Yeah, the same article I linked earlier said.Yoiks...
The reactor compartment had to be a certain size to provide for space and shielding to reduce radiation levels. Shielding posed a special problem; it was not only heavy, but its weight was concentrated in a small area.
According the AEC booklet, ALCO was the manufacturer of PM-2A (criticality in October 1960), and design was probably done ~1958-1959. ALCO was struggling at the time as their locomotive business cratered in the 1960s. One of the main suppliers of generators and motors, GE, decided to enter the locomotive business as a competitor. Prior to that GE had manufactured custom electric locomotives.It is also worth mentioning that the NR-1 reactor design was 10-15 years after the Army small reactor design. And of course, land is not sea.
Non-nuclear steam flushing is an important test for nuclear power projects to check the operating quality of steam turbine units and conventional island systems prior to start up. The test verifies the design, manufacturing and installation quality of the steam turbine set.
The steam turbine of the HTR-PM reached operational speed using non-nuclear steam at 8.30pm on 14 August, China Huaneng announced today. It said all parameters, such as power and temperature, attained good standards; the main protection parameters were normal; and the auxiliary engine system operated stably.
Construction of the demonstration HTR-PM plant - which features two small reactors that will drive a single 210 MWe turbine - began in December 2012. Helium gas will be used as the primary circuit coolant. China Huaneng is the lead organisation in the consortium to build the demonstration units (with a 47.5% stake), together with China National Nuclear Corporation subsidiary China Nuclear Engineering Corporation (CNEC) (32.5%) and Tsinghua University's Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (20%), which is the research and development leader. Chinergy, a joint venture of Tsinghua and CNEC, is the main contractor for the nuclear island.
The UK is a world leader in fusion technology and has an ambitious programme for a net positive energy spherical tokamak by 2040. The programme is at the concept stage and major opportunities exist to identify, select and develop materials systems for structural and functional requirements which will then be used in the prototype and commercial reactors.
Royce worked with the UK Atomic Energy Authority to develop a focused technology roadmap for baseline and value-add materials for fusion. The output is a clear commentary on the current strengths and opportunities, technology gaps, and investment requirements.
It sounds like, "Fund me for (at least) the next 29 years before judging my success."Interesting statement: https://www.royce.ac.uk/collaborate/roadmapping-landscaping/fusion/
Since there exists an ITER Materials Property Handbook, I'm wondering what we have been doing the last 50 years that we still need to identify materials to accomplish CTRs.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ts-key-milestone-big-superconducting-magnets/In 2015, a group of physicists at MIT did some calculations to rethink how we're approaching the problem of fusion power. High-temperature, nonmetallic superconductors were finally commercially available and could allow the generation of stronger magnetic fields, enabling a simpler, more compact fusion reactor. But the physicists behind the work didn't stop when the calculating was done; instead, they formed a company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, and set out to put their calculations to the test.
On Tuesday, Commonwealth Fusion Systems announced that it hit a key milestone on its quest to bring a demonstration fusion plant online in 2025. The company used commercial high-temperature superconductors to build a three-meter-tall magnet that could operate stably at a 20-tesla magnetic field strength. The magnet is identical in design to the ones that will contain the plasma at the core of the company's planned reactor.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems is collaborating with MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center to build SPARC, the world’s first fusion device that produces plasmas which generate more energy than they consume, becoming the first net-energy fusion machine. SPARC will pave the way for carbon-free, safe, limitless, fusion power. This compact, high-field tokamak will be built with HTS magnets, allowing for a smaller device than previous magnet technology. SPARC is an important step to accelerate the development of commercial fusion energy.
The MIT Plasma Science & Fusion Center in collaboration with private fusion startup Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS). is developing a conceptual design for SPARC, a compact, high-field, net fusion energy experiment. SPARC would be the size of existing mid-sized fusion devices, but with a much stronger magnetic field. Based on established physics, the device is predicted to produce 50-100 MW of fusion power, achieving fusion gain, Q, greater than 2. Such an experiment would be the first demonstration of net energy gain and would validate the promise of high-field devices built with new superconducting technology. SPARC fits into an overall strategy of speeding up fusion development by using new high-field, high-temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets.
The first step in this roadmap will be to carry out research leading to development of the large, superconducting magnets needed for fusion applications. Once the basic engineering of HTS fusion magnets is established, the next step will be to use that technology to build SPARC. Preliminary analysis has led to a conceptual design with a 1.65m major radius and 0.5m minor radius operating at a toroidal field of 12 T and plasma current of 7.5 MA, producing 50-100 MW of fusion power. Its mission will be to demonstrate break-even fusion production and to demonstrate the integrated engineering of fusion-relevant HTS magnets at scale. While audacious in its goals, SPARC leverages decades of international experience with tokamak physics and is a logical follow-on to the series of high-field fusion experiments built and operated at MIT.
Of hand, I don't know. I'd have to look at the dimensions, but my initial guess would be that SPARC should have lower Surface/Volume ratio, so losses should be less. I'd have to look at the plasma temperatures as well in order to determine the confinement pressure which is limited by the mechanical strength of the structure supporting the magnet(s). I recall that 70 atms pressure was a typical limit, but it might have been increased during the last 35 years.Also @Astronuc from your quoted text , I don't understand how SPARC benefits in the toroidal field direction , it says 12 T toroidal field , Iter also has such field strength toroidally, but Iter has a larger size so the curvature bending is less,
Since 1954 through early 2021, the US has spent about $17.1 billion on fusion, or ~$34.1 billion adjusted for inflation. I believe ITER is included in the total funding, but one must peruse the cited references to figure out if that is the case.We are literally talking trillions of USD, man-centuries of research, and exotic materials.
Previous posts indicate a goal of 4 to 5 years. We'll see in 4 or 5 years.But if the technology is still decades away, is this really a good way to be spending these sums of money now?
I'm wondering if the enormous amount of effort (money, materials, research, energy) spent on chasing Nuclear fusion, wouldn't be better employed utilising currently available technologies to solve the energy issues... We are literally talking trillions of USD, man-centuries of research, and exotic materials. Yes, Fusion research is nice.
If... Undoubtedly. And yet.... Research is all fine and dandy. When is it time to have the discussion on the consequences for our society? Researchers gladly fob off morality discussions onto the wider audience, which is gladly ignoring everything but the latest entertainment buzz. Politicians wait until it is a fact. Corporations lobby for their own profiteering.If Fusion is achieved, the payoff is staggering.
It gives us knowledge and tools. What we do with it is up to us.
Frankly, I think this is nonsense. The consequences are always part of the discussion, from the beginning. Pretending like such discussions are not happening all the time is ridiculous. How do you think researchers get funding? The consequences are always part of that discussionWhen is it time to have the discussion on the consequences for our society? Researchers gladly fob off morality discussions onto the wider audience, which is gladly ignoring everything but the latest entertainment buzz. Politicians wait until it is a fact. Corporations lobby for their own profiteering.
This is not a particularly relevant question in discussing cheap energy in the form of nuclear fusion.What has cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels really meant for life on the planet?
I see. So where could a layperson read about these discussions?Frankly, I think this is nonsense. The consequences are always part of the discussion, from the beginning. Pretending like such discussions are not happening all the time is ridiculous. How do you think researchers get funding? The consequences are always part of that discussion
This is not a particularly relevant question in discussing cheap energy in the form of nuclear fusion.
For those specific discussions it depends on the granting agency. If it is a government grant in the USA then those are a matter of public record. You can search the agency’s website for a grant of interest and either directly download the information or get the grant number and ask the agency for the grant application. Under the freedom of information act anyone is entitled to get that information.So where could a layperson read about these discussions?
Sure, you can shrug it off that way, but that is hardly persuasive. You tried to make a "guilt by association" argument, which is a logical fallacy. Your argument, as presented above, is that both fossil fuels and nuclear fusion are "cheap energy", so since fossil fuels do all of these bad things then nuclear fusion is guilty of the same bad things by association. This is a logical fallacy.I'd disagree, with your final statement, but that is your prerogative.
Well, yeah, in my opinion the "vast reward"/"staggering payoff" is very much in doubt. I really don't understand why people think the payoff is a given. To me it seems more likely at this point that even if fusion can be made to work it will still be a bust.If Fusion is achieved, the payoff is staggering. It is without a doubt a transformative technology like driverless cars will be when finally perfected. Everything is risk/reward. With such a vast reward, the risk for many looks worth it. For me, it is. But of course, opinions will vary.
I'm not answering for Russ, but with respect to "To me it seems more likely at this point that even if fusion can be made to work it will still be a bust," 1) one would have to define what "to work" means, and 2) even if it made to work, there is the matter of the supply chain infrastructure.Interesting. Why do you think that?
Sure. And for fission, hydro, solar and wind too. The question is, how high?I don’t know for sure the arguments on the other side, but I think that the idea is that your fixed costs will indeed be high but your variable costs will be low.
What does that translate into in $/MW-hr? And how much energy does it take to create the "fuel grade" D2?I can't find the price for D2 gas, which is probably more than $100/kg, and T2 is considerably more expensive.