"Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon


Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by Skipjack »

Blech...
I just skipped through the video. Pretty much the usual arguments.
I don't know that guy, but he sounds like Dan Jassby (I think it might be him). He is a joke in the fusion community, particularly the Tokamak community.
Apparently he’s been pissed since TFTR was shut down. Retired back in the 90’s...
Plus, he is focused on Toks without HTSCs and so on and so forth.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by Giorgio »

Skipjack wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:37 am
Plus, he is focused on Toks without HTSCs and so on and so forth.
Makes me wonder what type of scientist he was if he thinks that HTSC are not an essential step to obtain a viable fusion machine.....
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by paperburn1 »

With the advent of new commercially available 20T magnets brings me hope. But that huge barrier of no funding is still the 400 pound gorilla in the room.
"Performance of this magnet is similar to a non-superconducting one that was used in an MIT experiment that concluded its experiments five years ago," said MIT's Whyte. "The difference in terms of energy consumption is rather stunning. That magnet, because it was a normal copper conducting magnet, consumed approximately 200 million watts of energy to produce the confining magnetic field. This magnet was around 30 watts, so a factor of around 10 million decrease in the amount of energy that was needed to provide the confining magnetic field."- Commonwealth Fusion Systems
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by Skipjack »

paperburn1 wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:46 pm
With the advent of new commercially available 20T magnets brings me hope. But that huge barrier of no funding is still the 400 pound gorilla in the room.
"Performance of this magnet is similar to a non-superconducting one that was used in an MIT experiment that concluded its experiments five years ago," said MIT's Whyte. "The difference in terms of energy consumption is rather stunning. That magnet, because it was a normal copper conducting magnet, consumed approximately 200 million watts of energy to produce the confining magnetic field. This magnet was around 30 watts, so a factor of around 10 million decrease in the amount of energy that was needed to provide the confining magnetic field."- Commonwealth Fusion Systems
True, though the cryo system will consume some energy too (not sure how much). I am not sure that that was included in the 30 watts.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by Giorgio »

Skipjack wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:07 pm
True, though the cryo system will consume some energy too (not sure how much). I am not sure that that was included in the 30 watts.
I believe that the 30W refer to the power consumed by the cryo system to keep the HTSC at superconducting temperature during the working operation.
For sure it does not include the power consumption to bring the HTSC at working temperature, but in a steady state machine that initial power consumption will quickly become marginal.
From 200 MW to 30 W gives indeed the idea of how much the technology advanced in this field in the last 10 years.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by RERT »

I made myself watch this a few days ago. Ego and pessimism aside, the schematic on the need for Q>20 for a Tokamak was interesting. That was from generation efficiency 50% (not unkind) and power conversion to plasma injected power 10% (no idea if that makes sense). So Q=20 just drives the machine with no grid delivered power.

So, what is QMax in a Tokamak? Is there a theoretical bound which might be illuminating in this context?

crowberry
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:34 am

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by crowberry »

RERT wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:01 am
I made myself watch this a few days ago. Ego and pessimism aside, the schematic on the need for Q>20 for a Tokamak was interesting. That was from generation efficiency 50% (not unkind) and power conversion to plasma injected power 10% (no idea if that makes sense). So Q=20 just drives the machine with no grid delivered power.

So, what is QMax in a Tokamak? Is there a theoretical bound which might be illuminating in this context?
The Q for DT-fusion at the maximum cross section can be estimated as follows. The energy liberated by DT-fusion is 17.6 MeV. The maximum of the DT-fusion reaction cross section occurs at a centre of mass energy of about 65 keV, so with these two numbers we get a maximum Q value of 17.6 MeV / 65 keV which is about 270. But you can of course have fusion with a lower probability with a lower or higher centre of mass energy. Now in a tokamak you will have a thermal plasma at some lower temperature so you would need to do an integral over the temperature distribution as well as taking into account the goodness of the confinement and all losses to estimate the QMax for a tokamak. Probably this number has been estimated, but it will vary from tokamak to tokamak and depend on the plasma mode the tokamak is running in.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by Skipjack »

RERT wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:01 am
I made myself watch this a few days ago. Ego and pessimism aside, the schematic on the need for Q>20 for a Tokamak was interesting. That was from generation efficiency 50% (not unkind) and power conversion to plasma injected power 10% (no idea if that makes sense). So Q=20 just drives the machine with no grid delivered power.

So, what is QMax in a Tokamak? Is there a theoretical bound which might be illuminating in this context?
From what I hear, a electricity producing Tokamak is generally considered to need a Q ~ 30 to be economically viable.
I believe that some are aiming to do it with a lower Q of about 20 (forget which team it was, might have been CFS).

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by RERT »

After I posted above I decided that the answer for QMax was probably ‘infinite’. Focussing on a DT plasma, 20% of fusion power is charged particles, which one would think would heat the plasma. It’s tempting to think that Brehmstralung losses need to be replaced, but that’s bunk: the device is thermal, and the x-rays are just another source of heat to raise steam. The simple assumption is that once ignited, the containment needs to be powered, but plasma heating becomes unneccessary.

But… if smart people suggest running with Q=20 or 30, I’m missing something….

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by Skipjack »

RERT wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 8:07 am
After I posted above I decided that the answer for QMax was probably ‘infinite’. Focussing on a DT plasma, 20% of fusion power is charged particles, which one would think would heat the plasma. It’s tempting to think that Brehmstralung losses need to be replaced, but that’s bunk: the device is thermal, and the x-rays are just another source of heat to raise steam. The simple assumption is that once ignited, the containment needs to be powered, but plasma heating becomes unneccessary.

But… if smart people suggest running with Q=20 or 30, I’m missing something….
Yes, they need to achieve ignition, but that IIRC requires a higher Q(plasma) than 10.
I might be wrong here, but that is the number I remember. That is why ARC is so much bigger than SPARC. The Q~10 of SPARC won't be enough.

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by RERT »

The only way I can make this thread makes sense is that most of the 4He as well as the n energy us lost to the plasma.

Anybody got a book reference that explains this stuff?

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by Skipjack »

A relatively good starting point is Scott Hsu's paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.10954.pdf

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by RERT »

Thanks, will look…
Last edited by RERT on Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040"

Post by RERT »

...and it was very helpful!

Winding back to the question above, from the point of view of operating conditions Qsci goes from 1 to Infinity in a reasonably narrow range of nt. Qsci = 20 is very close to Q=Infinity in terms of operating conditions. So based on the paper my answer to my question would be no, there isn't a Qmax for a Tokamak. Further, it doesn't seem to me that the critique in the root post 'Q=20 is miles away' makes a lot of sense when Qsci explodes at a certain point.

Post Reply