The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
orcutt.net
The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#2This old critique has aged fairly well. It was too optimistic about advanced fission, and the suggestion to move to advanced fuels for fusion was mostly shot down by Lidsky's student, Todd Rider.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fce7/a35629488ec030d983025a...
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11412
A similar critique was being made around the same time by Pfirsch and Schmitter in Europe.
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2131865/component/file_2...
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#3[deleted]
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#4The concerns and criticism make too much sense; as much as I want to believe a comic/movie density power solution (like arc reactors) can work...
I think the criticisms would have gone over better if something more than the implicit: 'look for better ideas' proposal had been included as a path.
It's been over 30 years; is there anything else as an idea in the field of power generation? (Preferably something we could also use in space)
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#5I’m still only a few pages in. I don’t have the chance to read it all right now, but I will revisit this tomorrow morning. Here are my early thoughts. Disclaimer: I am an advocate of fusion and am moving into the field (professional electrical engineering support of an academic project).
We need to walk before we can run. D+T fusion is viable. Hull maintenance is a solvable problem. Economic studies come after we can walk. Similarly, actually realizable designs that can reach Lawson performance necessary for p+B11 won’t come before designs that can reach D+T are made.
There are compelling narratives around funding, but ultimately it seems they are simultaneously overly optimistic about our technical advancement and overly jaded about future prospects.
It’s important to note that there is no difference in a reactor design capable of different fusion fuels, other than its Lawson performance. You can fuse D+T just the same as p+B11 if your device is capable of p+B11. There is not magical jump in performance we can make. So why skip over D+T if we need to go through it anyway? If D+T is found to truly not be economically viable (which sounds inherently flawed, since prices go down as technology becomes more advanced) then we could still pursue confinement devices in the hopes of reaching more advanced fuels.
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#6Commonwealth Fusion Systems was formed out of the work presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4
A lot has changed since 1983. The superconducting materials that CFS depends on weren't even discovered until the late 80s, and it took a very long time for that to become practical. Fast-forward to today and you can buy this stuff on Alibaba!
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#7Commonwealth Fusion Systems was formed out of the work presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 A lot has changed since 1983. The superconducting materials that CFS depends on weren't even discovered until the late 80s, and it took a very long time for that to become practical. Fast-forward to today and you can buy this stuff on Alibaba!
Lidsky's arguments against fusion apply to the ARC design. Its overall volumetric power density is 0.5 MW/m^3, 40 times less than a PWR reactor vessel.
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#8We know what the issue is--fusion never got a useful amount of funding.
Now, it is entirely possible that even given an enormous amount of funding--fusion might still not work. However, engineers with lots of money are remarkably clever and effective beasts (see: radio, semiconductors, plastics, steel).
Fusion has been funded at "Fusion Never" levels for almost 40 years while we subsidize every other significant energy source to the tune of billions or trillions of dollars every single year. (For example, how much money got poured into the technology that became "fracking"?)
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#9I’m still only a few pages in. I don’t have the chance to read it all right now, but I will revisit this tomorrow morning. Here are my early thoughts. Disclaimer: I am an advocate of fusion and am moving into the field (professional electrical engineering support of an academic project). We need to walk before we can run. D+T fusion is viable. Hull maintenance is a solvable problem. Economic studies come after we can…
> So why skip over D+T if we need to go through it anyway?
Because much of what you'd end up doing to "do" D+T will be worthless for H+11B. Tokamaks, for example, are useless for H+11B.
Re: The Trouble with Fusion (1983) [pdf]
#10We know what the issue is--fusion never got a useful amount of funding. Now, it is entirely possible that even given an enormous amount of funding--fusion might still not work. However, engineers with lots of money are remarkably clever and effective beasts (see: radio, semiconductors, plastics, steel). Fusion has been funded at "Fusion Never" levels for almost 40 years while we subsidize every other significant ener…
No, that's not what the issue is. That's an effect, not a cause. The cause is that fusion turned out to be less promising than had been thought, and that led to budgets being tight. Lidsky's devastating critique was part of that (tokamaks not being as good as early hopes implied was another.)