That was the USSR.
Elusive fusion reactors to be commercialised by 2025-2030... Or so they say
That was the USSR.
Just the thought of a fusion reactor being commercialised is exciting. I don't think it would be as exciting as a massive boost to battery tech.
But yes. You'd hope eventually depending on cost etc that you could basically switch to electric heating, etc and our hot tub might be cheaper!
It would end solar, wind etc and bankrupt many companies but the benefits are vast. Crypto would love it!
But yes. You'd hope eventually depending on cost etc that you could basically switch to electric heating, etc and our hot tub might be cheaper!
It would end solar, wind etc and bankrupt many companies but the benefits are vast. Crypto would love it!
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,338
closing down all the fossil power plants of this world is gonna drop a hell of a lot of pollution that means small scale stuff like cars can afford to keep IC going (eg as range extenders) for a while until we can either crack small scale fusion or decent battery tech.
i really hope it happens, because i can't see renewables (wind, water and sun) ever stacking up to the massive power demands of humanity, and the NIMBY brigade has firmly closed the door to making up the difference with fission.
It really seems like if we have any hope of halting climate change we need things like this. I don't see us making it without fundemtally new tech like this.
Imagine all the electrically expensive things that May be viable. Like sucking carbon etc cout of the atmosphere.
We will see it in our lifetime this is pretty much a certainty. The scientists all over are collaborating their efforts around the world on Fusion whilst playing for their own nations too of course. I mean they have gone from 20 seconds ish of sustained fusion to over 100 seconds in a relatively short space of time. Fusion being a constant 20-30 years away ever since the 50s actually seems very likely given the current rate of progress.
I predict in 10 years time we will see the first commercial reactor switch on. Bookmark this post for 10 years time
I predict in 10 years time we will see the first commercial reactor switch on. Bookmark this post for 10 years time
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,338
synthesizing fuels eg methanol might become viable (one way of synthesizing it uses co2), which would solve the battery/hydrogen storage problem for personal transport.
if fusion delivers on the cheap abundant energy it promises then it really will be the holy grail of a lot of humanities problems.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,930
We have a solution at hand we just don't want to take it. Molten Salt Reactors, high degrees of passive safety abundant fuel sources, significantly less high level waste and doesn't require any breakthroughs. A mass roll out could turn off fossil fuels in 20 years except for flight no problem. Constant energy supply from virtually CO2 production takes away the intermittency issue of load balancing. Battery storage in the home becomes achievable when you know every night there will be enough cheap electricity to charge up for the following days peaks. With further research it is reasonably foreseeable that higher level waste could be processed in specially designed molten slat reactors to eat away at large used fission fuel stocks and higher level wastes from previous generations.
But there is no will to try it.
But there is no will to try it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,338
preaching to the converted, sadly you mention the N word and the nimby's immediately turn out in droves screaming "chernobyl chernobyl chernobyl"
load balancing with CO2 production sounds like a capital idea if technically viable, if not other methods such as pumped water storage.
Caporegime
There must be some reason why we don't want to give it traction?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,930
Nuclear fission in general is a dirty word. But all the big players have 60+ years of PWR or BWR intellectual property they want to sell what they have a supply chain for. They don't want to sell something new. The more I understand about PWR's and metallurgy the more I think the idea sucks. The main heat exchanger between radio active and non-radioactive circuits is such weak point in the whole design and safety case the mind boggles. Compare it to the degree of passive safety that can be achieved in a molten salt reactor and you wonder why the solution was ever chosen. The reason is nukes, the PWR's and BWR's could make plutonium in an easily extractable form for bombs. Molten salts were much less amenable to building nuclear weapons.
Containment is the issue with molten salt, structural materials that are corrosion resistant to the molten salt struggle with radiation damage so you could have a reactor system structurally failing in a number of years.
Thorium is a potential future fuel which is a bit closer to maturity, but has its challenges just like they all do.
Soldato
From my experience in my work, you have to hold the Chinese nuclear industry massively at arms length. They have "developed" a radiation transport code called SuperMC, which is basically a gigantic rip off of Los Alamos National Lab's code MCNP6. It used to have an almost identical output to that of MCNP, yet was marketed around the world as their own code. It was just so shockingly blatant. They also wanted you to undertake your calculations using their code on their cloud server only and provide copies of your work whenever you cited their code. No thanks!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Soldato
They also have 60+ years of exceptional safety records, it is proven technology and far easier to implement in the short term (i.e. within the next 20 years or so). The SGs are not weak points in the design or the safety case, countless operating reactors prove that, in addition to the extensive safety case that has been made by the likes of EDF for the new reactors at Hinkley Point C. And regarding PWR and plutonium, PWRs are ideally equipped to actually burn up our MOX fuels and hence work down our plutonium stores, however the factory for manufacturing the MOX fuel has never been very "operational" and hence has not been done with Sizewell B, but could in the future be done with HPC.
Fusion at some point may be the future, and I've done work on ITER in the past, and can see that the materials science challenges behind making ITER and hence DEMO a feasible reality are simply HUGE. I find it quite remarkable that we have ambitious companies like Tokamak Energy claiming that in 10 years time they will have power generating spherical tokamaks - reactors on a much smaller scale than ITER....yet their funding behind their tech is dwarfed by that of ITER, yet they make much bolder claims! They, along with Urenco (U Battery) and Rolls Royce (SMRs) are vying for the next wave of government investment in their tech, and I quite honestly find it really hard to believe that TE will get anywhere. If there's anything Dominic Cummings did get right, it was pushing this tech and the funding rounds!
Links for those interested:
U-Battery
Tokamak Energy
Small modular reactors – Rolls-Royce
Last edited:
Soldato
As yet, its relatively fresh/unproven tech, though there is a Canadian company called Moltex who are developing this technology, though are at the VERY early stages.
Clean Energy Through Safe Nuclear Reactors - Moltex Energy
Unless they make really rapid progress, then I doubt they'd win out over companies like Rolls Royce in the UK market. The government would be more inclined to support a local business develop and expand, and in this case with Rolls Royce's SMR, than they would foreign companies. Generates local business and boosts local (UK) employment.
Hmm this I never knew, I really wanted their rep to not be true in all fields but stuff like this just doesn't help!
Anyone care to ELI5 how something that is the hottest thing in the solar system by x10 @ 120million degrees doesn't melt the very thing containing it. I understand powerful magnets contain the plasma but does that mean that there is little to no radiated heat? If that's the case how do they actually get the energy out?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,338
Yeah but methanol means more powah
Either way the world where you can have whatever engine you want because fuel is both carbon neutral and cheap is a world i wanna live in.
Last edited:
It doesn't touch it.
There is radiated heat but currently these things run for seconds and the shell is tones of metal.
Get a lighter hold it to the bottom of a cooking pan for a few seconds touch inside of pan its still cool.
Id there's is less than 1kg of fuel in a 1000 tonne reactor then its pretty inconsequential despite the temperature
For getting getting heat out of a continuous reactor pump cooling fluid through thw shell.
What's fun though is while the inside is millio s of degrees the magnets are at liquid helium temperatures