[flagged]
I see you're in the coolant business
Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
11–20 of 148 posts
Re: Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
#12[deleted]
Re: Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
#13Why is the last plot basically empty between 2000 and 2020? I understand that NIF was probably being built during that time, but were there no significant tokamak experiments in that time?
Author here - some other posters have touched on the reasons. Much of the focus on high performing tokamaks shifted to ITER in recent decades, though this is now changing as fusion companies are utilizing new enabling technologies like high-temperature superconductors. Additionally the final plot of scientific gain (Qsci) vs time effectively requires the use of deuterium-tritium fuel to generate the amounts of fusion…
If ITER is where it's at why are we building commercial scale tokamak? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems
Re: Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author here - some other posters have touched on the reasons. Much of the focus on high performing tokamaks shifted to ITER in recent decades, though this is now changing as fusion companies are utilizing new enabling technologies like high-temperature superconductors. Additionally the final plot of scientific gain (Qsci) vs time effectively requires the use of deuterium-tritium fuel to generate the amounts of fusion…
If ITER is where it's at why are we building commercial scale tokamak? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems
Companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems are an example of those utilizing high-temperature superconductors which did not exist commercially when ITER was being designed.
Re: Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
#15I heard that NIF was never intended to be a power plant, not even a prototype of one. It's primarily a nuclear weapon research program. For a power plant you would need much more efficient lasers, you would need a much larger gain in the capsules, you would need lasers that can do many shots per second, some automated reloading system for the capsules, and you would need a heat to electricity conversion system around the fusion spot (which will have an efficiency of ~1/3 or so).
Any truth to that?
Re: Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
#16I heard that NIF was never intended to be a power plant, not even a prototype of one. It's primarily a nuclear weapon research program. For a power plant you would need much more efficient lasers, you would need a much larger gain in the capsules, you would need lasers that can do many shots per second, some automated reloading system for the capsules, and you would need a heat to electricity conversion system around…
It's an experimental facility. Yes, a power plant would need much more efficient lasers, but NIF's lasers date back to the 1990s, equivalent modern lasers are about 40X more efficient, and for an experiment it's easy enough to do a multiplication to see what the net result would have been with modern lasers.
Modern lasers can also repeat shots much more quickly. Power gain on the capsules appears to scale faster than linear with the input power, so getting to practical gain might not be as far off as it appears at first glance.
These are some of the reasons that various fusion startups are pursuing laser fusion for power plants.
Re: Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
#17[flagged]
Real talk, the point is not that whatever system is first past the post for fusion becomes the gold standard and fills the planet.
The issue right now is cracking the code. Once that is done, performance gains and miniaturization can take place.
Fusion can work on lots of things. Its possible that a fusion system the size of a car could be made within 25 years of the code being cracked that would power a house, or the size of a small building that could power a city block.
The waste product of hydrogen fusion is helium, a valuable resource that will always be in high demand, and it will not be radioactive.
And yes, it will need coolant as with hot fusion the system uses the heat to turn a turbine, but that coolant isn't fancy, it's just water.
Fusion has the potential to solve more problems than it causes by every metric as long as it is doable without extremely limited source materials, and this is what these big expensive reactors are trying to solve.
Re: Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
#18[flagged]
If the alternative option is a coal power plant, sign me up!
Re: Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria
#19[flagged]
Real talk, the point is not that whatever system is first past the post for fusion becomes the gold standard and fills the planet. The issue right now is cracking the code. Once that is done, performance gains and miniaturization can take place. Fusion can work on lots of things. Its possible that a fusion system the size of a car could be made within 25 years of the code being cracked that would power a house, or th…
You’ve disputed nothing I’ve said and unless a dramatically higher temperature fusion reaction that does not generate a neutron flux is achieved, it will generate radioactive waste as a matter of factual physics. Thank you though!