Live data from Hacker News

Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

science.org

131–140 of 157 posts

Re: Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

#131
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like all the isotopes of LI are very short lived. Is the problem some of the daughters, or perhaps the Fe and C in the steel that are the problem? https://www.thoughtco.com/lithium-isotopes-radioactive-decay...

Yes, the problem is the steel.

Unpleasantly, molten lithium metal corrodes steel. Glass, too.

Making the blanket out of molten metal would be a problem anyway because it is conductive, and you are trying to control a magnetic field inside the reactor chamber with coils around the outside of the blanket. Varying magnetic fields would set up eddy currents in the metal that would oppose changes to the field. So you probably need a diamagnetic insulating compound of lithium. What to bind to the lithium is a tricky question, because you don't want it stealing neutrons you need to breed tritium from, and getting radioactivated besides.

Under ideal conditions, if you had pure 6Li and 7Li, a neutron it stops would end up producing more than one tritium nucleus. The problem is that you have a great deal of other stuff that will steal neutrons, including pipes.

You could make the blanket with LiD, lithium deuteride, and any neutrons the deuterium picked up would make a tritium. But lithium deuteride melts up around 700C, which is hotter than most people like to imagine operating reactors. Worse, you cannot chemically distinguish the deuterium from the tritium, when you try to extract it.

There is a separate problem of extracting any bred tritium, in parts-per-billion concentration, out of the blanket.

Re: Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

#132
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.iter.org/sci/MakingitWork : “The helium nucleus carries an electric charge which will be subject to the magnetic fields of the tokamak and remain confined within the plasma, contributing to its continued heating. However, approximately 80 percent of the energy produced is carried away from the plasma by the neutron which has no electrical charge and is therefore unaffected by magnetic fields. The neutrons…

Makes me wonder if given the increasing value of water this has to change a bit (for reactors not close to shore). I.e. instead of letting the steam escape into the air after going through a turbine using some mechanism to passively cool/condense it "somehow", reusing _all_ coolant water, only having closed loop(s) (the "inner" cooling loop is often closed anyway for various reasons transferring the heat to an outer…

There is no expectation that the steam would be released. That would be terribly wasteful, and it is not done in existing plants, whether coal or nuke-fired.

Re: Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

#133
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no known material can withstand direct contact with the plasma. Even with the air gap the walls require a cooling system, and therefore a continuous hot stream of fluid will be generated like in any other thermal power plant. However, at the stage fusion research is, the main problem is figuring how to create a device to keep the plasma fluid stable for long periods of time. As far as I know, none of the exis…

Is this not false? The plasma is so incredibly thin that it would cool down immediately the moment it touches the walls. Afaik the heat generated here is mostly due to neutron bombardment and not because of the plasma.

The plasma had better not touch the wall, becuase then no plasma.

But the wall would be heated by the neutrons hammering it. Nobody has identified a material to make this wall out of. It has not even been worked on in decades.

Re: Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

#134
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this; if fission reactors were "better", we wouldn't be pouring so much into fusion? Also, if it makes a difference, I didn't mean we'd be bolting a first gen tokamak to a container ship; I meant, much later down the line, if we were able to miniaturise (similar to how we have nuclear powered subs and ice breakers).

Much more money is "poured into" fission than fusion, likely by a few orders of magnitude. There's one mega project around fusion (ITER) that has a price tag of about 1-2 billion dollars a year if you average it out over the many-decade life of the project, while any given fission plant built also costs billions of dollars. Like, whether or not fusion itself is a "meme," the idea that we spend obscene amounts of mone…

Some people quite reasonably object to spending billions of dollars every year on a project with a vanishingly small prospect of success, and of exactly zero practical value if it ever did succeed. There will never be so much as a single kWh of commercial power from these turkeys.

We can all think of numerous projects going unfunded that would have much higher chances of success, and much greater positive impact. But we have a research institution whose only possible recommendation is to continue giving it money, indefinitely.

We see the same dynamic in Alzheimer Syndrome research, where almost all the research money goes to people still fooling with amyloids and tau tangles. The people who control publication, funding, and hiring are people who would have nothing to do if funding for amyloid work stopped. So, they continue funding amyloid work long after it was recognized as a dead end. They have bred up mice that get dementia, and literally everything they do is about the mice.

This is somewhat different from the current crewed spaceflight program in the US, where the absurdly expensive SLS rocket is mandated to be used because senators have constituents in their districts depending on income from building them, useless as they are. In this case NASA would dearly love to abandon SLS, but is required by law to try to launch them. The best they can do is delay launches. Anytime the shoot one, they have to spend $billions building another one.

Re: Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think that government decisions are rational. Fusion is a meme technology. People just have this assumption that's it's valuable, without having rationally arrived at that conclusion (which, when you examine it in detail, is very difficult to justify.) I suspect this was because it started back in the 1950s when consent was easier to manufacture and nuclear was being pushed. Fission lost that glamour with…

It's not only governments pouring cash in, but private equity too. With all due respect, it seems ridiculous to me that fusion is a "meme technology" - aside from money, are all those many thousands of scientists really working on a technology they know can't work?

Let us just observe that securities fraud is very unevenly enforced.

None of these startup companies will ever produce a lone kWh of commercial power. But they will very diligently spend every dollar they are handed by VCs. The VC brokers know the score, but the money spent goes for equipment from quite profitable companies. It is not their money, and there seems to be plenty of it.

Re: Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

#137
post #48
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’re still a few years away from having them in actual power plants I admire your optimism. I'd say half a century, if things go well, but I'm not convinced fusion will ever be economically feasible.

The UK government plans to have a fusion power plant on the grid by 2040 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

In other news, the UK government revealed it is wholly disconnected from reality.

Re: Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

#139
post #137
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK government plans to have a fusion power plant on the grid by 2040 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

In other news, the UK government revealed it is wholly disconnected from reality.

Yeah ok, or maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

Re: Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've understood from previous discussions (don't know much about plasma physics though): It is a multistep challenge. Step 1: Figure out how to get a self-sustaining fusion reaction. Step 2: figure out how to extract the energy in a useful, safe, non-destructive (to the reactor) way. Doing Step 1 alone is very difficult so the've postponed Step 2 to the future. I may be wrong though.

Step 3: Profit

Nothing wrong with Step 3: Profit (not that you said anything negative about it).

The promise of profit often helps enables all the previous steps.

Long term research can lead to eventual profit, sometimes many decades later. Sometimes it does not.

Long term research is speculative investment -- high risk for high reward.

Post reply on HN