Compact Fusion Reactor

[swerve]

... being able to contain the temp by a magnetic force field is ground breaking. ...

Er - no. It's what most of the previous experimental fusion devices have done, with varying degrees of success.

LM is trying to use the magnetic mirror technique, which isn't new. The first such device was built in the USSR over 50 years ago. The US government spent quite a lot on it from the 1960s to '80s. It's still regarded as a theoretically viable technique. Maybe LM can make it work, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't know how much has been spent on fusion research in the last 50 years or so but compared to the vast sums of money pi$$ed away in Iraq and on dubious weapons programs that never worked out it is a nano amount. Add in the huge costs of importing oil resulting in revenues that fund people who want to destroy us, a joint Western plan to spend a trillion dollars researching fusion is something that is overdue. The benefits of energy independence from the ME combined with the environmental advantages make the risk worthwhile.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think electromagnetic containment has been the standard for a while now - keep the stuff spinning in a loop - it's a neat solution that avoids any seriously challenging materials science. The trick is still in getting more energy out of the damn thing than went in, and that relies on keeping the mill spinning for a lengthy period - which we're still measuring in minutes I'm afraid.

I'm intrigued to know what the reasoning is behind the idea that Lockmart can get by those hurdles in ten years or less. The compactness of the design is exciting of course- presumably they're looking to market it as a swap out replacement for a GT power station - it could just plug right in where the GT's were and it'd be a relatively simple operation re-commission as such.

Really intriguing, but we've all been stung with fusion several times over

I don't know how it will fit as a GT replacement. We can't build a nuclear plant that is a drop in replacement for a GT it would no doubt have different outputs and inputs and thermal and design issues, particularly for existing planes/ships. But it does look to be the fusion equivalent of a GT. It could fit into a ship, or a sub or possibly even a plane. Having similar dimensions means you could remove one of your GT on a ship for example, and put in a fusion reactor for hotel loads, heating, steam etc.

Fusion is still a ~20 year away from happening in a big way (with an industry). Which means designs will want to be able of taking advantage of it. If LM says it hopes to produce a fusion power source that is x/y/z big, weighs m, and needs so much cooling etc then people can start thinking about how that would work in the design they are working on, and allocate space, mass, cooling requirements for that.

I would be really surprised if a fusion reactor could match a GT for output on size/mass on something like a plane engine. But they won't require the fuel weight/space of a GT engine.

 

[Blackshoe]

I don't know how it will fit as a GT replacement. We can't build a nuclear plant that is a drop in replacement for a GT it would no doubt have different outputs and inputs and thermal and design issues, particularly for existing planes/ships. But it does look to be the fusion equivalent of a GT. It could fit into a ship, or a sub or possibly even a plane. Having similar dimensions means you could remove one of your GT on a ship for example, and put in a fusion reactor for hotel loads, heating, steam etc.

Fusion is still a ~20 year away from happening in a big way (with an industry). Which means designs will want to be able of taking advantage of it. If LM says it hopes to produce a fusion power source that is x/y/z big, weighs m, and needs so much cooling etc then people can start thinking about how that would work in the design they are working on, and allocate space, mass, cooling requirements for that.

I would be really surprised if a fusion reactor could match a GT for output on size/mass on something like a plane engine. But they won't require the fuel weight/space of a GT engine.

I can see reactors becoming a very viable solution if they can installed as the prime movers for a Nuclear-Electric plant, with maybe GTs for boost. Especially with some of the future weapon systems, power will be an issue, so combining them with the (as yet-unfulfilled) promise of lots of power available through fusion is a good plan on paper.

 

[RobWilliams]

Money invested in fusion R&D now is money we wished we had spent 30 years from now and frittered away.

I'm a big proponent of fusion, the design of the reactor and the mechanisms involve - IMO - are awesome and if we're serious about developing clean and renewable power then fusion is the way to go.

I'm gunning for the nuclear industry as a potential career.

 

[John Fedup]

Money invested in fusion R&D now is money we wished we had spent 30 years from now and frittered away.

I'm a big proponent of fusion, the design of the reactor and the mechanisms involve - IMO - are awesome and if we're serious about developing clean and renewable power then fusion is the way to go.

I'm gunning for the nuclear industry as a potential career.

The reality is if viable fusion reactors aren't feasible then the world is in big trouble both from an energy and environmental perspective. Pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has to have some effects and greenhouse warming seems to be one of them. Super efficient batteries and new alternative power sources will help but replacing fossil fuels needs more. Fission reactors have many negatives and before vast sums of money are spent trying to improve them there should be a full court press on fusion first.

 

[RobWilliams]

Thing is, nuclear fission is - IMO - a necessary evil. I don't like the fact we have to deal with the waste for hundreds of years (or rather, our future generations will have to deal with it) but it's a bloody good method for constant power generation for decades. Naturally it has a big list of pros/cons associated as does oil/gas or whatever.

It'll probably come down to more efficient/higher capacity batteries for more mobile applications, hydrogen fuel cells as an intermediate and fusion reactors for nationwide power grids.

That's the UK at least, obviously ideal power generation techniques depend on the country in question.

Will it be expensive? Hell yeah. But that's the price for trying to reverse this juggernaut of a globe fuelled by hydrocarbons.

No timescales though, i'm not going to try my hand at that, but the IC engine will - eventually - become what steam locomotives and traction engines are today; historical fascinations.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Thing is, nuclear fission is - IMO - a necessary evil. I don't like the fact we have to deal with the waste for hundreds of years (or rather, our future generations will have to deal with it) but it's a bloody good method for constant power generation for decades. Naturally it has a big list of pros/cons associated as does oil/gas or whatever.

It'll probably come down to more efficient/higher capacity batteries for more mobile applications, hydrogen fuel cells as an intermediate and fusion reactors for nationwide power grids.

That's the UK at least, obviously ideal power generation techniques depend on the country in question.

Will it be expensive? Hell yeah. But that's the price for trying to reverse this juggernaut of a globe fuelled by hydrocarbons.

No timescales though, i'm not going to try my hand at that, but the IC engine will - eventually - become what steam locomotives and traction engines are today; historical fascinations.

We have a global system for fission, and fission actually covers a wide range of possible fuels, not just uranium and plutonium that we currently mainly use. Its a known quantity. You can call up and get a dozen quotes from people with proven experience. We know about the wastes and the fuels and how to integrate it. Fission had a lot of help with subsidies from national nuclear weapon programs, defense, etc.

If we commissioned our first commercial energy fusion reactor today, it would still take decades to sort all this out, to work out all the radioactive products and how to recycle and reprocess, fixed costs for commissioning and decommissioning a reactor etc. Fusion isn't totally clean, you get neutrons, neutrons hit things and all of a sudden everything changes, things that weren't radioactive become radioactive. Neutrons themselves are of course a type of radiation that needs to be shielded. So apart from fuel costs, running costs of a Fusion reactor might be considerably more than a nice simple refined Fission reactor.

While I think fusion is more promising now than its been in the past 20 years its still a whole new animal. It won't be cheap for a long time. It won't be small for a considerably longer time.

With electric drive you don't really have to settle on anything though, Diesel, nuclear (fission or fusion), battery, or any variation thereof.

 

[My2Cents]

What a lot of people don't realize is that cheap high efficiency batteries will be a game changer for the utility industry by means of load shifting and backup power for ‘green generation’. Really, you can’t make solar cells and windmills work without them.

Batteries are also a critical component in building the charging stations for those electric vehicles if you want a ‘quick charge' capability, instead of swapping battery packs or taking a couple hours.

 

[John Fedup]

We have a global system for fission, and fission actually covers a wide range of possible fuels, not just uranium and plutonium that we currently mainly use. Its a known quantity. You can call up and get a dozen quotes from people with proven experience. We know about the wastes and the fuels and how to integrate it. Fission had a lot of help with subsidies from national nuclear weapon programs, defense, etc.

If we commissioned our first commercial energy fusion reactor today, it would still take decades to sort all this out, to work out all the radioactive products and how to recycle and reprocess, fixed costs for commissioning and decommissioning a reactor etc. Fusion isn't totally clean, you get neutrons, neutrons hit things and all of a sudden everything changes, things that weren't radioactive become radioactive. Neutrons themselves are of course a type of radiation that needs to be shielded. So apart from fuel costs, running costs of a Fusion reactor might be considerably more than a nice simple refined Fission reactor.

While I think fusion is more promising now than its been in the past 20 years its still a whole new animal. It won't be cheap for a long time. It won't be small for a considerably longer time.

With electric drive you don't really have to settle on anything though, Diesel, nuclear (fission or fusion), battery, or any variation thereof.

The fast neutron issue is a concern and research into materials suitable for the reaction chamber is required. Neutron bombardment of the chamber will result in some atoms absorbing neutrons leading to radioactive atoms. However, I can't see this being as bad as the radioactive soup being created in fission reactors. As for nuclear waste, it is a huge problem. The really bad stuff like plutonium is extracted but much of the other hot stuff is stored at the reactor sites as nobody wants to have a long term storage area in their backyard. In any event fission reactors will be needed for the foreseeable future. Boron apparently can be fused with a proton producing an alpha particle instead of a fast neutron. Maybe this reaction or some other might be a better fusion route.

 

[John Fedup]

What a lot of people don't realize is that cheap high efficiency batteries will be a game changer for the utility industry by means of load shifting and backup power for ‘green generation’. Really, you can’t make solar cells and windmills work without them.

Batteries are also a critical component in building the charging stations for those electric vehicles if you want a ‘quick charge' capability, instead of swapping battery packs or taking a couple hours.

I agree, batteries are hugely important regardless of how the energy is sourced. Having a large capacity battery will provide storage for base load power plants during off peak hours. This in turn reduces the number of power plants required and also makes windmills viable. In Ontario, wind energy is sold at a loss because it is often produced during non-peak hours. Efficient, large capacity batteries would solve this problem.

 

[My2Cents]

Boron apparently can be fused with a proton producing an alpha particle instead of a fast neutron. Maybe this reaction or some other might be a better fusion route.

It can, but the energy level required (temperature) is 10x higher than for D-T fusion. Confinement and density requirements are also higher. We will have D-T machines for a long time before a B-H can even be built.

 

[swerve]

What a lot of people don't realize is that cheap high efficiency batteries will be a game changer for the utility industry by means of load shifting and backup power for ‘green generation’. Really, you can’t make solar cells and windmills work without them.

Yeah, I know someone who's working for a firm targeting exactly that market. It has a battery type that doesn't scale down well, but is good for big installations.

 

[StobieWan]

It's an interesting point as that gets around the issues with Solar and wind with it producing energy when you don't need it and vice versa. I'd idly mused about hydrogen cracking microstations where small wind and solar efforts produce electricity to crack hydrogen from water and the hydrogen can be stored for some sort of fuel cell or similar use.

Of course, hydrogen is both difficult and dangerous to store in any quantity so that's as far as my musings had gotten. If large capacity batteries can be had cheaply and have a good economic life, that would be a solid step forward to local power generation being feasible.

 

[John Fedup]

It's an interesting point as that gets around the issues with Solar and wind with it producing energy when you don't need it and vice versa. I'd idly mused about hydrogen cracking microstations where small wind and solar efforts produce electricity to crack hydrogen from water and the hydrogen can be stored for some sort of fuel cell or similar use.

Of course, hydrogen is both difficult and dangerous to store in any quantity so that's as far as my musings had gotten. If large capacity batteries can be had cheaply and have a good economic life, that would be a solid step forward to local power generation being feasible.

A hydrogen cracking microstation is an interesting idea. The province of Ontario is paying almost 80 cents a kW hour for wind/solar versus 4-6 cents for nuclear electricity and during off peak this unneeded wind/solar is sold for whatever they can get. A cracking microstation might yield a better return. Not building these farms in the first place would have been a better idea.

 

[EXSSBN2005]

Large hydrolic batteries, not portable at all but they can be charged at night and then turned on during the day its proven and not all that efficient but it does make money, my company has been operating one for years, I was discussing power plants with a friend who works for Duke energy (they operate several nuclear plants in Ohio) and he was saying thorium salt was probably the best way to go, the reason funding for it is so low is that it cant be readily weaponized (debate on this perhaps later) for example to the same extent a fission reactor can be even though it needs fission to start it off.

the battery : Ludington Pumped Storage | Consumers Energy

LFTR : [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor"]Liquid fluoride thorium reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] , there are many flavors of other sites information on the subject but this was probably the most nuteral and possiably informational to those just starting to dive into the topic with a general overview.

 

[tonnyc]

Large hydrolic batteries, not portable at all but they can be charged at night and then turned on during the day its proven and not all that efficient but it does make money, my company has been operating one for years, I was discussing power plants with a friend who works for Duke energy (they operate several nuclear plants in Ohio) and he was saying thorium salt was probably the best way to go, the reason funding for it is so low is that it cant be readily weaponized (debate on this perhaps later) for example to the same extent a fission reactor can be even though it needs fission to start it off.

the battery : Ludington Pumped Storage | Consumers Energy

LFTR : Liquid fluoride thorium reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , there are many flavors of other sites information on the subject but this was probably the most nuteral and possiably informational to those just starting to dive into the topic with a general overview.

You work in Ludington? Is it snowing yet over there?

Pumped storage is widely used in Europe too. Germany is probably the biggest user at the moment (I think) and is using it in conjunction with solar power with good effect to stabilize their power load. One main drawback is that you need a good location to build one and this is not always available, or if it's available, the current residents might not appreciate having to move.

If we are talking large scale energy storage, there's molten sodium. Use excess energy to melt sodium and later on when you need the energy back, use the heat to run a steam turbine. With good insulation heat loss is minimized.

And yes, as far as fission goes, LFTR is very promising. US research into Thorium reactors were suspended in 1974 since it was decided that conventional uranium reactors were better because their byproducts can be used to make nuclear bombs (hey, Cold War, what can I say), but today India and China is putting serious money into it. The US government isn't funding thorium reactor research but at least one American private company is doing it and making progress.

We are getting off topic though. Thorium nuclear reactors won't be compact. Same thing with pumped storage solution or molten salt.

 

[My2Cents]

Pumped storage is widely used in Europe too. Germany is probably the biggest user at the moment (I think) and is using it in conjunction with solar power with good effect to stabilize their power load. One main drawback is that you need a good location to build one and this is not always available, or if it's available, the current residents might not appreciate having to move.

Above ground storage is not a necessity, there are several pump storage units operating between different levels in old mine complexes with minimum above ground facilities

If we are talking large scale energy storage, there's molten sodium. Use excess energy to melt sodium and later on when you need the energy back, use the heat to run a steam turbine. With good insulation heat loss is minimized.

Never heard a proposal to use the solid to fluid phase change in sodium to store heat for power generation. The temperature at which it takes place and the heat of fusion are too low to be of interest, the heat capacity of the molten sodium is also low. I worked on the design of a sodium loop solar plant once, but all we planned to do with the sodium at night was drain it into insulated tanks so it wouldn’t freeze before morning.

Compressed air storage is the second best choice after hydraulic storage.

 

[kato]

Germany is probably the biggest user at the moment (I think)

By installed capacity, the biggest user of hydroelectric pumped storage is Japan followed by the USA, then China, then - roughly on par - Italy, France and Germany. China is the only one of these that has been rapidly expanding its capacity over the past decade.

Relative to population, the biggest user is Luxembourg at 2 kW per person, followed by Austria at 360 W capacity per person installed. Japan is at around 200 W capacity per person, Germany at a relatively average - for industrial nations - around 80 W capacity per person.

 

[tonnyc]

Never heard a proposal to use the solid to fluid phase change in sodium to store heat for power generation. The temperature at which it takes place and the heat of fusion are too low to be of interest, the heat capacity of the molten sodium is also low. I worked on the design of a sodium loop solar plant once, but all we planned to do with the sodium at night was drain it into insulated tanks so it wouldn’t freeze before morning.

Compressed air storage is the second best choice after hydraulic storage.

The company saying that is Solar Reserve. I was mistaken in saying molten sodium. They use molten salt. The molten salt can store heat generated by solar thermal, or coal, or fission, fusion, or pretty much everything that generates heat. As it is currently used, molten salt thermal storage is mainly used for solar thermal power plant. I believe it can be used for storing energy created from fusion, but since a nuclear power plant is usually considered a baseload power generator, there's usually no economic reason to store its energy.

Yes, heat capacity of molten sodium or even molten salt is low. Water beats them. But molten salt has a very high boiling point, meaning that you can heat them to a thousand degree Fahrenheit and still treat it as a low pressure system.

Solar Reserve claim that they can store energy this way for up to 24 hours with 98% thermal efficiency (no matter how good your insulation is, you will lose energy). After that, it's just regular steam turbine technology.

I don't know enough about your solar plant sodium loop to comment.

Compressed air energy storage on a large scale is new to me. I didn't even know they exist until you pointed it out. Fascinating. Thanks.