General Fusion in the news

[mvanwink5]

I appreciate your irritation about criticism of ITER, but the root of the criticism for ITER on this forum has a reasonable basis.

Yes, well, your point of selling is true but slid right past what is "sold" and what is at risk. Government money is not the politician's money, nor is it the money of bureaucrats? Whose risk is it, and what is at risk? Ever hear of a politician worrying about the money itself? What is a lobbyist? Educator, or influence peddler (whatever influence means is left up to ones imagination)? Those issues are where the government dole goes wrong, and it is called "dole" for a reason.

The rest of your points to my mind are reasonable, and I think few would dispute them.

For instance, serious and reputable science is behind ITER, good and important work has been done, and there are sound reasons for the extreme delays. The problem with ITER is that the ultimate size is truly beyond the market size of a utility sized power plant unit (GWe and capital for a plant install), and utility power plant units can be big. Other plant installs are much smaller, in the MWe sizes, so ITER could never serve those markets. Then there is ITER's ultimate first wall problem which has no reasonable solution (that I know of). These are well known issues, issues which all the other fusion projects (excluding NIF, but its true purpose as previously discussed is weapons management), have reasonable answers for.

Finally, the tempo of a VC funded fusion project is different, especially in the later stages when big money is fielded, and there is a core, a fundamental reason for that, no one would ever characterize ITER as entrepreneurial in spirit.

[asdfuogh]

Government money is not the politician's money, nor is it the money of bureaucrats? Whose risk is it, and what is at risk? Ever hear of a politician worrying about the money itself? What is a lobbyist? Educator, or influence peddler (whatever influence means is left up to ones imagination)? Those issues are where the government dole goes wrong, and it is called "dole" for a reason.

Ideally, no, but that's not the game we have going on now so unless you want to change American politics, I'm not sure it matters what it would be ideally..

The problem with ITER is that the ultimate size is truly beyond the market size of a utility sized power plant unit (GWe and capital for a plant install), and utility power plant units can be big. Other plant installs are much smaller, in the MWe sizes, so ITER could never serve those markets. Then there is ITER's ultimate first wall problem which has no reasonable solution (that I know of). These are well known issues, issues which all the other fusion projects (excluding NIF, but its true purpose as previously discussed is weapons management), have reasonable answers for.

True. I was discussing this with someone (a theorist/computationalist, for context), and his line of thought was that as we approach a working reactor, private companies will step in to fund the rest, provided we've done enough of the bulk of the work before (such that the R&D responsibility is mostly shifted off their shoulders).

I also had a discussion with someone else (theorist/computationalist/entrepeneur), and he raised similar points. Most of all, we were talking about how you can do simple calculations to show that, whatever the physics, the economics is that it costs too much (more than the price of the energy, at the point of his calculations, decades ago) to replace the device walls and chambers. So, we agreed on the conclusion that it's probably smarter to spend that kind of money on doing research on a device that wouldn't have such energetic neutron bombardment, ie. aneutronic boronic plasmas.

Finally, the tempo of a VC funded fusion project is different, especially in the later stages when big money is fielded, and there is a core, a fundamental reason for that, no one would ever characterize ITER as entrepreneurial in spirit.

Well, that would fall under "strings attached" (which I think I've mentioned, but maybe in the previous post to this thread, but maybe a different thread). Government has different strings attached.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think, overall, we seem to agree on the major points, but maybe we have different views on how to frame them. I think it's important that Polywell finds a secondary off-axis benefit since it's not a tokamak.. which has the majority in terms of scientific support. For example, NIF, as you mentioned, has the secondary benefits of weapons testing (which many may argue is the primary reason, but I personally think the researchers just think lasers and fusion are cool and know how to sell their idea to the government well) and advancement of laser technology (there are offshoots that use the lasers, which would not be there if it weren't NIF). Or, the study of FRCs has secondary benefits for magnetic reconnection (an intriguing academic question) and plasma propulsion technology (I remember seeing an Air Force proposal for studying FRCs for propulsion, but I don't actually know if that was successful or if it was rejected).

Polywell probably can argue that it's a good neutron source, but how much better than other neutron sources is it? I think the most helpful thing someone not working directly on the research can do is to compile a report on "secondary benefits of Polywell" that researchers can draw upon for selling it.

[mvanwink5]

Finally, the TED talk...
How synchronized hammer strikes could generate nuclear fusion

[mvanwink5]

Here is an article I missed, but is perhaps one of the most enlightening in many ways. EMC2 should look at GF's way of doing things top to bottom, that is assuming EMC2 is looking to do some things...

http://www.profitguide.com/manage-grow/ ... ccor-64301

Meet the Firm That Could Revolutionize the Energy Sector
A Vancouver company is developing nuclear fusion reactor that promises unlimited power and zero emissions. Is this the future?
Michael McCullough || April 14, 2014

[crowberry]

Here is an article I missed, but is perhaps one of the most enlightening in many ways. EMC2 should look at GF's way of doing things top to bottom, that is assuming EMC2 is looking to do some things...

http://www.profitguide.com/manage-grow/ ... ccor-64301

The same article was earlier published as the cover story of the Innovation Issue of Canadian Business http://www.canadianbusiness.com/technol ... zy-genius/ and you, mvanwink5 did post the link to it earlier in this thread . Only the title of the article was different in Canadian Business "Crazy, genius: How a Canadian fusion reactor could revolutionize the energy sector". If you compare the articles you can see that in both cases the author is Michael McCullough.

[mvanwink5]

[crowberry]

Patrick Carle has made his PhD thesis with General Fusion:

Polarimeter for an Accelerated Spheromak

http://hdl.handle.net/1974/12163

He has also given this interesting presentation about his work "Overview of Plasma Diagnostics at General Fusion" http://media.cns-snc.ca/uploads/no-05-p ... 3aug30.pdf

[crowberry]

Here is an recent article about the award that General Fusion won.

Hardware Beats Software at NextBC Tech Showcase

General Fusion wins gold for innovation at DigiBC’s first high-tech conference

When General Fusion’s Laberge was asked how long it would take before he actually sold a product, however, he replied without hesitation: “Eight years.”

“That probably scared off a lot of in investors,” Laberge said with a laugh after winning gold. “I’m going to wait eight years to sell something? Software, you turn that out in one, maybe two years. Software is much more attractive. Hardware takes more time…. Software, you put five guys in a room and you feed them coffee and pizza and they produce the code. Here you have to make a big piece of steel and it costs a bit more.”

http://www.bcbusiness.ca/tech-science/h ... h-showcase

[crowberry]

General Fusion has issued a new press release:

Astronaut and White House Energy and Climate Change Advisor Join General Fusion Advisory Council Council of Industry Leaders and Scientists will help shape the company’s growth and commercialization strategy

BURNABY, British Columbia—(June 23, 2014)— General Fusion, a leader in developing fusion energy, has assembled a world-class Advisory Council that includes veteran Astronaut Mark Kelly and Carol M. Browner, a key figure in two US administrations.

The press release lists all members of the Advisory Council and their biographies:
http://generalfusion.com/downloads/gf_p ... ouncil.pdf

[mvanwink5]

Smart move, get one of Obama's in crowd court to join, a little payoff goes a long way to greasing the red tape, and who knows, maybe a big sniff at that big gubbermint trough that others are crowding around. And, why nott?

Smells like the old days in medieval times.

[mvanwink5]

Baksheesh (from Persian: bakhshesh is tipping, charitable giving, and certain forms of political corruption and bribery in the Middle East and South Asia.

Now part of what is required to do business in the US. Grease the road / palms.

Article with the announced Washington DC "talent," lobbyists, (crooked ex-politicos) Giffard's husband and Browner, see below. Of interest beyond the government baksheesh is
http://www.bcbusiness.ca/tech-science/g ... use-talent

General Fusion Adds NASA, White House Talent

A Vancouver fusion power company has secured the help of a NASA astronaut and President Obama’s former climate change czar as it prepares to prove its technology
General Fusion Inc. announced Tuesday that it has appointed astronaut Mark Kelly and former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Carol M. Browner to its nine-member advisory council.
 
“It’s a great step forward in getting outside expertise from some of the best people in the world for the different challenges we’re trying to tackle,” says CEO Nathan Gilliland.
 
Browner has spent most of her career in and around government, also working as a lobbyist on environmental issues, and eventually climbing to the top of the EPA.
 
“She’s one of the world leaders in thinking through climate change, and climate change policy,” says Gilliland. He expects her to play a role in making the technology a commercial success.
 
Browner was credited with tightening clean air regulations during the Clinton administration, and under Obama she oversaw the government response to the Deepwater Horizon spill.
 
Kelly flew on numerous shuttle missions, and was the commander on the last mission of the Space Shuttle Endeavor. He retired in 2011, citing the need to aid in the recovery of his wife, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot earlier that year. He has since started doing public speaking, which fits the purpose that Gilliland says he sees for Kelly.
 
“In particular, we’re working with him on the labs we’re working with in the U.S., as well as just a communications strategy about fusion itself—not just about us but the prospects for fusion energy around the world,” he says. “It’s not going to be a winner-take-all industry.”
 
Following that principle of cooperation, General Fusion’s technology actually “fuses” two competing schools of thought on how to achieve the elusive process.
 
Fusion energy companies like General Fusion claim to be on the cusp of achieving a 60-year-old vision of producing a net gain in energy, the holy grail of clean energy production. Because it relies on a readily-available source of fuel—hydrogen isotopes that can be extracted from abundant seawater and lithium—and leaves no long-lasting radioactive byproducts, it holds great promise.
 
It’s safe, too, with no chance of meltdown, unlike its nuclear power cousin. The already well-established nuclear fission, which depends on a supply of uranium, leaves radioactive waste and can melt down in a runaway reaction under extreme circumstances.
 
Gilliland plans to have a so-called “alpha” plant in operation within the next few years, which would prove the viability of the technology. He sees it going much further than that, however.
 
“We’ve got literally billions of years of fuel,” he says. “Where we hope to be in a few years is that a very significant portion of the electricity the world is generating is from fusion.”
 
Aside from electricity, fusion produces a lot of heat, and that heat can be used for other applications. According to Gilliland, even an oil and gas firm has invested in order to develop a cheaper and cleaner way to extract and refine its products.
 
“Fusion is coming,” says Gilliland. “It’s not twenty years away anymore.”

[crowberry]

General Fusion has started collaborating with with the University of Saskatchewan and McGill University. They have issued two press releases about the research partnerships:
http://generalfusion.com/downloads/GF_p ... ership.pdf
http://generalfusion.com/downloads/GF_p ... ership.pdf

There is an article in The Vancouver Sun about this:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Bu ... story.html

So General Fusion is continuing to gather resources in order to be prepared for their challenges.

[crowberry]

General Fusion has not published talks on their progress lately, even though they have given a couple of talks in May. After the ARPA-E workshop held on October 29-30 2013 there was a couple of more presentations published on the webpage. The report from this session is dated January 6th 2014 and it contains a few pages dedicated to General Fusion:

Breakout: Path to Economical Fusion Power Part II
Driver and target development for new reactor concepts

Breakout: Report Back

Key Challenges

Fusion Yield
- Plasma stability at peak compression
- Plasma / wall interaction

Injector
- Initial plasma confinement quality
- Initial plasma density
- 1 Hz operation (including pulsed power supply)
- Operation at temperature
- Long term reliability

Acoustic Driver
- Impact velocity (50 m/s target achieved)
- Impact timing control (±10 us target achieved)
- Smooth vortex collapse
- 1 Hz operation
- Long term reliability

Tritium Handling
- Efficient extraction from PbLi
- Prevention of leakage to environment

So there are quite a few issues to work on for General Fusion and this is probably why they have teamed up with two universities to work on these topics.

General Fusion is covered on pages 11 to 16 of the report at:
http://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/defa ... rt_Out.pdf

[Skipjack]

Yeah, things look quite a bit worse for GF right now than for some of the other contenders. My personal front runner is still Helion, then maybe Lockheed or Tri Alpha as seconds. LPP also have a dealy due to the late shipment of their tungsten electrode (shipment was delayed until September by manufacturing problems).

[crowberry]

The main problem that General Fusion needs to address is the smooth vortex collapse. If that can be solved, then all the other issues should be solvable. They also have the largest resources currently to solve these issues, so I would not interpret this list as the situation being worse for General Fusion. According to the small hints that have been released last spring in news articles it seems that they are quite confident that they can solve the issues at hand.

Concerning Lockheed Martin and Tri Alpha Energy it is more difficult to say where they really stand. There is no real information available on the Lockheed Martin concept. Tri Alpha Energy does give talks and publishes articles, but their overall status and plans are not really available. These two have currently more money than their other fusion competitors, but that could change rapidly if the competitors make a breakthrough. With more data on progress and achievements it would be easier to see who actually is at the front, but lacking that one needs to resort to guesswork.