Star Builders: Fusion 30 Years Away?

[BWV]

Ordered the book

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08QXYBNJP/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02203-4

after listening to this podcast:



One interesting tidbit - the editors of The Economist apparently banned writers from using the 'fusion is 30 years away and always will be' line as it has become such a cliche

It is a bullish take on the future for fusion - the author was quoted in the article in the ignition thread, curious if anyone else here has read it and their thoughts

 

[berkeman]

Hmm, the blurb about the book doesn't look too promising, IMO...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08QXYBNJP/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Astronuc]

When I took a course in fusion engineering, about 40 years ago, fusion power systems were 10 years out. When I taught a course in fusion engineering, about 35 years ago, it was still about 10 years out. Since I've been working in the nuclear industry, fusion energy systems are still some decade(s) in the future. So 30 years ago, the estimate of 10 years out was a substantial underestimate. It would have been more accurate to state 50 years in the future, but no one in their right mind would fund a research program with a goal of 50 years in the future.

 

[anorlunda]

In my opinion, it is also an exaggeration to think that when commercial fusion plants arrive, that it will substantially change everything. In fact, I think our electric energy future, good or bad regardless of the details, will have been decided before that. That would moot fusion power before it arrives.

 

[phyzguy]

In my opinion, it is also an exaggeration to think that when commercial fusion plants arrive, that it will substantially change everything. In fact, I think our electric energy future, good or bad regardless of the details, will have been decided before that. That would moot fusion power before it arrives.

I agree with this. I think we are making a major mistake in not focusing more aggressively on nuclear fission, which is safe and carbon-free. But the public perception of nuclear fission is decidedly negative, and nuclear fusion will have many of the same perceived problems. For example, it is incorrect to say that fusion power plants will not generate radioactive waste - most of the physical structure of a fusion plant will become highly radioactive and will need to be disposed of somehow at the end of life of the plant. It is true that there will be less radioactive waste, but the amount of radioactive material will still be large.

 

[gmax137]

In my opinion, it is also an exaggeration to think that when commercial fusion plants arrive, that it will substantially change everything. In fact, I think our electric energy future, good or bad regardless of the details, will have been decided before that. That would moot fusion power before it arrives.

I agree with this. I think we are making a major mistake in not focusing more aggressively on nuclear fission, which is safe and carbon-free. But the public perception of nuclear fission is decidedly negative, and nuclear fusion will have many of the same perceived problems. For example, it is incorrect to say that fusion power plants will not generate radioactive waste - most of the physical structure of a fusion plant will become highly radioactive and will need to be disposed of somehow at the end of life of the plant. It is true that there will be less radioactive waste, but the amount of radioactive material will still be large.

I agree too. But still... There is a big difference. The fusion plant has no decay heat (no fission products!) -- so when the fusion plant trips, there is essentially no continued generation of heat. This is a huge qualitative difference from fission plants, with a huge effect on the need for safety systems and the potential for affecting the public health and safety.

True, we can design and (maybe) build fission plants with as low a probability of core damage and subsequent releases as you want. But in the end, the fission plant is a plant without an off switch.

 

[phyzguy]

I agree too. But still... There is a big difference. The fusion plant has no decay heat (no fission products!) -- so when the fusion plant trips, there is essentially no continued generation of heat. This is a huge qualitative difference from fission plants, with a huge effect on the need for safety systems and the potential for affecting the public health and safety.

True, we can design and (maybe) build fission plants with as low a probability of core damage and subsequent releases as you want. But in the end, the fission plant is a plant without an off switch.

Unfortunately, the public opposition to fission plants doesn't stem from logical arguments like you are making. It comes from an irrational gut fear of anything nuclear, and I doubt people will be swayed by your arguments. Just look at the fact that the medical people had to rename NMR imaging (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) to MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) because people were afraid of the "Nuclear". The technology still involves nuclear magnetic resonance, they just changed the name.

 

[BWV]

Sabine Hossenfelder reviewed the book in the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/books/review/the-star-builders-arthur-turrell.html

Figuring out how much energy actually gets used in fusion is far from straightforward. Keeping up strong magnetic fields requires cooling the magnets with liquid helium. This takes energy, and not all of that energy is delivered to the plasma. Similarly, powering up a laser takes more energy than goes into the beam, and much of that energy also never makes it into the plasma.. Regardless of the approach, a certain amount of energy needed for fusion isn’t accounted for in the plasma energy gain. And the thermal energy that is created by fusion still needs to be converted into electricity, which isn’t possible with 100 percent efficiency either. That conversion, too, isn’t accounted for in the plasma energy gain.

The more relevant way to evaluate fusion power would be by looking at what Turrell calls the “wall-plug” energy ratio: the electric energy out divided by the electric energy in. He mentions this method in one sentence and never returns to it, a missed opportunity to clear up the widespread confusion between the wall-plug gain and the plasma gain. Confounding these two measures unfortunately makes fusion technologies appear much closer than they really are to providing power to the electric grid.
…

What he doesn’t include is anyone willing to question the premise that spending so much on nuclear fusion now, when other clean energies can make a more tangible impact on our energy mix, is a good idea.
…

progress in nuclear fusion has in recent decades been driven by better understanding of plasma’s instabilities, thanks to increasingly advanced computer simulations and mathematical insights. Turrell in fact points out repeatedly that the stumbling block for all fusion technologies is the chaotic dynamics of the plasma. Our scientific understanding is what’s amiss, and building bigger things isn’t going to fix that. Indeed, one of the big problems with building big things is that by the time they’re completed their technology is already out of date.

I came away from this book more pessimistic about the prospects of nuclear fusion than I was before

 

[PeterDonis]

When I took a course in fusion engineering, about 40 years ago, fusion power systems were 10 years out...

My experience in the same time frame was similar. The same justification for funding that was used then ("hey, we're only 10 years out, all we need is more funding") is being used now, decades later.

I should note, though, that I did, years ago, get one (admittedly anecdotal) input that the problem was not any fundamental scientific understanding that is missing (which is the view Hossenfelder takes in her review), but indeed was not enough funding. Way back in the early 2000s I was at Worldcon in Philadelphia and went to a lecture by Gregory Benford, who is best known for his sci-fi but who has plenty of connections in the fusion field. The lecture was about energy sources, and afterwards I managed to catch him long enough to ask him what he thought the main roadblock was to practical fusion energy. His answer was basically, not enough funding, with a side helping of too many idiots with their fingers in the pie. I'm not sure I agree, but it was an interesting response.

 

[gmax137]

Unfortunately, the public opposition to fission plants doesn't stem from logical arguments like you are making. It comes from an irrational gut fear of anything nuclear, and I doubt people will be swayed by your arguments.

So you view both fission and fusion as dead ends?

Just look at the fact that the medical people had to rename NMR imaging (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) to MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) because people were afraid of the "Nuclear". The technology still involves nuclear magnetic resonance, they just changed the name.

Or, we just need to rename them (actinide power? hydrogen power?).

I think I understand your point, but I'm not sure if you have a path forward in mind.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Never a bad time for this graph:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png

BTW, I agree with Hossenfelder and that there are many other promising energy technologies that are much further along that should be funded more aggressively than fusion. But as the graph above shows, fusion isn't really being funded aggressively at all. This amplifies @anorlunda 's point that it's difficult to see how fusion power, even if achieved within the next few decades, will have an outsize impact on energy generation, especially seeing as how solar, wind, etc. are so much more easily deployable/highly modular/less upfront capital than a fusion plant would likely be.

 

[berkeman]

Sabine Hossenfelder reviewed the book in the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/books/review/the-star-builders-arthur-turrell.html

Our scientific understanding is what’s amiss, and building bigger things isn’t going to fix that. Indeed, one of the big problems with building big things is that by the time they’re completed their technology is already out of date.

One other issue is interrupted funding because of changing priorities in government administrations, which can really throw a wrench in the gearbox (or in the reactor chamber).

Back in the mid-1980s I took a Berkeley University Extension course in fusion technology, taught by Chip Smith of PG&E and LLNL. It was a fascinating course (I'd had an interest in learning more about fusion for a while, so I jumped at a chance to take that course). He was one of the principle scientists working on the MFTF-B project (a follow-on to the smaller MFTF proof of concept project), which was a fairly large magnetic mirror experiment, with some promising science to explore. We even got to tour the construction site at LLNL as part of the class, and it was impressive to see the end magnets up close.

They completed the project on time and on budget, and right then the project was de-funded by the Reagan administration. It was very frustrating for everybody, especially those involved directly on the project, to have gotten so far on building it, and not getting to bring it up and see how well it worked. Sigh.

News story about it from 2013:
https://lasttechage.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/

It was too hard to understand at the time, but MFTF-B was an early casualty of a political fight that may actually be into its end game today, since today’s budget sequestration just might finish dismantling what is left of U.S. fusion research.

 

[anorlunda]

His answer was basically, not enough funding, , with a side helping of too many idiots with their fingers in the pie.

LOL. I'll wager that in the course of human history there has never been a publicly funded entity that did not claim that they could do a better job with more funding. Also that shortcomings were not caused by themselves but rather by lack of more funding.

It could be expressed as a corollary to Brook's Law. Adding more funding to a public project produces escalated calls for more funding.

 

[BWV]

It could be expressed as a corollary to Brook's Law. Adding more funding to a public project produces escalated calls for more funding.

Just a few more $T and we could have turned Afghanistan into Switzerland...

 

[phyzguy]

So you view both fission and fusion as dead ends?

I think I understand your point, but I'm not sure if you have a path forward in mind.

I think it's very unfortunate that the public perception of nuclear power is so negative, but I don't know what to do about it. Technical arguments seem to make no difference. If I knew how to get public perception to be more rational, I would use those abilities to convince people to get vaccinated against COVID! But given the negative perceptions against nuclear power, I think our near term (next century) energy future will focus on renewable sources.

 

[anorlunda]

I think I understand your point, but I'm not sure if you have a path forward in mind.

There are substantial risks going forward. It should not be taken for granted that the public will have access to adequate and reliable electricity no matter what.

See the PF Insights article linked below.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/renewable-energy-meets-power-grid-operations/