Elusive fusion reactors to be commercialised by 2025-2030... Or so they say

[physichull]

@AndyT Good post. Any jobs going for me and @physichull ?

I've already got a job!

I'd just like the ITER work!

 

[Angilion]

No, I’m not confusing the two. Note I said we already have fission reactors and have for some time. I don’t see it happening any time soon. Point is if you get commercial fusion reactors that in itself would be an awesome achievement - we have electric cars etc... I suspect any mini fusion reactors would be a lot further off and the main benefit from fusion reactors would be just getting very cheap electricity on the grid (eventually) - obvs there are initial infrastructure costs etc... How feasible, how desirable and how costly a mini fusion reactor is is another matter, especially when electric cars, battery technology, availability of fast charging stations etc.. is improving.

There is one situation I can think of in which a practical fusion reactor much smaller than a power station would be very useful - bulk transport ships. More a midi fusion reactor than a mini fusion reactor. Much more feasible than one small enough to be the engine in a car, both in terms of existing at all and in terms of the cost of such a thing. If you're paying $100M for a vehicle and it uses $70K per day in fuel alone, paying a lot more for an engine that has a miniscule fraction of the running costs is definitely worth it on cost alone. You'd make the extra engine cost back in reduced fuel costs alone in a very attractive period of time but that's not the only cost saving. You'd also be able to run your transport ships at a higher speed (current container ships are speed restricted to reduce fuel consumption) and that's much more profitable. It would also be a huge benefit in terms of pollution. Definitely desirable. Definitely financially viable even if each ship engine costs tens of millions. Maybe feasible. Far more feasible than using fusion engines in cars, that's for sure.

I am somewhat dubious of the claims made in the article. The video is very good though, although at the very start he repeats a few common tropes about seawater being the fuel for fusion and that fusion is "clean". I work at ITER, so have a vague idea of the state of things...

Fusion is not exactly fuelled by sea-water. He is referring to Deuterium-Tritium fusion reactions. It is true that deuterium can be extracted from seawater, but the other isotope of hydrogen required, tritium, is only available in trace amounts in the environment and is a fast decaying radio-isotope (half-life 12.3yrs). There is only ~3.5kg of tritium naturally available at any one time on the planet. Instead, the required tritium must be bred inside fission or fusion reactors by neutron activation of lithium. [..]

Is Deuterium-Deuterium fusion theoretically viable for a power station? Even harder to make practical than Deuterium-Tritium fusion is, but theoretically possible to do so? That was the impression I got from inexpert reading about fusion.

 

[physichull]

There is one situation I can think of in which a practical fusion reactor much smaller than a power station would be very useful - bulk transport ships. More a midi fusion reactor than a mini fusion reactor. Much more feasible than one small enough to be the engine in a car, both in terms of existing at all and in terms of the cost of such a thing. If you're paying $100M for a vehicle and it uses $70K per day in fuel alone, paying a lot more for an engine that has a miniscule fraction of the running costs is definitely worth it on cost alone. You'd make the extra engine cost back in reduced fuel costs alone in a very attractive period of time but that's not the only cost saving. You'd also be able to run your transport ships at a higher speed (current container ships are speed restricted to reduce fuel consumption) and that's much more profitable. It would also be a huge benefit in terms of pollution. Definitely desirable. Definitely financially viable even if each ship engine costs tens of millions. Maybe feasible. Far more feasible than using fusion engines in cars, that's for sure.

But not cost effective right now, you may as well just use oil.

There are very limited commercial reactors on ships, the vast majority will be on military submarines, though I think Russia has some on some ice breakers? Not sure the reason why you would do that, it would be very expensive.

SMR's may be the future instead of the larger conventional fission stations, though I doubt they would work too well on ships - SMRs are designed for steady continuous power output.

 

[Angilion]

But not cost effective right now, you may as well just use oil.

There are very limited commercial reactors on ships, the vast majority will be on military submarines, though I think Russia has some on some ice breakers? Not sure the reason why you would do that, it would be very expensive.

SMR's may be the future instead of the larger conventional fission stations, though I doubt they would work too well on ships - SMRs are designed for steady continuous power output.

We were talking about possible future uses for hypothetical fusion reactors smaller than power station size, not current uses for existing fission reactors.

 

[physichull]

Fair enough.

You could use a hypothetical fusion reactor for almost anything! It all depends on exactly how hypothetical you mean.

I doubt very much you would utilise it on commercial shipping. It may be the case that the technology simply cannot be scaled, in addtition to still having the requirements for all the bulk equipment you would need to support the reactor operations.

In addition, physics doesn't change over time, we will still need the same amount of shielding today as we will in 1000 years to stop Co-60, so you would be adding bulk and mass to your ship. You'd need to undertake all the maintenance tasks you would normally do on a terranean reactor and within the confines of a ship that would be extremely difficult. You would then need a connection to the grid to provide the initial power supply to start the reactor in order to start up and generate its own power. On top of that, I'd imagine most fusion reactors will be designed to produce a steady base load, rather than a variable load that a ship will require in its normal operations. This may simply not be physically possible in a scaled down plant.

 

[Fusion]

In addition, physics doesn't change over time, we will still need the same amount of shielding today as we will in 1000 years to stop Co-60, so you would be adding bulk and mass to your ship.

We may not need to use stainless steel in the future, there could be other materials. What about Titanium, or alloys of it? As has been mentioned, this is where a lot of the R&D will be taking place.

 

[BananaDunka]

I am somewhat dubious of the claims made in the article. The video is very good though, although at the very start he repeats a few common tropes about seawater being the fuel for fusion and that fusion is "clean". I work at ITER, so have a vague idea of the state of things...

Fusion is not exactly fuelled by sea-water. He is referring to Deuterium-Tritium fusion reactions. It is true that deuterium can be extracted from seawater, but the other isotope of hydrogen required, tritium, is only available in trace amounts in the environment and is a fast decaying radio-isotope (half-life 12.3yrs). There is only ~3.5kg of tritium naturally available at any one time on the planet. Instead, the required tritium must be bred inside fission or fusion reactors by neutron activation of lithium.

Fusion is also not clean. The neutrons produced in a fusion reaction activate elements in the materials of the machine to create radioactive isotopes. E.g. Cobalt-59 in stainless steel is activated to Cobalt-60 which is a gamma emitter with a half-life of around 6 years. Although we won't create High-Level Radioactive waste, we will produce vast quantities of Medium and Low-Level Waste which must be handled as radwaste and which still needs to be packaged and stored for several years.

One problem with articles such as these is that when scientists say XXX will be possible in YYY years time, the scientists often have not given much consideration to the future engineering challenges to be faced in actually realising the theory. A big problem with fusion is the time frames people have put on what is an incredibly complex challenge. It has always raised unrealistic expectations.

It is certainly interesting to see modern computing approaches helping, but in reality, if AI could solve it all then we have just wiped out millions of jobs across the world.... AI cannot solve all engineering design challenges. Engineering is a combination of creativity and logic. AI, I suppose, is cold, hard logic. There are thousands of engineers at ITER dedicated to design and analysis to support the science with perhaps tens of thousands of highly-specialist technicians and operators in the supply chain. AI would also not solve supply chain issues.

The major issues related to realising fusion, at least in Tokamaks are:

• maintaining a stable plasma - physics
• solving novel material science and engineering challenges to ensure that the machine doesn't just disintegrate and clog itself up with dust created from particles stripped-away from plasma-facing components by the neutron flux
• solving the very complex challenges of remotely-operated handling and maintenance operations inside the vacuum vessel, which are necessary just to keep such a machine running
• the huge material and engineering costs
• breeding sufficient amounts of the required tritium to feed the machine
• treating the radwaste

All of this is on top of the fact that a fusion reactor is a nuclear installation and must therefore be licensed by the state agency responsible for nuclear safety. This itself is a huge challenge, particularly for a novel plant like a fusion reactor. "Beginning commercialisation" in 2023 I guess means only just starting the design approval for the reactor, which will take years.

Very few of the above challenges could be solved by AI.

I am confident that we will see a commercial fusion reactor connected to the grid in our lifetime, but it won't be ITER and it won't even be the follow-up, DEMO.

ITER itself will not generate any electricity, it won't even have a turbine island, it is an experimental reactor. Instead, the purpose is to generate a plasma with fusion power ten times the external heating power applied to the plasma. ITER is essentially a proving ground for the plasma physics, materials science, and engineering solutions applied to the magnetic confinement approach to fusion in a Tokamak machine. At sometime during the life of ITER the member states will begin to construct their own demonstration (DEMO) reactor designs, which will be followed up by commercial reactors.

In any case, nobody I know at ITER would be upset if another organisation suddenly cracked fusion and got it to work. Everybody is working toward the same goal and solving the challenge can only be a good thing for humanity. Although personally, I believe it's probably better for everybody if it was cracked by an international collaboration than an investor-funded private entity...

Elusive, not illusive.

Very interesting and informative! Gonna be keeping an eye out for the yearly articles and announcements that come out. At leats one thing is clear, scientists are on the right tracks and the progress being made is still pretty substantial in the face of serious complexity as you've mentioned. Who knows, maybe some near-future great mind will come along one day and flip everything on its head and propose a novel solution to the current problems.

Title corrected, it was very very late at night

 

[Spit]

I am somewhat dubious of the claims made in the article. The video is very good though, although at the very start he repeats a few common tropes about seawater being the fuel for fusion and that fusion is "clean". I work at ITER, so have a vague idea of the state of things...

Fusion is not exactly fuelled by sea-water. He is referring to Deuterium-Tritium fusion reactions. It is true that deuterium can be extracted from seawater, but the other isotope of hydrogen required, tritium, is only available in trace amounts in the environment and is a fast decaying radio-isotope (half-life 12.3yrs). There is only ~3.5kg of tritium naturally available at any one time on the planet. Instead, the required tritium must be bred inside fission or fusion reactors by neutron activation of lithium.

Fusion is also not clean. The neutrons produced in a fusion reaction activate elements in the materials of the machine to create radioactive isotopes. E.g. Cobalt-59 in stainless steel is activated to Cobalt-60 which is a gamma emitter with a half-life of around 6 years. Although we won't create High-Level Radioactive waste, we will produce vast quantities of Medium and Low-Level Waste which must be handled as radwaste and which still needs to be packaged and stored for several years.

One problem with articles such as these is that when scientists say XXX will be possible in YYY years time, the scientists often have not given much consideration to the future engineering challenges to be faced in actually realising the theory. A big problem with fusion is the time frames people have put on what is an incredibly complex challenge. It has always raised unrealistic expectations.

It is certainly interesting to see modern computing approaches helping, but in reality, if AI could solve it all then we have just wiped out millions of jobs across the world.... AI cannot solve all engineering design challenges. Engineering is a combination of creativity and logic. AI, I suppose, is cold, hard logic. There are thousands of engineers at ITER dedicated to design and analysis to support the science with perhaps tens of thousands of highly-specialist technicians and operators in the supply chain. AI would also not solve supply chain issues.

The major issues related to realising fusion, at least in Tokamaks are:

• maintaining a stable plasma - physics
• solving novel material science and engineering challenges to ensure that the machine doesn't just disintegrate and clog itself up with dust created from particles stripped-away from plasma-facing components by the neutron flux
• solving the very complex challenges of remotely-operated handling and maintenance operations inside the vacuum vessel, which are necessary just to keep such a machine running
• the huge material and engineering costs
• breeding sufficient amounts of the required tritium to feed the machine
• treating the radwaste

All of this is on top of the fact that a fusion reactor is a nuclear installation and must therefore be licensed by the state agency responsible for nuclear safety. This itself is a huge challenge, particularly for a novel plant like a fusion reactor. "Beginning commercialisation" in 2023 I guess means only just starting the design approval for the reactor, which will take years.

Very few of the above challenges could be solved by AI.

I am confident that we will see a commercial fusion reactor connected to the grid in our lifetime, but it won't be ITER and it won't even be the follow-up, DEMO.

ITER itself will not generate any electricity, it won't even have a turbine island, it is an experimental reactor. Instead, the purpose is to generate a plasma with fusion power ten times the external heating power applied to the plasma. ITER is essentially a proving ground for the plasma physics, materials science, and engineering solutions applied to the magnetic confinement approach to fusion in a Tokamak machine. At sometime during the life of ITER the member states will begin to construct their own demonstration (DEMO) reactor designs, which will be followed up by commercial reactors.

In any case, nobody I know at ITER would be upset if another organisation suddenly cracked fusion and got it to work. Everybody is working toward the same goal and solving the challenge can only be a good thing for humanity. Although personally, I believe it's probably better for everybody if it was cracked by an international collaboration than an investor-funded private entity...

Elusive, not illusive.

A great read, thank you.

 

[Diddums]

Is the title 'Elusive fusion reactors ' or is this a new fusion technology?

No, it's Elusive. I pointed this out but my post was deleted


Illusive basically means made up. Fiction.


Anyway, I think today is an amazing time to be alive. We've got the LHC on the go, we've got people sorting out qbits for quantum computing, people are sussing out fusion reactors, Musk is prepping to colonise mars, it's genuinely amazing.

One thing I think the world falls short of is publicity. Back in the 90s there were science related promotional items everywhere. Remember when Andy Green broke the world speed record in the Thrust SSC? You couldn't move without bumping in to it somewhere. Beyond 2000 was a TV show which was all about new and future tech, I loved that show. Do we have anything like that now?

Today's kids seems more interested in what shape Kylie Jenner's eyebrows are today than making actual progress as a species. It's a shame, hopefully the silent nerds are still at it.

 

[AndyT]

Is Deuterium-Deuterium fusion theoretically viable for a power station? Even harder to make practical than Deuterium-Tritium fusion is, but theoretically possible to do so? That was the impression I got from inexpert reading about fusion.

It is certainly possible, but probably not viable to generate sustaining plasma. In fact, D-D is the first step of ITER once the machine is completely set up and after initial plasma experiments. D-T will follow shortly after. JET in Culham is capable of D-D and D-T reactions, at a net energy cost. The problem with the D-D reaction is that its cross-section is much lower than D-T, which means that the probability of a fusion reaction occurring at a given temperature is much lower. There is also more Bremsstrahlung radiation which is just basically wasted energy you need to make up for in heating. To achieve a sustainable D-D reaction you are looking at a 400 to 500 million degC plasma rather than "just" 150 million degC in a D-T reaction. This creates huge engineering challenges.

Disclaimer: I'm an engineer, not a physicist, so that's pretty much all the useful information I know on the reaction side of things I'm afraid...

In Tokamak reactors, we (humanity) are generating the steepest temperature gradients in the known Universe: from almost absolute zero (~-270deC) in the superconducting magnets to hundreds of millions of degC at the plasma core, in the space of only a few metres. That's probably THE fusion factoid that absolutely blows my mind.

 

[AndyT]

@AndyT Good post. Any jobs going for me and @physichull ?

Direct with ITER, the jobs at the moment are few and far between, and if you only have a UK passport you are **** out of luck for the moment I'm afraid. BREXIT made sure of that. Maybe if we find a way back into EURATOM it will open up again for sole UK nationals.

There are always plenty of jobs with companies contracting to ITER or F4E though. Provence certainly isn't a bad place to live!

 

[BananaDunka]

No, it's Elusive. I pointed this out but my post was deleted


Illusive basically means made up. Fiction.


Anyway, I think today is an amazing time to be alive. We've got the LHC on the go, we've got people sorting out qbits for quantum computing, people are sussing out fusion reactors, Musk is prepping to colonise mars, it's genuinely amazing.

One thing I think the world falls short of is publicity. Back in the 90s there were science related promotional items everywhere. Remember when Andy Green broke the world speed record in the Thrust SSC? You couldn't move without bumping in to it somewhere. Beyond 2000 was a TV show which was all about new and future tech, I loved that show. Do we have anything like that now?

Today's kids seems more interested in what shape Kylie Jenner's eyebrows are today than making actual progress as a species. It's a shame, hopefully the silent nerds are still at it.

Not forgetting prime time shows like Tomorrow's World that helped guide people of all ages into an interest in technology and science. Cosmos by Sagan was before my time but I have watched many episodes and it's profound whilst Neil deGrasse Tyson takes over the reign now with his new series which is equally as good and focuses on a modern humanity and its history of achievements and what lies beyond for us.

 

[Fusion]

I wish more people knew about the likes of fusion. For such a potentially pivotal technology, public awareness and understanding of it seems to be minimal. As has been said, it just isn't publicised. Even CERN is much more well known now, although dare I say it, that's mostly down to one Dan Brown!

There seems to be higher awareness of space and cosmology- the focus seems to be here. Fusion seems to slip through the cracks. I don't think I've ever seen a TV or even radio programme about it (no doubt some exist, but they aren't prevalent like space programming is).

Then, I often miss the documentaries of old- when TV was a bit less eager to please.

 

[D3K]

I am somewhat dubious of the claims made in the article. The video is very good though, although at the very start he repeats a few common tropes about seawater being the fuel for fusion and that fusion is "clean". I work at ITER, so have a vague idea of the state of things...

Fusion is not exactly fuelled by sea-water. He is referring to Deuterium-Tritium fusion reactions. It is true that deuterium can be extracted from seawater, but the other isotope of hydrogen required, tritium, is only available in trace amounts in the environment and is a fast decaying radio-isotope (half-life 12.3yrs). There is only ~3.5kg of tritium naturally available at any one time on the planet. Instead, the required tritium must be bred inside fission or fusion reactors by neutron activation of lithium.

Fusion is also not clean. The neutrons produced in a fusion reaction activate elements in the materials of the machine to create radioactive isotopes. E.g. Cobalt-59 in stainless steel is activated to Cobalt-60 which is a gamma emitter with a half-life of around 6 years. Although we won't create High-Level Radioactive waste, we will produce vast quantities of Medium and Low-Level Waste which must be handled as radwaste and which still needs to be packaged and stored for several years.

One problem with articles such as these is that when scientists say XXX will be possible in YYY years time, the scientists often have not given much consideration to the future engineering challenges to be faced in actually realising the theory. A big problem with fusion is the time frames people have put on what is an incredibly complex challenge. It has always raised unrealistic expectations.

It is certainly interesting to see modern computing approaches helping, but in reality, if AI could solve it all then we have just wiped out millions of jobs across the world.... AI cannot solve all engineering design challenges. Engineering is a combination of creativity and logic. AI, I suppose, is cold, hard logic. There are thousands of engineers at ITER dedicated to design and analysis to support the science with perhaps tens of thousands of highly-specialist technicians and operators in the supply chain. AI would also not solve supply chain issues.

The major issues related to realising fusion, at least in Tokamaks are:

• maintaining a stable plasma - physics
• solving novel material science and engineering challenges to ensure that the machine doesn't just disintegrate and clog itself up with dust created from particles stripped-away from plasma-facing components by the neutron flux
• solving the very complex challenges of remotely-operated handling and maintenance operations inside the vacuum vessel, which are necessary just to keep such a machine running
• the huge material and engineering costs
• breeding sufficient amounts of the required tritium to feed the machine
• treating the radwaste

All of this is on top of the fact that a fusion reactor is a nuclear installation and must therefore be licensed by the state agency responsible for nuclear safety. This itself is a huge challenge, particularly for a novel plant like a fusion reactor. "Beginning commercialisation" in 2023 I guess means only just starting the design approval for the reactor, which will take years.

Very few of the above challenges could be solved by AI.

I am confident that we will see a commercial fusion reactor connected to the grid in our lifetime, but it won't be ITER and it won't even be the follow-up, DEMO.

ITER itself will not generate any electricity, it won't even have a turbine island, it is an experimental reactor. Instead, the purpose is to generate a plasma with fusion power ten times the external heating power applied to the plasma. ITER is essentially a proving ground for the plasma physics, materials science, and engineering solutions applied to the magnetic confinement approach to fusion in a Tokamak machine. At sometime during the life of ITER the member states will begin to construct their own demonstration (DEMO) reactor designs, which will be followed up by commercial reactors.

In any case, nobody I know at ITER would be upset if another organisation suddenly cracked fusion and got it to work. Everybody is working toward the same goal and solving the challenge can only be a good thing for humanity. Although personally, I believe it's probably better for everybody if it was cracked by an international collaboration than an investor-funded private entity...

Elusive, not illusive.

As someone who works at ITER, what's your thoughts on the Stellarator's benefits in terms of no transformer need for the alternating magnetic field as well as atom drift vs the Tokamak?
If it really is as beneficial as made out in the video below, why would ITER not switch to it before it's too late?

I like Subject Zero's videos, but as much as I believe he is putting in the research I don't think he's getting the whole story from both sides.

 

[233]

great to see fusion getting some limelight again,

tbh i'd rather wait for the elerium-115 reactors

 

[physichull]

Direct with ITER, the jobs at the moment are few and far between, and if you only have a UK passport you are **** out of luck for the moment I'm afraid. BREXIT made sure of that. Maybe if we find a way back into EURATOM it will open up again for sole UK nationals.

There are always plenty of jobs with companies contracting to ITER or F4E though. Provence certainly isn't a bad place to live!

The main blocker we find in my line of work is that Universities often undertake the work we are after, and at much cheaper rates. So even though we are likely to offer much better advice than a post-doc university student given our industry experience, cost all but rules us out.

 

[D.P.]

I met a nuclear physicist last year who had some small involvement in fusion research. He didn't expect it to be ready this century.

A good friend did his PHD in Nuclear Fusion, in fact applying deep learning to try and stabalize microwave heating of the plasma.


As part of his post-doc he worked for ITER, did sevey years at a US department of energy reactor.

His opinion is no widescale commercial Fusion for at least 50 years. The issue is largely massive amounts of very complex and expensive engineering. No theoretical issues, just the fact it takes 10 years to build a test reactor to spend the next 10-15 years running experiments to drive 10-15 years of R&D designing the next generation reactor and another 5-10 years to secure the funding and red-tape to build the next reactor.


ITER should show the theoretical commercial viability butin itself is just a research reactor. The successor to ITER will be a prototype commercial reactor. If that goes well then the next generation might see limited deployment but wide scale use will be at least 1 to generations after that.

The other issue is if cheap grid scale energy storage can be achieved first then there no need for Fusion at all and renewables will provide 100% of our energy needs at lower costs and higher reliability

 

[d_brennen]

The other issue is if cheap grid scale energy storage can be achieved first then there no need for Fusion at all and renewables will provide 100% of our energy needs at lower costs and higher reliability

There will always be a need for energy diversification. Even if battery storage tech takes a leap, you can bet fusion will still be researched. And still be 30 years away

 

[AndyT]

As someone who works at ITER, what's your thoughts on the Stellarator's benefits in terms of no transformer need for the alternating magnetic field as well as atom drift vs the Tokamak?
If it really is as beneficial as made out in the video below, why would ITER not switch to it before it's too late?

I like Subject Zero's videos, but as much as I believe he is putting in the research I don't think he's getting the whole story from both sides.

As mentioned before, I am not a physicist, but an engineer, so my knowledge of plasma physics is light, to say the least. However, yes, there are definite benefits to the Stellarator's design by creating the required plasma "twistiness" with complex reactor geometry rather than pumping massive amounts of current into the plasma. This means that a Stellarator can more easily be kept on-pulse for longer (perhaps indefinitely) rather than ramping up/down like a Tokamak. The basic fact of the matter is that the Tokamak approach has had much more research carried out on it, particularly at the time the big decisions were being made. ITER was started years ago as a Tokamak and it won't change now. The reactor buildings are mostly built, fit-out of services has started and many of the expensive components are either on-site ready for assembly or in the process of being manufactured. It would be impossible to change from a Tokamak to a Stellarator now. We are probably over half-way through the spend profile for design/build and the entire site is designed around the Tokamak. You would have to rip it all down and start again to put a Stellarator in. At the end of the day, ITER is a research reactor - all of the plasma research findings will still be useful to other magnetic confinement approaches. Even if the fusion community eventually decides that the Stellarator is the better way to go, then the research at ITER will provide huge leaps in understanding on relevant topics at large-scale like the design of plasma-facing components, divertors, wall blankets, fuel cycle, waste processing, materials science etc.

Internally, success at other fusion programs outside of ITER is always celebrated, because at the end of the day the goal is the same and nobody can solve the entire set of problems alone - it is a community effort.

 

[Sankari]

Fusion reactors? Keep dreaming.