Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy - BBC News

[marldorthegreat]

 

 

Summary

The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen.

If nuclear fusion can be successfully recreated on Earth it holds out the potential of virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy.

The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).

This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.

 

Quotes

Quote

European scientists say they have made a major breakthrough in their quest to develop practical nuclear fusion - the energy process that powers the stars.

 

My thoughts

The fusion announcement is great news but sadly it won't help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.

There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.

And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.

In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century

 

 

Sources

Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy - BBC News

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

1 minute ago, marldorthegreat said:

Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century

Yup. It'll be a huge gift we give to our grandchildren, so deserving of investment.

[Lightwreather]

So, exactly how close are we to break-even?

 

[IPD]

Well seeing as how CO2 levels have encouraged flora spreading to areas in which they were previously not found--I'm not drastically worried about the environment.  But we shouldn't be killing off NG supplies/piping--since it generates far less pollution than coal.

 

Happy they got more megajoules out of it.  But that's still lifetimes away from a reliable, sustainable, controllable method for extracting energy via fusion.

[Imbadatnames]

7 minutes ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

So, exactly how close are we to break-even?

 

ITER is expecting to do that and is due to fire up in 2025

[Imbadatnames]

14 minutes ago, marldorthegreat said:

 

 

Summary

The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen.

If nuclear fusion can be successfully recreated on Earth it holds out the potential of virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy.

The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).

This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

The fusion announcement is great news but sadly it won't help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.

There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.

And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.

In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century

 

 

Sources

Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy - BBC News

Just build fission plants for now 

[Mark Kaine]

9 minutes ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

So, exactly how close are we to break-even?

 

20 years? Always same story since ~ 1950...

 

 

I dont even know if this all makes sense, imo they should be able to have "continues" power first… then think about efficiency … what's the point of "5 seconds"? That just tells me they havent even figured out how to keep such a reactor running without blowing it up lol.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

ITER is expecting to do that and is due to fire up in 2025

Actually it was supposed to do that in 2021 or something iirc… (hint: it didnt work!.: D )

 

 

[Master Disaster]

Sustained fusion for power production is a dumb idea with current technology. Sure its carbon free however its also a potential neutron bomb primed and waiting to take out half a continent.

 

There's a very good reason why they only run these things for seconds, we don't have the materials required to contain the energy over any prolonged period.

 

You think nukes are big explosions? If a fusion reactor went boom it would make the biggest nuke we ever let off look like a cap gun.

 

 

[Lightwreather]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

If a fusion reactor went boom it would make the biggest nuke we ever let off look like a cap gun.

Forgive my ignorance, but if a nuclear Fusion reactor were to go boom, wouldn't it cool down before reaching such levels?

[Tech Enthusiast]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Sustained fusion for power production is a dumb idea with current technology. Sure its carbon free however its also a potential neutron bomb primed and waiting to take out half a continent.

A neutron bomb you say? Tell more!

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

There's a very good reason why they only run these things for seconds, we don't have the materials required to contain the energy over any prolonged period.

Yeah, the needed energy to to this test is pretty huge. You don't exactly flip a switch and try if it works.

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

You think nukes are big explosions? If a fusion reactor went boom it would make the biggest nuke we ever let off look like a cap gun.

Again: Do tell the whole story. What would happen, if this reaction goes bad? Please go into all the needed detail to verify that claim, because it sure does not match what should happen. Do the laws of nature suddenly change for this?

Ah, I will just toss out another "suggestion": A hot Ball of Plasma would burn trough a few layer of insulation, before the whole thing just does nothing anymore.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Forgive my ignorance, but if a nuclear Fusion reactor were to go boom, wouldn't it cool down before reaching such levels?

100 million C plasma? I doubt it would cool before it melted through most of the Earth.

[porina]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

100 million C plasma? I doubt it would cool before it melted through most of the Earth.

Which would your rather get hit by? A single spark (1000 C) or a kettle of boiling water (100 C)? Temperature is not by itself a measure of the energy contained.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

A neutron bomb you say? Tell more!

OK, exaggeration.

1 minute ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

 

Again: Do tell the whole story. What would happen, if this reaction goes bad? Please go into all the needed detail to verify that claim, because it sure does not match what should happen. Do the laws of nature suddenly change for this?

Ah, I will just toss out another "suggestion": A hot Ball of Plasma would burn trough a few layer of insulation, before the whole thing just does nothing anymore.

Theoretically the plasma would be at ~100 million degrees celcius. I don't understand how you can see that as anything but a problem, 100 million degrees worth of energy in heat that has to be transferred somewhere in order to dissipate.

 

Explosion probably wasn't the best term but the effect would be the same except all the energy is in the form of heat, not expanding gas.

[Tech Enthusiast]

100 million is a flat out extrapolation, not a measurement. That being said: We are talking a few atoms of that heat and heat transfers to surrounding matter. Likely water as a saveguard.

That 100 million degree plasma likely won't even be enough to boil a few liters of water after the reaction gets disrupted.

 

Basically it is save as long as the reaction lasts and the reaction almost instantly ends, once you hit the switch or something goes bad. Quite the opposite of nuclear right now.

[wanderingfool2]

The amount of time until we get Nuclear Fusion reactors is very much akin to the max speed of light...a constant.

 

They didn't mention the Q value, so I'm guessing that it might have not set a record...especially given they used 2x 500 MW fly wheels to produce 11MW of power.  Honestly, I'm not interested in ITER and the numbers it provides than "records" made by already existing equipment that has been around for a while.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

You think nukes are big explosions? If a fusion reactor went boom it would make the biggest nuke we ever let off look like a cap gun.

Fusion reactors aren't nukes. Even fusion bombs are powered by fission reactions as you need an energy source to initiate and sustain fusion. The fuel you put in your fission reactor and the radioactive waste it produces will decay on its own and will not stop doing so, leading to some of the nuclear accidents we have seen. Fusion works the other way around. It is essentially a cooling process and therefore stops going boom rather quickly once the conditions necessary for it (confinement, temperature, pressure) are no longer satisfied. My favourite example of this is how my professor introduced stellar fusion: stars aren't hot because they have fusion,  they have fusion because they are hot". The initial reason they get hot is from gravitational collapse increasing pressure and temperature in the core.

Quote

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170621082456.htm

Fusion power is a much safer alternative than nuclear power, which is based on the splitting (fission) of heavy atoms. If something goes wrong in a fusion reactor, the entire process stops and it grows cold. Unlike with a nuclear accident, there is no risk of the surrounding environment being affected.

Quote

https://www.iter.org/sci/Fusion
No risk of meltdown: A Fukushima-type nuclear accident is not possible in a tokamak fusion device. It is difficult enough to reach and maintain the precise conditions necessary for fusion—if any disturbance occurs, the plasma cools within seconds and the reaction stops. The quantity of fuel present in the vessel at any one time is enough for a few seconds only and there is no risk of a chain reaction.

and an anonymous nuclear redditor for what it's worth

Quote

Nuclear engineer here. Lots of poor information in this thread.
<snip>

The only danger from fusion reactors is that the reactor materials will become moderately radioactive. This is only a local concern though that affects the workers on site,
and final disposal. Because there is no "decay heat" in the fusion reactor byproducts there is no risk of anything melting.

A catastrophic failure will probably cause on-site damage, and there might be a more severe failure mode, but it won't be able to (proverbially) take out half of a continent, because the conditions for fusion will be gone the moment the reactor is breached.

[Imbadatnames]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

20 years? Always same story since ~ 1950...

 

 

I dont even know if this all makes sense, imo they should be able to have "continues" power first… then think about efficiency … what's the point of "5 seconds"? That just tells me they havent even figured out how to keep such a reactor running without blowing it up lol.

 

 

Actually it was supposed to do that in 2021 or something iirc… (hint: it didnt work!.: D )

 

 

It hasn’t finished being built yet dude… delays in construction aren’t exactly unforetold events. 

[Imbadatnames]

1 hour ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Forgive my ignorance, but if a nuclear Fusion reactor were to go boom, wouldn't it cool down before reaching such levels?

It’s literally impossible. It’s not the same type of energy release. A “neutron bomb” (they mean H-Bomb a neutron bomb is something completely different) works on the principle of a large amount of material suddenly undergoing fusion in a fraction of a fraction of a second usually accomplished via a conventional fission bomb incasing it. Not the slow burn of a fusion reactor 

[Quackers101]

so still 30 years away.

and ITER might not change things up. also hopefully not complete redesign, its mostly for research and might not give what we want.

[wanderingfool2]

38 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

so still 30 years away.

and ITER might not change things up. also hopefully not complete redesign, its mostly for research and might not give what we want.

Yea, most likely (speculating here) ITER will tell whether or not it will be feasible...like if scaling to that factor actually provides them with the gains expected.  If that occurs then it might even require a larger facility, or at least it will require a new facility that uses the knowledge gained about fusion reactions at that scale from ITER to build a system to recover the heat.

[Beskamir]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

You think nukes are big explosions? If a fusion reactor went boom it would make the biggest nuke we ever let off look like a cap gun.

Yeah cause obviously something that requires a constant input of energy to keep running will explode if it loses power instead of fizzing out /s

[Quackers101]

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yea, most likely (speculating here) ITER will tell whether or not it will be feasible...like if scaling to that factor actually provides them with the gains expected.

think some of the smaller projects are starting to have some success, in improving changing more designs and give of data to support about the future of this.

some that LTT has covered, I think one was from canada. maybe have been fusion instead of fussion power? don't remember.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

You think nukes are big explosions? If a fusion reactor went boom it would make the biggest nuke we ever let off look like a cap gun.

That' not the case.

 

While the plasma is very hot it is also extremely thin, the fusion chamber itself is a vacuum. Unlike fissions, you only need grams of active fuel. And when a gas expands it cools, so when containment fails, the plasma isn't even hot enough to damage the walls.

 

Fusion it's intrinsecally safe. It takes a LOT of convincing for the nucleai to undergo fusion, without gravity, as soon as the facility shuts down, the plasma is gone in a matter of milliseconds. There is irradiated metal, but it's a far cry from a spent fission rod, it's more in line with the radioactiovity of medical equipment.

[Imbadatnames]

1 hour ago, Quackers101 said:

so still 30 years away.

and ITER might not change things up. also hopefully not complete redesign, its mostly for research and might not give what we want.

The point of ITER is to serve as a model for production plants if successful 

[Imbadatnames]

53 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

That' not the case.

 

While the plasma is very hot it is also extremely thin, the fusion chamber itself is a vacuum. Unlike fissions, you only need grams of active fuel. And when a gas expands it cools, so when containment fails, the plasma isn't even hot enough to damage the walls.

 

Fusion it's intrinsecally safe. It takes a LOT of convincing for the nucleai to undergo fusion, without gravity, as soon as the facility shuts down, the plasma is gone in a matter of milliseconds. There is irradiated metal, but it's a far cry from a spent fission rod, it's more in line with the radioactiovity of medical equipment.

Even then a spent fuel rod isn’t that bad you just have to store it properly