Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fusion Power Plant Simulator

fusionenergybase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#51

Post by ASalazarMX »

leonidasrup wrote: post #5

For those interested not only in simplified energy balance of a fusion power plant as shown in Fusion Power Plant Simulator, but in more realistic engineering of heat extraction from a tokamak I recommend the following lecture by Dr. Dennis Whyte from MIT Plasma Science & Fusion Center. Fusion Reactor First Wall Cooling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJyoqDO0zw One of the designs uses 3D printed silicon carbide vac…

> cooled by a layer of molten lead

Really gives a perspective on the range of temperatures handled.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#52

Post by tovej »

dale_glass wrote: post #45
mono442 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's impossible to calculate at this stage since there're no fusion power plants which actually produce net power.

True, but we've built tokamaks and we're building ITER, which so far has an estimated price of between $45 billion and $65 billion. Now of course that's a research reactor full of experiments and instrumentation that wouldn't be part of a normal power plant, but given current experience that I think we can expect we won't suddenly knock down the cost to $100M. It's going to be somewhere in the billions. And we have e…

I think a lot of the cost is custom parts. Standardization and economy of scale would bring the price down quite a bit.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#53

Post by p1mrx »

tovej wrote: post #50
Gud wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ITER is not our best bet for commercial fusion. ITER was a peace project between the USA and the Soviet Union. https://www.cfs.energy

ITER is definitely the best bet for a workable fusion concept. There are some unsolved issues left, but its nothing compared to the sci-fi solutions most US startups would require.

CFS is ITER with better magnets.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#54

Post by FiatLuxDave »

I actually like the recirculation simulation. Although all kinds of cyclical engines have recirculation of power as part of their function, in fusion there is an important difference from what people are used to. In an internal combustion engine, the crankshaft and flywheel in a car recirculate power from the power stroke to the compression stroke, doing the same thing as the recirculated energy does in this simulation. But in fusion, this 'crankshaft' is very lossy. I suspect if you have a model in your head of how an internal combustion engine works, crankshaft losses are not a big thing. Teaching people that when they model fusion reactors that they need to include this because it's important, I think would help people develop better physical intuition. The 'lossy crankshaft' model was an important part of why I opted for partial direct conversion with the design I built back in the '90s. Set both eff sliders high to see how much this helps.

That said, one big missing thing (other than the economic stuff, mentioned by others) which would add a lot to this simulation would be more about 'where does Q come from?'. Obviously this could be too complicated for a little sim, but perhaps a few simple things could be added like showing how increasing the volume/surface ratio for tokomaks/sphereomaks can help, or how getting rid of certain types of instabilities can improve say mirror or pinch designs. This might help people to understand why certain design decisions (like building ITER so big) were made.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#55

Post by alas44 »

Gud wrote: post #49
dale_glass wrote: post #16

A good addition would be the sales price per MWh, price for the power plant, and the loan interest rate. Because IMO all that is extremely critical. I fully support the pursuit of fusion as a scientific endeavor, but given that we're probably at least 30 years away from having anything approaching commercial deployment (assuming ITER is built, works, is followed promptly by DEMO, it works, and is followed promptly by…

ITER is not our best bet for commercial fusion. ITER was a peace project between the USA and the Soviet Union. https://www.cfs.energy

Side note, all fusion start ups have built upon decades of science research funded in the ITER program, so opposing ITER to fusion start ups is misleading

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#56

Post by dale_glass »

tovej wrote: post #52
dale_glass wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but we've built tokamaks and we're building ITER, which so far has an estimated price of between $45 billion and $65 billion. Now of course that's a research reactor full of experiments and instrumentation that wouldn't be part of a normal power plant, but given current experience that I think we can expect we won't suddenly knock down the cost to $100M. It's going to be somewhere in the billions. And we have e…

I think a lot of the cost is custom parts. Standardization and economy of scale would bring the price down quite a bit.

If that happens it will still take decades.

It took us a lot of time to standardize computers. We made lots of weird architectures before things settled down.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#57

Post by sam »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #54

I actually like the recirculation simulation. Although all kinds of cyclical engines have recirculation of power as part of their function, in fusion there is an important difference from what people are used to. In an internal combustion engine, the crankshaft and flywheel in a car recirculate power from the power stroke to the compression stroke, doing the same thing as the recirculated energy does in this simulati…

Well said about the “lossy crankshaft”. As for what determines Q, that’s up next, stay tuned :)

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#58

Post by leonidasrup »

dale_glass wrote: post #16

A good addition would be the sales price per MWh, price for the power plant, and the loan interest rate. Because IMO all that is extremely critical. I fully support the pursuit of fusion as a scientific endeavor, but given that we're probably at least 30 years away from having anything approaching commercial deployment (assuming ITER is built, works, is followed promptly by DEMO, it works, and is followed promptly by…

ITER is a many stakeholders project, with all it's advantages (the costs can be split among participants, international cooperation) and disadvantages (each government wants a piece of the pie - components are manufactured at many subcontractors, in multiple countries) and politics (for example the multi-year process for selecting a ITER location).

The bigger, principal problem of ITER is the used magnet technology (niobium–tin, niobium–titanium). This was safe and conservative choice in 1990s, but as consequence the tokamak has to be big and therefor expensive to build.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems is currently building a tokamak based on the same physics as ITER, but with modern magnet technology using rare-earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) high-temperature superconductors. Their ARC tokamak should be smaller and cheaper than ITER.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems

Of all the fusion energy startups Commonwealth Fusion Systems is nearest to demonstrating a realistic fusion power plant.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#59

Post by leonidasrup »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #54

I actually like the recirculation simulation. Although all kinds of cyclical engines have recirculation of power as part of their function, in fusion there is an important difference from what people are used to. In an internal combustion engine, the crankshaft and flywheel in a car recirculate power from the power stroke to the compression stroke, doing the same thing as the recirculated energy does in this simulati…

I will quote Prof. Dennis Whyte

"The limitations of 20+ year-old Nb3Sn superconductor magnet technology forces ITER to be so large it is taking the entire world to build a single device"

https://youtu.be/KkpqA8yG9T4?t=1471

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#60

Post by leonidasrup »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43
rnhmjoj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The breeding blanket is entirely contained inside a vacuum vessel, so there isn't any oxygen to react with. Also, the are many blanket designs, but the lithium is never present in its elemental form (precisely because it would be very reactive), but in a stable chemical bond with some neutron multiplier (like lithium-lead alloys or beryllium ceramics). In some design the lithium is even immersed in the coolant itself…

> breeding blanket is entirely contained inside a vacuum vessel, so there isn't any oxygen to react with When the vessel works. If the vessel breaches, that lithium could ignite. Note a showstopper. But I suppose a risk to be thought about by the engineers (probably not by policymakers).

Commonwealth Fusion Systems plan to use lithium in salt form FLiBe, a molten salt made from a mixture of lithium fluoride (LiF) and beryllium fluoride (BeF2). It does not violently react with air or water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLiBe

Post reply on HN