Latest Update on ITER's First Plasma: 2025 and Beyond

[tade]

Do any of you have news on when ITER is scheduled to achieve the first plasma that the whole world is waiting for?

Last I heard it was 2025, but since they have a new head, they might speed things up a bit.

 

[Vanadium 50]

2025 is the best guess after the new management was put in place. (And even that looks optimistic)

 

[etudiant]

Just based on the level of activity observed during a visit late last year, a decade may be optimistic. Urgency is entirely lacking. Few workers on site, not on weekends, with breaks for press briefings at completion of even minor construction milestones. Support elements such as the power management transformers and the magnet production plant, responsibilities assigned to the US and India respectively, were produced on schedule and are now just sitting on site in limbo, until the rest of the facility catches up.

 

[tade]

Just based on the level of activity observed during a visit late last year, a decade may be optimistic. Urgency is entirely lacking. Few workers on site, not on weekends, with breaks for press briefings at completion of even minor construction milestones. Support elements such as the power management transformers and the magnet production plant, responsibilities assigned to the US and India respectively, were produced on schedule and are now just sitting on site in limbo, until the rest of the facility catches up.

Hopefully the new head, a bigot, well makes things faster

 

[Vanadium 50]

His name is Bigot. He is not, so far as I know, a bigot.

 

[the_wolfman]

Hopefully the new head [...] well makes things faster

One thing to keep in mind is that ITER is the 2nd largest non-military international organization ever (the largest is the UN). There are non-trivial cultural differences between the different members states (China, EU, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the USA). In many ways ITER is both a scientific experiment and a diplomatic experiment. There is a huge cost incurred by the diplomatic aspects of the project.

I think it's universally agreed that the project delays and the budget overruns are bad. However, there are real disagreements among the member states as to how big of a problem these issues are and how best to move forward.

The USA has put a lot of pressure on ITER to reform, and I think we will see some improvements. However, ITER has to balance the American viewpoint against the viewpoints of the other 6 member states. And ultimately ITER has no power to force any of the member states (including the USA) to comply with any changes that they try to implement. I personally have tempered expectations as to how meaningful the reforms will be.

 

[gmax137]

The updated calendars for First Plasma and for subsequent full power operation in deuterium-tritium (originally scheduled for 2020 and 2027) were reported to the ITER Council in November 2015 following an eight-month, project-wide internal assessment. The schedule, and associated budget and staffing resources, will now be the object of an independent review mandated by the Council.

The Council plans to complete its review and reach agreement on the overall schedule through First Plasma by its next meeting in June 2016. The ITER Organization will be able to report detailed schedule information at the time.

https://www.iter.org/faq#collapsible_7

 

[tade]

His name is Bigot. He is not, so far as I know, a bigot.

Haha oops, I was sleepy when I typed. I wanted to say "a Mr. Bigot".

 

[jimgraber]

Oak ridge perspective on ITER:

http://knoxblogs.com/atomiccity/2016/04/16/the-iter-decision/There will be a House of Representatives hearing tomorrow (April 20) at 10:00 am Washington time. ITER Director General Bigot is expected to testify.

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/energy-subcommittee-hearing-overview-fusion-energy-scienceThere will be an extraordinary ITER council meeting on April 27 to discuss new schedule reports and proposals.

On May 2 the US department of energy is expected to recommend whether or not te US stays in ITER.

ITER is scheduled to publically release its proposed new schedule during its regular June Council meeting.

It looks to me like we should learn a lot about the new ITER schedule over the next two or three months.

 

[tade]

ITER is pretty messed up currently. I hope the US will have enough faith to not pull the plug.

 

[rootone]

ITER is pretty messed up currently. I hope the US will have enough faith to not pull the plug.

What has gone wrong?.
Last I heard the construction of the prototype was going ahead, but yeah bureaucratic delays.
I don't think any other participating nation has considered 'pulling the plug'.

 

[jimgraber]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...iter-fusion-project-s-new-schedule-balks-cost
Here is the latest news on the ITER schedule.

 

[etudiant]

Thank you, Jim Graber. This is an important update.
It essentially pushes the earliest date for useful results 20 years into the future. I'd bet on other, private efforts beating ITER to the prize.

 

[tade]

Thank you, Jim Graber. This is an important update.
It essentially pushes the earliest date for useful results 20 years into the future. I'd bet on other, private efforts beating ITER to the prize.

but they said 3.5 years, not 10 years from 2025. idk why its 2035

 

[etudiant]

but they said 3.5 years, not 10 years from 2025. idk why its 2035

The quote was 'an extra 3.5 years', which suggests several years of shakedown operations post 2025 are believed necessary in any case before the targeted power generating levels are reached.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The 2014 report blasted the project culture as coming up with unrealistic plans. "Give us another $5B - more than the original total project cost - and we will finish only five years late" is not a realistic plan if the agencies don't have the $5B.

The report also criticized a lack of urgency on the part of management. And why should they have a sense of urgency? Jet-setting between Barcelona and the French Riviera. Life is good.

 

[tade]

The 2014 report blasted the project culture as coming up with unrealistic plans. "Give us another $5B - more than the original total project cost - and we will finish only five years late" is not a realistic plan if the agencies don't have the $5B.

The report also criticized a lack of urgency on the part of management. And why should they have a sense of urgency? Jet-setting between Barcelona and the French Riviera. Life is good.

haha, it might backfire and then they'll be out of a job

 

[etudiant]

haha, it might backfire and then they'll be out of a job

Sadly, you may be right.
Fusion research is actually making excellent progress, the performance as measured by plasma temperature and confinement time has improved about a million fold since the beginnings during the 1950s, but consistent overselling has gradually drained the patience of the political backers.
The best estimates today are that another 10-100x improvement will be enough to allow a fusion power facility to work, two orders of magnitude more beyond the six already achieved.
ITER may collapse before it reaches the finish line, but I think we are close enough that someone will pick up the challenge.

 

[mheslep]

Sadly, you may be right.
Fusion research is actually making excellent progress, the performance as measured by plasma temperature and confinement time has improved about a million fold since the beginnings during the 1950s, but consistent overselling has gradually drained the patience of the political backers.
The best estimates today are that another 10-100x improvement will be enough to allow a fusion power facility to work, two orders of magnitude more beyond the six already achieved.
ITER may collapse before it reaches the finish line, but I think we are close enough that someone will pick up the challenge.

What does "work" mean in this context? To self sustain a plasma from fusion? Possibly. But if work must mean a fusion plant with no more cost than a fission plant, then I don't see the path to get there even with 100x improvement in temperature-confinement time.

 

[etudiant]

What does "work" mean in this context? To self sustain a plasma from fusion? Possibly. But if work must mean a fusion plant with no more cost than a fission plant, then I don't see the path to get there even with 100x improvement in temperature-confinement time.

Good point, just because the device produces enough excess power to be more than self sustaining does not make it economically viable.
ITER is only supposed to show proof of feasibility, with a prototype commercial fusion facility to follow, maybe by 2050. Given some of the Tokomak design issues, the practical fusion reactor may be quite different. The private initiatives such as the TriAlpha effort seem more challenging but also more plausible.

 

[tade]

What does "work" mean in this context? To self sustain a plasma from fusion? Possibly. But if work must mean a fusion plant with no more cost than a fission plant, then I don't see the path to get there even with 100x improvement in temperature-confinement time.

But the dangers of fission plants add to their social cost

 

[russ_watters]

But the dangers of fission plants add to their social cost

Not as much as most people think.

 

[rootone]

It depends on whether the cost of long term waste storage and reprocessing is included as a social cost.

 

[tade]

Not as much as most people think.

what about meltdowns and fallout?

they are rare but render much land inhospitable when they occur, and cause cancers

 

[russ_watters]

It depends on whether the cost of long term waste storage and reprocessing is included as a social cost.

Storage is tricky because though while the cost is quite real, it is largely a political cost. In the US anyway though, most of the required storage money has already been collected from the utilities (customers) and then misappropriated by the federal government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Nuclear_Waste_Fund

what about meltdowns and fallout?

they are rare but render much land inhospitable when they occur, and cause cancers

There have been two significant accidents (multiple meltdowns at Fukushima). They were terrible, but so far the loss of life has been pretty small. The number of cancers is likely in the thousands or tens of thousands. But that would be a couple of orders of magnitude below the societal cost of nuclear's primary alternative, coal, which kills tens of thousands of people annually in addition to the looming impact of global warming which has yet to be comprehended and for which coal power is one of the primary causes.

 

[etudiant]

Storage is tricky because though while the cost is quite real, it is largely a political cost. In the US anyway though, most of the required storage money has already been collected from the utilities (customers) and then misappropriated by the federal government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Nuclear_Waste_Fund

There have been two significant accidents (multiple meltdowns at Fukushima). They were terrible, but so far the loss of life has been pretty small. The number of cancers is likely in the thousands or tens of thousands. But that would be a couple of orders of magnitude below the societal cost of nuclear's primary alternative, coal, which kills tens of thousands of people annually in addition to the looming impact of global warming which has yet to be comprehended and for which coal power is one of the primary causes.

That seems to be somewhat Pollyannaish imho. If the wind had not blown most of the initial contamination out to sea, it would have contaminated the Japanese heartland, including Tokyo, to mandatory evacuation levels. The USS Reagan's experience is proof of that.
I believe it is also the reason for Merkel's decision for Germany to exit nuclear. It is wonderfully cheap, but can easily fail very gracelessly.
Nuclear plant siting and design sometimes disregards identified hazards, for instance a repeat of the Storegga slide would repeat the Fukushima experience at multiple French and UK nuclear sites. While the last big slide was some 8000 years ago, that risk is still there, not factored in anywhere.

 

[mheslep]

...

There have been two significant accidents (multiple meltdowns at Fukushima). They were terrible, but so far the loss of life has been pretty small. The number of cancers is likely in the thousands or tens of thousands. But that would be a couple of orders of magnitude below the societal cost of nuclear's primary alternative, coal, which kills tens of thousands of people annually in addition to the looming impact of global warming which has yet to be comprehended and for which coal power is one of the primary causes.

Loss of life at Fukushima due to radiation was not small but zero. No measurable cancer rate change either, nor expected in the future. See UNSCEAR, WHO reports. The harm from the accident lies with the evacuation (which did kill some sick and elderly) and the high cost of the loss and cleanup of the reactors themselves.

 

[Salvador]

I think it would be fair to assume that, due to the very unpredictable nature of cancer and the exact factors involved in a person developing one, we have next to zero chance of predicting if a person who has cancer got it from being exposed to some small to medium radiation at some point due to either an accident at a nuke plant like Fukushima or any other source, given that his exposure was limited and the contamination wasn't brought into the body via food or water or air.

 

[Astronuc]

The thread drifted off topic from the ITER schedule (and technology/timeline) to discussions about fission vs fusion, safety and waste matters. While the last three topics are legitimate for discussion, please try confine the discussion to ITER, the technology, the construction/timeline, and program management/logistics.

 

[Toast]

The date for first burning DT plasma is currently scheduled for 2032-2035 (most recent scheduled released in April 2016)

However prior to this date there will be many other plasma experiments including DD and DT with different ratios

Technically one could hang a light build in ITER now and claim first plasma

The most significant event to look out for is the burning plasma with a positive energy release

I know it is a long wait but this is a huge and incredibly important challenge

 

[mheslep]

...

I know it is a long wait but this is a huge and incredibly important challenge

Yes fusion is important. Many things are important. Sex and reproduction are important, though this does not mean all R&D for the important should necessarily be turned over to a multinational consortium with a consistent record of falling behind schedule and little by way of completed results before clamoring for funding to start follow on projects.

 

[Toast]

Yes fusion is important. Many things are important. Sex and reproduction are important, though this does not mean all R&D for the important should necessarily be turned over to a multinational consortium with a consistent record of falling behind schedule and little by way of completed results before clamoring for funding to start follow on projects.

Not all the R&D has been turned over to ITER. There is loads of non ITER related fusion R&D going on

However if you are not happy with the distribution of funding you could start up your own fusion research company and compete for funding like these people did

http://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/
http://www.trialphaenergy.com/
http://www.generalfusion.com/
http://www.helionenergy.com/

 

[mheslep]

Not all the R&D has been turned over to ITER. There is loads of non ITER related fusion R&D going on

However if you are not happy with the distribution of funding you could start up your own fusion research company and compete for funding like these people did

http://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/
http://www.trialphaenergy.com/
http://www.generalfusion.com/
http://www.helionenergy.com/

True, but most does at its cost of $20B. Also, as the ITER funding is governmental, I have another option besides starting my own project. Vote and lobby to divert the funding elsewhere.

 

[Toast]

True, but most does at its cost of $20B. Also, as the ITER funding is governmental, I have another option besides starting my own project. Vote and lobby to divert the funding elsewhere.

Yep good point you could lobby the government to divert money from ITER to your own program. I believe the US has government reviews fairly often to see if they still want to stay involved. http://www.firefusionpower.org/

Out of interest where would you rather see the money spent?

Or perhaps just increase the fusion budget and fund both projects?

 

[mheslep]

I'd have competing national projects. Competition between researchers always seems to have produced the most significant advances.