Talk-Polywell.org

The biggest issue for foundries has been the loss of low cost coal power. Helion's low cost electric power will change that. This will be a revolution especially for aluminum. Titanium is also dependent on low cost electric power.

mvanwink5 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 28, 2023 11:32 pm

… This will be a revolution especially for aluminum. …

Aluminum used to be the load leveler for cheap hydro in the Pacific Northwest. The hydro plants would output a constant power (the rivers gotta run you know) and whatever the REST of the customers didn’t use, ALCOA would pump into their pots. After a while, the other customers didn’t leave enough for ALCOA so they moved elsewhere. Too bad WPPSS stopped building the other… 6(?) nuclear plants. Woops!

One cool thing about Helion's machines is that they can load follow really, really well. That means that they do not have to rely on a large grid for stabilization. I think that should help with smaller consumers that need/want their own plants.
It is a shame though, that it is so hard to get a grid connection permit in the US. The wait time is now exceeding 7 years! How is that ever supposed to work? Any large enough bureaucracy is indistinguishable from sabotage.

One cool thing about Helion's machines is that they can load follow really, really well. That means that they do not have to rely on a large grid for stabilization. I think that should help with smaller consumers that need/want their own plants. It is a shame though, that it is so hard to get a grid connection permit in the US. The wait time is now exceeding 7 years! How is that ever supposed to work? Any large enough bureaucracy is indistinguishable from sabotage.

Maybe a correct statement for load leveling. Modern power electronics have come a long way. Grid stabilization is something different. Still the old flywheels are preferred over modern capacitor based solutions in grid stabilization.

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/791878

This has been identified as the most efficient way to stabilize the power grids. Transmission system operators need the flywheel to find a balance between energy generation and consumption.

A friend of mine who works at a railway company that runs a small district railway line has the same experience. The flywheels are more stable and thus preferred.

I have been thinking around the huge capacitor banks needed to run this thing. They must constitute a large part of the capital cost. The Polaris is said to have 50 MJ of capacitors, equalling to about 13,9 kWh of energy.

When googling I find that a standard electrolyte capacitors typically have an energy density of 0,01-0,3 Wh/kg. Let´s say 0,1 Wh/kg. Which means the capacitor banks of the Polaris will be around 140 tons!

It is understandable that you may not want to rev up a flywheel in an experimental setup. But perhabs they are a cheaper and better solution for a continuously running commercial power plant?

It is not clear from Helion's press release on the 500 MWe power plant for NUCOR, but I presume it is ten 50 MWe fusion electric power generators?

mvanwink5 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:13 pm

It is not clear from Helion's press release on the 500 MWe power plant for NUCOR, but I presume it is ten 50 MWe fusion electric power generators?

Yet undetermined. They can generally build these machines as big as they want. So it it could be one or 10 or anything in between.

Skipjack wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:05 am

Yet undetermined. They can generally build these machines as big as they want. So it it could be one or 10 or anything in between.

Real hard to believe that $/KWh and is not a function of size. There is surely an optimal size. Staff/control systems feel like they ought to give economies of scale.

Is the 50MW initial machine just a (touch wood) do-able project, or is it the optimal machine size?

I've gathered the impression that they essentially want to mass-produce these things, so it seems like an important question.

Would love to get my head around any insights you can share.

My understanding from Kirtley's talks is that the 50MW size is based on fastest time-to-market device that can also fit on a semi trailer. So basically, a marketing decision to make a machine that can be deployed broadly. Based on the basic scaling assumptions, a larger diameter machine should be more efficient, but that would require all new design, components, assembly line, production facility, transportation issues, etc. That's not likely to all be accomplished by 2030. Of course, if Polaris does not yield engineering Q > 2 (and hopefully it's more like the projected 5), they may be forced to go with a larger diameter design than they had originally planned, in order to create the net positive commercially viable device. But finding the sweet spot in the trade-off of transportability vs. Q seems to be forefront in Helion's strategy, from what I understand.

Thanks: so, barring something surprising, the 2028 Nucor power will be 50MW units, I surmise.

RERT wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 03, 2023 6:35 am

Thanks: so, barring something surprising, the 2028 Nucor power will be 50MW units, I surmise.

I think 2028 is Microsoft. Nucor might be later.

Well, re-reading the release it’s an undated proposal with Nucor, so who knows…

IMO, the importance of the NUCOR deal is that it enables Helion to make plans & helps ramp up their factory.

The point of the Nucor deal is to explore "beyond the meter" electricity production for various purposes. Right now, it takes over seven(!) years to get a license for grid connection in the US. In order to accelerate commercialization, Helion is looking at alternative routes.

Kinda sucks, but the US has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare where it has become almost impossible to get anything done. Just look at the BS SpaceX has to go through right now! Any large enough bureaucracy becomes indistinguishable from sabotage...

If I had a say... I would just throw everything out and start anew.

I've been hoping existing coal- or gas-fueled generating stations could just be converted. They already have the licenses and grid connections. But I have to admit that having just one customer would mitigate the growing pains.

These days I've been reading the few last months of /r/fusion threads on reddit.

A number of the arguments presented there, regarding Helion's reactors, are interesting. Some suggest there may still be a few hidden obstacles ahead. The famous "known unknowns, and unknown unknowns".

I wonder about two in particular:

1) Stability of the FRC during the fusion stage: Starting with a 10^22 - 10^23 m(-3) ion density, 20-30 keV ion temp, D-3He FRC. If 1% undergo fusion, that will create 10^20 - 10^21 high speed charged particles, directionally isotropic at birth (I think). Will that perturbe the FRC structure? I imagine that Helion has already simulated (or at least tried to) this stage. It would be nice to know what they have to say about it.

2) Plasma energy capture: As I understand it, Helion tested some time ago direct conversion/recovery of FRC magnetic momentum into electricity, but this was done with small, low temp FRCs, where the movement of most particles is "in agreement" (purely toroidal). What happens when a significant portion of the particles move in random directions (once heated by fusion), and will that impact efficiency?

Interesting times ahead

Edit: grammar and clarity