Current State of Nuclear Fusion Power

In summary: So clearly there's something else going on.It's not just about the money. I think the technology just hasn't caught up to the idea that we can actually achieve a net power gain with fusion.
  • #36
phyzguy said:
If (...) you look at what they have actually achieved, you quickly conclude that they are nowhere close to any kind of viable fusion reactor.
I can neither confirm nor deny this, as currently the necessary amount of proof in favour or against is missing. We simply do not know.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #37
consuli said:
I can neither confirm nor deny this, as currently the necessary amount of proof in favour or against is missing. We simply do not know.

The burden of proof is on the claim, not on disproving it. If there is not the necessary amount of proof in favor then they have nothing until they can demonstrate otherwise
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, phyzguy, Dale and 1 other person
  • #38
The World Nuclear Association has a good summary of program, both past and current.
Nuclear Fusion Power

From the Wikipedia article on JET
The main source of heating in JET is provided by two systems, neutral beam injection and ion cyclotron resonance heating. The former uses small particle accelerators to shoot fuel atoms into the plasma, where collisions cause the atoms to ionize and become trapped with the rest of the fuel. These collisions deposit the kinetic energy of the accelerators into the plasma. Ion cyclotron resonance heating is essentially the plasma equivalent of a microwave oven, using radio waves to pump energy into the ions directly by matching their cyclotron frequency. JET was designed so it would initially be built with a few megawatts of both sources, and then later be expanded to as much of 25 MW of neutral beams and 15 MW of cyclotron heating.[36]

JET's power requirements during the plasma pulse are around 500 MW[37] with peak in excess of 1000 MW.[38] Because power draw from the main grid is limited to 575 MW, two large flywheel generators were constructed to provide this necessary power.[38] Each 775-ton flywheel can spin up to 225 rpm and store 3.75 GJ.[39] Each flywheel uses 8.8 MW to spin up and can generate 400 MW (briefly).
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

A practical fusion system must have a self-sustaining fusion-based plasma, and a net electrical energy production, not just breakeven. We're not there yet.

A rather negative and pessimistic assessment from a Forbes contributor.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...ssible-its-been-done-repeatedly/#40bcaef84cfd
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #39
BWV said:
The burden of proof is on the claim, not on disproving it. If there is not the necessary amount of proof in favor then they have nothing until they can demonstrate otherwise

Exactly. if I claim that I have a working warp drive, and take weekend trips to Alpha Centauri, do you believe me because there is no proof that I'm wrong?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #40
Thread is closed temporarily for Moderation and cleanup...
 
Last edited:
  • #41
After some cleanup, thread is re-opened.
 
  • #42
BWV said:
The burden of proof is on the claim, not on disproving it. If there is not the necessary amount of proof in favor then they have nothing until they can demonstrate otherwise

You are absolutely right - from the scientific point of view. Especially, as it would be magnitudes too much work to disprove any claimed theory.

However, the case of the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor is difficult. These guys are most probably working under militarily classified conditions. I guess, they would like to prove their fusion theory, but they might not be allowed to do so.

Thus, I cannot take the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor as a proven theory. However, I do not like to badmouth it either. Especially for the reason, that usually any scientific project turns out to be more difficult during its realization and I do not want to deprive those half-military researchers their follow-up funding options (by guessing from a bad information basis).
 
Last edited:
  • #43
consuli said:
However, the case of the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor is difficult. These guys are most probably working under militarily classified conditions.
I doubt that. If it were part of a classified project, they wouldn't be making public announcements about it. Most such projects you only hear about after they are over.
 

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
3
Replies
70
Views
8K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
20
Views
23K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top