple: why in principle does…

> Conceptually fusion seems pretty simple: why in principle does harnessing it require super-human complexity?

All your useful materials melt at 2000 degrees.

The fusion takes place at 20000000 degrees.

Mystery solved.

(Yes I know these numbers are grossly oversimplified.)

Re: Successful second round of fusion experiments with Wendelstein 7-X

#210
post #96
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it with physicists and molten salt? Every battery-tech, pro-nuclear, fusion related news have to have somebody chiming in "molten salt". Just an observation.

Molten salts are hot! SCNR. Seriously though, molten salts are great heat transfer media, a bit like water, just at higher temperature and still low pressure. They are also completely immune to radiation damage, which is a big deal if you have 14MeV neutrons flying around and something has to stop them. Chemistry in molten salts is also interesting. Things can be extracted (say, into a molten metal phase) or precipit…

Can you teach me more about the radiation properties of molten salts? Didnt know molten salt is immune to radiation, why would that be? Thats cool, though.
Post reply on HN