Are fusion power plants feasible for widespread use?

[the_wolfman]

NIF is an experimental facility that is supposed to support inertial fusion research for power applications, support the Stockpile stewardship program (Weapons), and support basic science research in high energy density physics.

I don't remember the exact numbers but NIF periodically publishes the breakdown of their shots by purpose. The power campaign by far received the most shots. (~300+), the weapons program was next (~10-100), and finally the basic science programs only received a hand full (~10). I've emailed a friend to see if he knows the exact breakdown.

I don't deny that NIF has weapon applications, but to date most of the research on NIF has gone to support peaceful purposes not weapons.

I also want to clarify that NIF and most of the ICF research is supported by the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration). The office of Fusion energy sciences funds magnetic confinement research and basic plasma physics. The facilities budget under the OFES does NOT include NIF. It does include DIIID, NSTX, Alcator C-MOD, MST, and smaller scale experiments.

As for other uses of fusion, power is by far the big one, but people are interested in fusion as a neutron source. These sources can be used to detected clandestine materials (explosives and nuclear material). They can also be used to create medical isotopes like Tc-99m.

I stated above the DOE OFES supports basic plasma sciences. Plasmas are huge in the the semi-conductor industry, and currently responsible for the continuation of Moors law. Magnetic confinement experiments like MRX study magnetic reconnection which helps us understand space weather. This is important for the telecommunications industry, because they have to shut down or move the satellites when solar storms send highly energetic particles our way. There are also many similarities between plasma turbulence and atmospheric turbulence.

Finally fusion research drives research in high temperature super conducting magnetics, cryogenics, vacuum technologies, durable materials the can survive extremely harsh environments, high fidelity computation, etc. The applications of which extend far beyond power.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I don't deny that NIF has weapon applications, but to date most of the research on NIF has gone to support peaceful purposes not weapons.

Agreed. People put in the word "weapon" some mystic sense. While weapon is also an engineered product like many others and while NIF is a typical inertial confinement approach similar to canceled now "Light Ions Fusion" and not yet heavily started "Heavy Ions Fusion". May be in the program scale some weapons simulations was done. I really can not imagine what but funding from DoD is the fact. As well as fact is that at today's level of technology laser fusion has not any posibility to produce net power.

 

[d3mm]

Further checking reveals you are correct that the source of NIF funding is NNSA not OFES, but both are DoE from the military portion of the budget.

I was recently reading an article on NIF

http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-put-on-slow-burn-1.12016

The US$3.5-billion NIF uses lasers to crush a 2-millimetre pellet of hydrogen fuel to the point of fusion. Rather than irradiating the fuel directly, the lasers shine into a cylindrical capsule. The capsule walls then emit X-rays that squeeze the fuel pellet until it explodes (see diagram).

This indirect approach mimics the ignition system in a thermonuclear weapon, which uses radiation from a fission 'primary' stage to squeeze hydrogen isotopes in the fusion 'secondary' — creating a powerful explosion.

The NIF's main mission is to gather laboratory data on the process to help weapons scientists to care for the ageing US nuclear stockpile

Now it seems they are having trouble achieving ignition via this method and are having to explain it to congress, and now are refocussing their efforts to fusion power.

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/politics_and_policy/nif_to_shift_emphasis_after_the_facility_s_failure_to_achieve_ignition[/URL]
[quote]"Ignition was never the endgame," Cook says. "The endgame is really stockpile stewardship." For NIF's applications to laboratory astrophysics and fundamental science, he adds, "the endgame is just having a very capable facility with diagnostics that can explore things that you can't otherwise go out and measure."[/quote]

In other words, they have no concrete goal or objective for civillian power generation - their one concrete goal was weapon curation. If NIF is currently rebranding itself towards fusion power, that's only because of problems in their primary mission (weapons).

It really did surprise me how slowly fusion power was progressing despite all the money being spent on it, but then I realized that a lot of the money being spent on fusion isn't going towards power.

 

[jim hardy]

...
...
I didn't want to write too much in case nobody was interested. ...
...I was more interested in pointing to an example of low-temp fusion that wasn't junk science.

Fusion does not have to involve very high temperatures but:
1. the high temperature projects look like they have more promise these days
2. there is a lot of junk and pseudo-science around low-temp fusion ideas to trap the unwary investor.

In your opinion is there any hope of break-even via electrostatic confinement?

http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/theses/PhD-2007-DietrichCarl.pdf

My math is not good enough to judge.

old jim

 

[Joseph Chikva]

It really did surprise me how slowly fusion power was progressing despite all the money being spent on it, but then I realized that a lot of the money being spent on fusion isn't going towards power.

E.g., Heroin (diacetylmorphine*hydrochloride) was developed as medicine drug but now is marketed only by clandestine dealers. As its properties does not allow usage for medical application. History of science knows many such examples when failure in one branch gives some results used in another.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

In your opinion is there any hope of break-even via electrostatic confinement?

My math is not good enough to judge.

old jim

No any hope. As electron beam injected into background plasma - typical conditions for two-stream instability.
There are three ways for mitigation such type of instability:
1. Beam is relativistic
2. Axial mag field is applied
3. There should be wide enough velocity spread causing Landau damping
Ref: Stanley Humphrey Jr., "Charged Particle Beams"
Neither ways are possible for electrostatic confinement in that form how that is promoted by developers.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Really? The birth of one muon IIRC 210 MeV even neglecting low efficiency of process followed from low selectivity.
How many fusion events can you provide in lifetime of one muon - IIRC about 1 microsecond?

About 3-400 in d-t mixtures (c.1985 with He3 - there are more recent papers claiming higher yeilds) but it only matters if the idea is to generate power. That is not the core reason for this research so the number of fusions per muon only goes to the energy cost and time-frame of the experiment. People researching very heavy atoms are prepared to run their experiments for months to get enough atoms to study.

So the low fusions/muon count is irrelevant to the claim being made.

Fusion is a handy tool for building big atoms from small ones. If your interest is to study these big atoms, then you will want to understand various kinds of fusion so you can make the kinds of atoms you need when you want them. There's a group (LLNL et al) in Livermore Calif. using inertial confinement fusion (Ca+Am) to make No.118 for eg.

This is a reason for studying fusion which is not (directly) related to power plants of bombs... as per my claim earlier.

There are many current research projects involving fusion that are not aimed at power plants or bombs... a quick trawl of google scholar show a great many papers generated in the last few years in μcf alone. Pure science research does happen.

Mind you - power generation does dominate the research and discussions (like here).

 

[Simon Bridge]

In your opinion is there any hope of break-even via electrostatic confinement?

Asking me??
It's been a while and IEC appears to be a development since I've last done a lit review (μcf was a possible PhD thesis.) The rules don't seem to have changed though.

The example looks like a variation on Bussard Polywell fusion. I've never been able to get enough information in one place to assess those properly. The general approach is attracting real researchers, which is a good sign there's valid physics in there, but I'm inclined to go with Joseph Chikva on this one: it would require something close to a paradigm shifting breakthrough to use the approach as a power source.

The paper in the link just presents a computer model rather than physics, and it is part of a PhD rather than appearing in a peer-reviewed journal. I'd want to know what has been done to test the computer model. Look at the dates: 1999, 2003, 2007? If it was really so promising a decade ago, then the model would have been tested ... so see if you can find the test. (good exercise for you).

I think the original question in post #1 has been answered though.

 

[mheslep]

Brothers Right too demonstrated flight only on some hundred meters, ...

I like the analogy if it is drawn tightly enough.

The Wrights demonstrated not just a way to leave the ground but via heavier than air, powered and controlled flight, their 'break even' for aviation if you will. Plenty of people had left the ground previously, in balloons or simple jumps off a a tower with a lot of drag. The latter is really the better analogy for current fusion technology: jumping off a cliff with a crude parachute which really does not get you anywhere, certainly not to a net power economic reactor.

Plenty of hand waiving exists about fusion being just around the corner, just as there was for centuries before the Wright Brothers 1903 flight. I think instead of this being fusion's 1903 it could just as easily be 1803, with a century yet to come of people jumping off cliffs before something useful happens.

 

[mheslep]

In your opinion is there any hope of break-even via electrostatic confinement?

http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/theses/PhD-2007-DietrichCarl.pdf

My math is not good enough to judge.

old jim

I think T Rider put a stake in the heart of the possibility of net power production from electrostatic fusion with his 1995 publication. This paper by Dietrich actually references Rider as setting fundamental limits (less than unity), but hopes to approach them. Without reading further I suppose there could be some benefit to operating at a loss for space propulsion.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

About 3-400 in d-t mixtures (c.1985 with He3 - there are more recent papers claiming higher yeilds) but it only matters if the idea is to generate power. That is not the core reason for this research so the number of fusions per muon only goes to the energy cost and time-frame of the experiment. People researching very heavy atoms are prepared to run their experiments for months to get enough atoms to study.

In Soviet Union in 60s or 70 the so called "Muon Fabric" was built. The idea was in collisiosin of two very high energy particle beams for creation of muon.
My father being a physicist then asked one man involved in that project when met him at one conference: "how your Muon Fabric?" on which he got an answer "one meason per one season". For ref: "meason in Russian is "muon".
Process is extremelly nonselective and if rest mass of muon is 209 MeV, you should divide that number on selectivness of process and also on energy effeciency of accelrators.
As result you would get many GJ have to be spent on birth of each muon. Then compare that number with 400 (fusion event)/muon *17.6 MeV/(fusion event) = "only" 7 GeV/muon

What do you think how much enerhy should be spent on one muon birth using today's technologies? More or less than 7 GeV
Also 400 events per muon is too optimistic estimation. As I've seen 10-20.
Good luck.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

I like the analogy if it is drawn tightly enough.

The Wrights demonstrated not just a way to leave the ground but via heavier than air, powered and controlled flight, their 'break even' for aviation if you will.

The analogy in that the Wrights execute their first flight on heavier than air device a little better than today's fusion experiments execute fusion. But TOKAMAKs are really close to ignition.

 

[Simon Bridge]

... and how long before the Wright's "break even" demonstration and the first commercial aircraft?

 

[Simon Bridge]

In Soviet Union in 60s or 70 the so called "Muon Fabric" was built. The idea was in collisiosin of two very high energy particle beams for creation of muon.
My father being a physicist then asked one man involved in that project when met him at one conference: "how your Muon Fabric?" on which he got an answer "one meason per one season". For ref: "meason in Russian is "muon".

I had to read a lot of Russian papers from that period - yes. I get headaches just recalling them.
FWIW: muons were once called "mu mesons" everywhere because it was thought that they were a kind of meson - the particle predicted, in 1935, to carry the strong nuclear force. The excitement was premature - muons are a kind of lepton. The name was still in use in the 60's - as in this famous film from 1963.
Time Dilation - An Experiment With Mu-Mesons

What do you think how much enerhy should be spent on one muon birth using today's technologies? More or less than 7 GeV

The ISIS muon group in the UK has the strongest muon source. They make them from pions.
http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/groups/muons/

Also 400 events per muon is too optimistic estimation. As I've seen 10-20.
Good luck.

You havn't been looking very hard (perhaps you stopped looking before 1984?)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.321..127J
"as high as 150 per muon" (1986)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0920379689900239
"100 per muon" (1989)
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/i17/p3763_1
"200 per muon" (2001)
... that's without really trying.

But I say again: it is irrelevant if there are 100s or 1 a week; it does not matter - because this is not for power generation or weapons research. Which is the whole point of the example.

The gauntlet was thrown to provide one example of fusion research that is not for power plants or weapons and that I have provided. There are others.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Fusion is a handy tool for building big atoms from small ones. If your interest is to study these big atoms, then you will want to understand various kinds of fusion so you can make the kinds of atoms you need when you want them. There's a group (LLNL et al) in Livermore Calif. using inertial confinement fusion (Ca+Am) to make No.118 for eg.

This is a reason for studying fusion which is not (directly) related to power plants of bombs... as per my claim earlier.

There are many current research projects involving fusion that are not aimed at power plants or bombs... a quick trawl of google scholar show a great many papers generated in the last few years in μcf alone. Pure science research does happen.

Mind you - power generation does dominate the research and discussions (like here).

Yes, in my mind power generation is dominant. And I never thought to call "fusion" to reaction of synthesis of No. 118 element. May be because of my bad English.
Thanks.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

But I say again: it is irrelevant if there are 100s or 1 a week; it does not matter - because this is not for power generation or weapons research. Which is the whole point of the example.

Irrelevant? How about people who want to use muon catalyzed fusion for power generation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion#Deuterium-tritium_.28d-t_or_dt.29

http://www.rikenresearch.riken.jp/eng/frontline/5976
http://www.rikenresearch.riken.jp/images/figures/hi_4014.jpg

 

[mheslep]

Basic problems with Muon catalysed fusion.
i) The relevant lifetime of the muon for fusion catalysis is based on the odds of muon capture by an alpha, which is 0.5%. So the theoretical upper limit is ~200 fusions per muon.

ii) The energy required to create a usable muon is not just its rest mass.

• Muon rest energy 106 MeV)
• Made from pi- 139 MeV
• Make stuff other than pi- x 10
• Lab vs. CM frame x 2
• Accelerator efficiency x 2

Present muon production ~5 GeV

So muon catalysed fusion is waiting for someone to figure out to avoid alpha capture and get the fusion events per muon up to ~400.

 

[mheslep]

The analogy in that the Wrights execute their first flight on heavier than air device a little better than today's fusion experiments execute fusion. But TOKAMAKs are really close to ignition.

We can't know that is this case until after the fact

 

[mheslep]

... and how long before the Wright's "break even" demonstration and the first commercial aircraft?

Yes, +1

 

[Simon Bridge]

Yes, in my mind power generation is dominant. And I never thought to call "fusion" to reaction of synthesis of No. 118 element. May be because of my bad English.
Thanks.

I don't think so - most people have a problem changing context... and this thread is about power plant problems after all. See below:

Irrelevant? How about people who want to use muon catalyzed fusion for power generation?

That is also irrelevant ... in context of the comment. I was responding to an earlier challenge. vis. The gauntlet was thrown to provide an example of fusion that was for something other than power or weapons - the fusions-per-muon is irrelevant in that context ... except as I have already stated. The whole challenge and response is only an aside to this thread which is about fusion power plants and the problems with. I am well aware of the people trying to get a μcf plant working - it was my field for a while.

So muon catalysed fusion is waiting for someone to figure out to avoid alpha capture and get the fusion events per muon up to ~400.

... for the approach to be feasible for power generation.
There's a whole bunch of people trying. I remember that the sticking problem (then called He3 poisoning iirc - He4 seems happy to give up the muon) was worse if the muon went right to the 1s state instead of going through 2s, so one of the things I tried to figure was a way to make the 2s state likely. Ho hum.

Are people only just noticing these comments? They've been going parallel to the Tokomak discussion. It started out in page #1 of this thread as an aside about how fusion needn't involve super-high temperatures. Perhaps a review of past comments is in order - to avoid over-reiteration? But maybe a bit of reiteration is needed?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Yes, +1

The answer is simple. For heavier than air aviation developmet time from prototype to first commercial plane was sevaral years, for fusion - several decades are needed. Only one order of magnitude longer.
But not too long time period for the history. Let's say that development of fusion appears much more complex challenge required moch more resources (both human and financial) have to be spent.

How about development time frame for semiconductors? The answer is: also several decades while initially from the beginning only vacuum tubes were used for the same applications. But possibility to use semiconductors was known almost at once with tubes. Now where are tubes except High End extremelly costly music amplifiers and radars?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

We can't know that is this case until after the fact

Fact is that situation is very similar to fable "The Fox and the Grapes"
Fox just today is very close to grapes but can not touch ityet.

 

[Simon Bridge]

The answer is simple. For heavier than air aviation developmet time from prototype to first commercial plane was sevaral years, for fusion - several decades are needed. Only one order of magnitude longer.
But not too long time period for the history. Let's say that development of fusion appears much more complex challenge required moch more resources (both human and financial) have to be spent.

... hmmm, interesting point. Just checking:

the Wrights finally took to the air on December 17, 1903, making two flights each from level ground into a freezing headwind gusting to 27 miles per hour (43 km/h).[1]​

Tony Jannus conducted the United States' first scheduled commercial airline flight on 1 January 1914 for the St. Petersburg-Tampa Airboat Line.[2]​

That would be about a decade. So, by Joseph Chikva's estimated "just one order of magnitude longer", it would take about century to get commercial fusion from break-even to a similar comparative level that civilians can enjoy the benefits on a regular basis. But where does that estimate come from?

-------------------------

[1] Gray, Carroll F. "The First Five Flights, The Slope and Winds of Big Kill Devil Hill – The First Flight Reconsidered, 1903 – Who Made the First Flight?" TheWrightBrothers.org, 2003.

[2] "Tony Jannus, an enduring legacy of aviation". Tony Jannus Distinguished Aviation Society. tonyjannusaward.com.

 

[Simon Bridge]

We could compare with fission power.
1942 CP-1 demonstrates controlled fission
1951 EBR-1 generates electricity ... powered it's own building. Is this the "break even" equivalent?
1954 Obninsk (USSR) Supplies power to the public.

(FYI: in the USA, at this time, project Sherwood was researching hydrogen fusion power.)

1956 Calder Hall at Windscale, England - 1st commercial plant (UK)
1957 Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania, USA) - 1st USA commercial plant.

... so we are looking at 6-7 years from "break-even" at EBR-1 to commercial production in the West.
(Quibbling that the USSR, being communist, did not have a commercial plant.)

The decade gap from CP-1 to EBR-1 would be due to the war and the difficulty getting the technology declassified for commercial exploitation after. USSR had no such issues and may well have mixed civilian and military uses for the Obninsk plant(?)

If you measure the commercial development time from CP-1, you are looking at closer to 15 years... "order of magnitude" then gives 60-150 years from break-even.

What do we think? Where is nuclear fusion for power generation on this scale?
I don't think it is at the CP-1 stage yet... but it's a different kind of project.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

... hmmm, interesting point. Just checking:

the Wrights finally took to the air on December 17, 1903, making two flights each from level ground into a freezing headwind gusting to 27 miles per hour (43 km/h).[1]​

Tony Jannus conducted the United States' first scheduled commercial airline flight on 1 January 1914 for the St. Petersburg-Tampa Airboat Line.[2]​

That would be about a decade. So, by Joseph Chikva's estimated "just one order of magnitude longer", it would take about century to get commercial fusion from break-even to a similar comparative level that civilians can enjoy the benefits on a regular basis. But where does that estimate come from?

-------------------------

[1] Gray, Carroll F. "The First Five Flights, The Slope and Winds of Big Kill Devil Hill – The First Flight Reconsidered, 1903 – Who Made the First Flight?" TheWrightBrothers.org, 2003.

[2] "Tony Jannus, an enduring legacy of aviation". Tony Jannus Distinguished Aviation Society. tonyjannusaward.com.

I can not understand your irony.
As if you take a look this link: "Timeline of Nuclear Fusion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion , you would be better aware that first Z-pinch experiment was executed in 1946 and therefore 2013 - 1946 = 67 years ago. Timeline of ITER is about 30 years since now and therefore after the progam's end fusion researches will have 67 + 30 = 97 years history.
What is another than TOKAMAK approach alloing to reach desired goal faster?
If to not consider recent very optimistic statemant of Lockheed Martin, 100 millions investment in TriAlpha and very poorly financed Heavy Ions Fusion program, none.
Yes, Lockheed Martin is very serious company but their presentation seems to me as less serious. Do not know.

 

[Simon Bridge]

There is probably a language/context issue here because I have no idea what you are talking about!

I can not understand your irony.
As if you take a look this link: "Timeline of Nuclear Fusion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion , you would be better aware that first Z-pinch experiment was executed in 1946 and therefore 2013 - 1946 = 67 years ago. Timeline of ITER is about 30 years since now and therefore after the progam's end fusion researches will have 67 + 30 = 97 years history.
What is another than TOKAMAK approach alloing to reach desired goal faster?
If to not consider recent very optimistic statemant of Lockheed Martin, 100 millions investment in TriAlpha and very poorly financed Heavy Ions Fusion program, none.
Yes, Lockheed Martin is very serious company but their presentation seems to me as less serious. Do not know.

In order:

There was no irony intended.
I am aware that there are people reading this for whom English is a second language, so I am trying to say only what I mean as simply as I can.
Using irony would defeat the purpose.

The timeline in the link does not show any "break even" event - so if one has happened, that would be analogous to a kitty-hawk, it has escaped the writer's attention - but wikipedia is not a good source. I understand that there is some discussion earlier in this thread about what constitutes a "break even" anyway and I don't intend to revisit that here.

The 1st z-pinch experiment would be analagous, not to the kitty-hawk, but to the very early "man jumps off a cliff flapping arms" style experiments. I never mentioned tokamak nor any kind of race to reach the "goal" and I fail to see how the viability or status of current projects is relevant to the comments you are responding to.

Someone made a point comparing the Wright Bros first flight with a "break-even" in fusion, which I followed with a question, using the same example, about the time from break-even to commercial. I gather that the point in question had to do with how that 1st flight did not look all that impressive (so we shouldn't expect the critical moment in fusion to look obvious either) and I was reinforcing that idea by continuing the analogy: from apparently inauspicious beginnings, there is still much to do before an aircraft or power-plant can be considered commercial. I think the subsequent fission plant timeline also reinforces that point and this thread is about commercial plants.

Someone else (you?) said that the time from Write bros to 1st commercial aircraft was a matter of years and to expect 10x the aircraft development period for fusion due to complexity. (Unless you happen to know for a fact that there are actually mere decades to a commercial fusion plant?)

I wondered about that 10x figure as well as the assertion that it was mere "years" from Wright to commerce, so I looked up the history of aviation.
It seems that there was actually a decade between the Write bros first flight (break even) and the earliest popular commercial use ... so, by your own estimation, it would be 100 years from a Wright-flyer/Kitty-hawk level fusion to whatever the fusion analogy to Tony Jannus' airline would be.

But that x10 figure came without supporting evidence (nothing wrong with that by itself - but it is fair to ask for some.) The (very roughly) estimated century before we see commercial fusion plants is assuming that figure is correct so that is the next logical thing to check.
How did you come up with that figure?

 

[Joseph Chikva]

How did you come up with that figure?

I do not believe in viability any known today fusion concept except TOKAMAK and HIF. And for TOKAMAKs I know well how big technical problems should be solved even after achievement of break-even.
The main problem I mentioned earlier is that today's TOKAMAK can not run properly without NBI injection.
But NBI injection is less useful for commercial reactors.
Also I assume that in aviation analogy may be and very likely that first commercial flight was not a successful business.
And in fusion case after achievement of break-even long time is needed for further engineering.
For example, Lockheed Martin now announces compact fusion reactor project with duration 4 years.
Great if project will be successful. "Success" here is meant only as achievement of break-even.
But such a compact machine with 100 MW fusion power and therefore 80 MW goes with neutrons bombarding then the wall.
Ok in large TOKAMAK machines there is a palliative way of solving this problem and proprietary wall material has been found. But solved the same problem for orders of magnitude denser neutron flux?
Etc., etc., etc.

PS #1: Homework is to estimate neutron flux to the walls for ITER size 5 GW fusion power TOKAMAK and Ф 1.5 x 2.5 cylinder producing "only" 100 MW.

PS #2: Are you sure that first commercial fusion power plants will produce cheaper energy than for example fission plants? If to recall that fuel cycle’s cost share in total production cost of 1 kW*h is not so significant for fast neutrons plants. Are you waiting revolution and total happiness at once after achievement of break-even in any fusion approach?

 

[Simon Bridge]

Again - I do not see how any of your comments relate to the question I asked and you quoted.

In answer to your questions:
PS #1: How will the neutron flux at the walls of ITER help me understand your "x10" estimate?
PS #2: I have not made any claims about the cost of energy from fusion at all so this question has nothing to do with me.

You seem reluctant to answer my question. Why is this?
If you just plucked the number out of the air then just say so - there's no shame in that.
But I don't see any point going around in circles like this.
I believe OPs question is answered. Time to say "до свидания" to this thread :)

 

[mheslep]

These recurring "real soon" and response threads should probably have something like a sticky saying 'see the following':

The Trouble With Fusion, Lawrence M. Lidsky, 1983

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Again - I do not see how any of your comments relate to the question I asked and you quoted.

In answer to your questions:
PS #1: How will the neutron flux at the walls of ITER help me understand your "x10" estimate?
PS #2: I have not made any claims about the cost of energy from fusion at all so this question has nothing to do with me.

You seem reluctant to answer my question. Why is this?
If you just plucked the number out of the air then just say so - there's no shame in that.
But I don't see any point going around in circles like this.
I believe OPs question is answered. Time to say "до свидания" to this thread :)

I've just plucked the number out of the my expectations but those are based on knowledge how difficult is to build really relibly running commercial reactor after achievment of breakeven.
And we will have the possibility to run relibly only for example when neutron flux will be lower than certain limit defined by first wall material properties.
Simply good English and ability to argue as though logically doesn't allow you to estimate problems real scale.
Because at least very basic technical knowledge is necessary for this purpose too.
For example, the statement that ps#1 has nothing to do with discussed problem forces me to think that you absolutely not understand that the compact reactor announced now by Lockheed will have the small area of walls and therefore a high neutron flux. And that is problem defining the development term. As you would not find material for that wall, the development term will increase till to perpetuity instead of expected by you 6-7 years. Or reactor will stop being compact.
The statement that if the timescale between achievement of breakeven for fission reactor and first commercial was 6-7 years and therefore we should expect the similar time period for fusion too is laughable as timescale depends on how labor intensive the task is and also on our technology level.
As if you have not some required technology capabilities you will never build commercial reactor. As “commercial” means acceptable for market consumer properties while “breakeven” means only that confined plasma produces more energy than consumes.
The statement that there in Soviet Union were not any commercial reactor is laughable too. As now in the most former Soviet republics still run Nuclear Power Plants built in Soviet era. Including nearby for me Armenia selling 1 kW*h at 3 cents.
And fusion will become commercial when will have an ability to sell 1 kW*h at lower price with the same or reasonably higher investment cost.
Are you still expecting that this will happen in 7 years at once after breakeven.
Thanks, good luck and goodbye.