fusion power in 2018

pau17

King
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
836
I thought this was much further away in the future, but apparently they are planning to get a fusion reactor online by 2018. The cool part: since it would be too hot to contain with ordinary materials (10 times the temperature of the Sun's core), they will use a magnetic field and a vacuum filled with burnt coconuts.

...

This eclectic mix of ingredients will be turned into ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor - the next big thing in nuclear fusion research. When completed in 2018, the reactor will fuse together two heavy isotopes of hydrogen to release vast quantities of energy. In theory, the result will be clean electricity galore with no carbon emissions and far less radioactive waste than today's nuclear fission reactors leave behind.

....

Even the most hardy of construction materials cannot withstand temperatures of more than a few thousand kelvin. So the solution is to weave a cage for the plasma from magnetic fields.

ITER follows the design of several smaller experimental reactors where physicists have already achieved the temperatures required for fusion. The nuclear fuel is held inside a ring-shaped reactor called a tokamak.

....

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-second-sun-take-10-billion-add-coconuts.html

Video in the link if you want to see what it looks like.
 
I've wondered before why they don't make the plasma spin round, like a tornado, wouldn't that make it's containment more predictable ? or is it far too high in kinetic energy for this sort of notion ?
 
Tornadoes are dependent upon the fluid dynamics of large bodies of air not only in the tornado itself but around it as well. Or, how the gravity pulls down the water to create a spinning whirpool in a drain. I don't think this applies in the case of the fusion because it's so isolated and there isn't this movement towards equalization of pressure, but I wouldn't be able to give you a technical explanation.
 
I've wondered before why they don't make the plasma spin round, like a tornado, wouldn't that make it's containment more predictable ? or is it far too high in kinetic energy for this sort of notion ?

Actually that is the point of the magnetic containment. In a very simple view, you need a very strong magnetic field to force the plasma going around in circles around the center.


But even if ITER is ready in 2018 (It will probably be delayed, like any big science project), that doesn't mean we will have fusion power then. The first few years, they'll just do hydrogen runs, without any (substantial) fusion. The D-T runs with fusion will be done a few years later.

And even then, it won't generate any actual electricity as it is built as a research reactor, not a power plant. But it will tell us, whether you can get more energy out of it than putting into it and whether a power plant could be viable with this concept.

The plans are, that ITER's successor will be the one that actually generates electricity.
 
I don't know if you guys read the cocunut part of the article, but its' pretty interesting.

Is your fusion reactor getting clogged with garbage? Try using some coconut. It's not the most obvious ingredient for such a high-tech device, but it will play a vital part in the ITER reactor in France.

The coconuts will be used to generate 10,000 cubic metres of nothing - the vacuum essential to ITER's operation. Some of this vacuum, in the central chamber, separates the plasma from the surrounding solid walls and allows fusion to proceed unhindered by air molecules. A whole lot more nothing is needed to fill the vacuum jackets that insulate ITER's supercooled magnets.

The vacuum pumps that will suck air out of ITER will also need to hoover up the waste helium from the fusion reaction, along with other debris created when hot plasma smashes into the reactor wall. "This can only be done with very large cryogenic pumps," says Christian Day of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, who is building ITER's vacuum pumps.

A cryopump works by capturing gas molecules on a cold surface. The pumps in ITER will have two stages, chilled to 80 and 5 kelvin respectively. While most gases will freeze on contact at these temperatures, the helium and hydrogen isotopes emerging from ITER are less easily caught. They can only be captured by adsorption, a process that involves atoms of the gas sticking loosely to a solid surface - and the greater the surface area, the better. "We wanted a material that behaves like a sponge, with lots of internal surfaces," says Day.

He and his team have spent 20 years searching for the ideal adsorber. Their quest was wide-ranging, taking in sintered metals and porous minerals called zeolites, but eventually they found that the material with the greatest capacity to adsorb gases was charcoal. They tried charcoal made from industrial polymers, from different varieties of wood, from peat, and from textiles such as wool and cotton, and more.

Once source stood out. "We found that coconut-shell charcoal is the best," Day says. "It is somehow strange that you need this very natural material to make a fusion device."

To make coconut charcoal, you first char the shells in a low-oxygen atmosphere, then wash them in acid and bathe them in steam to clean out a network of fine pores. The walls of these pores form a huge internal surface - about 1200 square metres per gram of charcoal. "We found the decisive point is pore size distribution," says Day. "We need pores of all types, because different pore sizes work best for different gases."

The provenance of the coconut matters too. The best fusion coconut turned out to come from one particular Indonesian island, Day found, and the quality of the resulting charcoal even depends on the year. "2002 was an excellent year for coconuts," he says.

So the team bought up most of the vintage 2002 Indonesian coconut-shell charcoal. "We have a few tonnes in a garage in Karlsruhe," Day says. That will be enough to supply ITER's cryopumps a few times over, so there should be a surplus - perhaps destined for the first commercial fusion power stations some decades from now. Unless 2035 is an even better year for coconuts.
 
So in the future, instead of fighting over oil, we'll be fighting over coconuts? :crazyeye:
 
But even if ITER is ready in 2018 (It will probably be delayed, like any big science project), that doesn't mean we will have fusion power then. The first few years, they'll just do hydrogen runs, without any (substantial) fusion. The D-T runs with fusion will be done a few years later.
Why is that? And where are you getting your info. Cursory web searches aren't getting me answers.

So in the future, instead of fighting over oil, we'll be fighting over coconuts? :crazyeye:
I wonder if I could steal them and hold them for ransom. :mischief:
 
Why is that? And where are you getting your info. Cursory web searches aren't getting me answers.

D-T fusion releases on neutron per reaction, which will activate the walls and make the reactor core radioactive. And once that happened it's rather difficult to change anything inside it. So they don't want to contaminate the new reactor the moment they have the first plasma and make a hydrogen plasma first. That way they can test if everything works as predicted and can make adjustments, repairs and install additional components while still producing valuable data. Once they switch to D-T to observe actual fusion, any of these modification will be very difficult.

I don't know anymore where exactly I got that information from, but I attended a lecture about fusion research last semester, with a professor who is heavily involved in the ITER project. She mentioned things like this all the time.
 
But anyways Fusion in 2018 <> efficient energy source
 
We've been monkeying with "fusion power" since the 1970's and there are frequent predictions that a working reactor is right around the corner. Furthermore, it will be cost-effective, environmentally-friendly and absolutely safe. Personally, I think we'll probably use dilithium chrystals before fusion reactors.
 
We've been monkeying with "fusion power" since the 1970's and there are frequent predictions that a working reactor is right around the corner.
Can you cite me some examples of these predictions?

I mean, the current estimate is 10 years away for just a prototype, so any useful fusion plant will be decades away - I don't think that's an estimate of right around the corner.
 
So in the future, instead of fighting over oil, we'll be fighting over coconuts? :crazyeye:

Replace melons with coconuts in this pic: :mischief:




I read an article in New Scientist recently about fusion power, where they went through some of the major obstacles. One of them was that it's so incredibly hard to confine the plasma perfectly. There will always be sudden bursts of energy (like solar flares kinda) which will reach the coating of the walls. Even the slightest damage can be enough to cause severe problems. This issue is still unresloved. :(
 
My 2 cents:

ITER is interesting, but will take many years from opening to get to real fusion due to the technical challenges involved (in the same way that LHC will take years to run at full power with a good collision cross section) and also because no-one wants to accidentally destroy the ITER machine.

Extrapolating from decent fusion in a science facility to a real life power planet design and said design being implemented will take best part of a decade. And it will probably be ITER's successor that makes good on the promise of fusion and allows such a design to happen
 
Toroidal geometry is quite easy to model and the system is quite internally efficient, the problem isn't keeping it going that can be done indefinitely the problem is efficiency there's no use getting it up to 4 million degrees c if the overall output is then less than 0% efficient.
 
I thought that keeping things going was the problem? Perhaps not maintaining fusion but maintaining plasma containment...
 
Top Bottom