Earlier quoted context omitted.
true. but on the other hand, the 'theoretical' is being turned into practice as evidenced by this 8 minute containment. the best a tokamak can do is half a second.
Tokamak record time for plasma confinement is 403 seconds as of April 2023, see https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/mutimedia_news/202304/t20230... 403s is about 7 minutes, so less than Wendelstein 7-X.
Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
251–260 of 322 posts
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#252Ahh, Wendelstein is that stellerator reactor. The stellerator is really cool, and an alternative to a tokamak reactor. Tokamak is the doughnut shaped reactor, and it has a problem where the plasma near the outer circumference has less magnetic confinement. The stellerator is similar, but confines the plasma to a ribbon and folds it over on itself in a mobius-like arrangement. I used to be really interested in this, b…
They should've gone with a catchier name like "forbidden cruller".
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't either, since I spelled it Warf! I never watched Star Trek (probably get my HN privileges revoked for that), but I did know that much. And then the Reading Rainbow guy's "whatever happened will happen again". I know the character's name is Geordie or whatever, but he didn't have the right accent for him to be a Geordie, so he will forever be Reading Rainbow guy instead.
He could have been the Jeopardy guy too.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't "move fast and break things" with nuclear fusion :-)
What is the worst that can happen? Seriously, I think I might know (a fire) but I do not. Is there any possibility these can go ban! and spread nasty stuff around the neighbourhood? I doubt they can go thermonuclear bang! but I am not a physicist. What is the worst than can happen?
But that doesn't really matter. This is expensive technology you don't want to blow up. Yes, more expensive than rockets.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zap Energy. They're at least thinking about co-opting existing infrastructure. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newszap-energy-considers-re... Also their concept is just so weird, I love it. Worst case it works in space as a nuclear fusion drive :) My guess is that they're all going to tank without government money, unless by some miracle they have truly found some special low-cost of operation on the first try that…
Sorry, but this is bullshit. A steam turbine and a generator will be a _minor_ detail in the overall list of expenses building a fusion generator. It's like saying: "We should build an airport here in the desert, because we'll be able to save on cutting the grass!"
It's not going to save a meaningful amount of money. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Right now there is no reasonable way to have a 100% renewable and reliable grid in Northern Europe, excepting classic hydro. I specifically studied the German grid, and it needs about a MONTH of storage to compensate for a once-in-a-century Dunkelflaute (a period with little wind, no sun, and cold temperatures).
> Right now there is no reasonable way to have a 100% renewable and reliable grid [...] and it needs about a MONTH of storage to compensate for a once-in-a-century Dunkelflaute If you accept slightly less than 100% renewables, you could use diesel or gas backup for these once-in-a-century events.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#257Interesting fact: Nuclear fusion, even if we'll make it work, won't stop global warming, because the heat it creates heats up the earth enough to bring us outside the Paris agreement: https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1605967891928596481
According to the article, we currently emit 2.1w/sqm in greenhouse gasses.
If we had 10x energy and it was all fusion - it would be 0.4w/sqm.
This sounds like a massive improvement.
Additionally, I'm highly skeptical we'll be using 10x the energy in 100 years - when there's likely to be significantly less people, and everything is getting more efficient.
Sounds like the same argument that China is going to continue growing 10% per year for the next hundred years, because it did for the last 30 years. No. China's workforce is going to decline massively. It will be so much harder for them to grow at the same rate, it would take a real miracle to keep growing at that rate.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not with a properly design energy system. The conclusion of 100% RE research is that such a system will have costs similar to fossil fuels.
No. Right now there is no reasonable way to have a 100% renewable and reliable grid in Northern Europe, excepting classic hydro. I specifically studied the German grid, and it needs about a MONTH of storage to compensate for a once-in-a-century Dunkelflaute (a period with little wind, no sun, and cold temperatures).
A combined cycle power plant costs about $1/W of capacity (and for rare events, simple cycle would be even cheaper), so one could back up the entire grid with these at a small capital cost compared to powering the grid with nuclear. For Europe, these would also be useful for seasonal leveling, allowing solar to provide a larger fraction of Europe's energy demand.
Hydrogen is an example of "Power to X" (PtX), where excess power, when available, is used to make some very storable commodity. This review article talks about how important these are to reaching 100% RE.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
"With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels."
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right now there is no reasonable way to have a 100% renewable and reliable grid [...] and it needs about a MONTH of storage to compensate for a once-in-a-century Dunkelflaute If you accept slightly less than 100% renewables, you could use diesel or gas backup for these once-in-a-century events.
That drives up costs because you have to maintain many gigawatts of backup capacity sitting idle most of the year. It's better to have more flexible solutions that provide value the whole year. That's either baseload (fission, fusion) or grid-scale, seasonal storage (unsolved problem).
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Theoretically' is the right word for sure. iirc, the predecessor of the Wendelstein led to the bankruptcy of the engineering firms building the parts, because tolerances were so tight and they failed multiple times to land within the constraints.
The first Alternativlos Podcast of two conducted with the leader of the Wendelstein X project relates how certain magnetic coils were purpose made by a kind of emeritus engineer in Swiss. Which seems corollary to the common wisdom about EMI, it's magic, so the manufacturer must be a wizard. On the other hand it is reminiscent of a Georgian I met who used to be occupied with winding regular tire sized coils by hand, f…
But that's exactly what it means: