Posted on 11/17/2023 11:35:43 AM PST by Red Badger
Scientists have been chasing the dream of harnessing the reactions that power the Sun since the dawn of the atomic era. Interest, and investment, in the carbon-free energy source is heating up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the better part of a century now, astronomers and physicists have known that a process called thermonuclear fusion has kept the Sun and the stars shining for millions or even billions of years. And ever since that discovery, they’ve dreamed of bringing that energy source down to Earth and using it to power the modern world.
It’s a dream that’s only become more compelling today, in the age of escalating climate change. Harnessing thermonuclear fusion and feeding it into the world’s electric grids could help make all our carbon dioxide-spewing coal- and gas-fired plants a distant memory. Fusion power plants could offer zero-carbon electricity that flows day and night, with no worries about wind or weather — and without the drawbacks of today’s nuclear fission plants, such as potentially catastrophic meltdowns and radioactive waste that has to be isolated for thousands of centuries.
In fact, fusion is the exact opposite of fission: Instead of splitting heavy elements such as uranium into lighter atoms, fusion generates energy by merging various isotopes of light elements such as hydrogen into heavier atoms.
To make this dream a reality, fusion scientists must ignite fusion here on the ground — but without access to the crushing levels of gravity that accomplish this feat at the core of the Sun. Doing it on Earth means putting those light isotopes into a reactor and finding a way to heat them to hundreds of millions of degrees centigrade — turning them into an ionized “plasma” akin to the insides of a lightning bolt, only hotter and harder to control. And it means finding a way to control that lightning, usually with some kind of magnetic field that will grab the plasma and hold on tight while it writhes, twists and tries to escape like a living thing.
Both challenges are daunting, to say the least. It was only in late 2022, in fact, that a multibillion-dollar fusion experiment in California finally got a tiny isotope sample to put out more thermonuclear energy than went in to ignite it. And that event, which lasted only about one-tenth of a nanosecond, had to be triggered by the combined output of 192 of the world’s most powerful lasers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This approach to fusion starts with a tiny solid target filled with deuterium-tritium fuel that gets hit from every side with intense pulses of energy. This can be done indirectly (left) by surrounding the target with a small metal cylinder. Lasers strike the insides of the cylinder, generating X-rays that heat the fuel pellet. The laser beams can also heat the target directly (right). Either way, the fuel pellet implodes, and the resulting energy release quickly blows the target apart. The indirect approach was used by the National Ignition Facility in the heralded “break even” experiments that produced more energy than the lasers delivered. But this approach to fusion is probably many decades from being a practical way to generate electricity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today, though, the fusion world is awash in plans for much more practical machines. Novel technologies such as high-temperature superconductors are promising to make fusion reactors smaller, simpler, cheaper and more efficient than once seemed possible. And better still, all those decades of slow, dogged progress seem to have passed a tipping point, with fusion researchers now experienced enough to design plasma experiments that work pretty much as predicted.
“There is a coming of age of technological capability that now matches up with the challenge of this quest,” says Michl Binderbauer, CEO of the fusion firm TAE Technologies in Southern California.
Indeed, more than 40 commercial fusion firms have been launched since TAE became the first in 1998 — most of them in the past five years, and many with a power-reactor design that they hope to have operating in the next decade or so. “‘I keep thinking that, oh sure, we’ve reached our peak,” says Andrew Holland, who maintains a running count as CEO of the Fusion Industry Association, an advocacy group he founded in 2018 in Washington, DC. “But no, we keep seeing more and more companies come in with different ideas.”
None of this has gone unnoticed by private investment firms, which have backed the fusion startups with some $6 billion and counting. This combination of new technology and private money creates a happy synergy, says Jonathan Menard, head of research at the Department of Energy’s Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey, and not a participant in any of the fusion firms.
Compared with the public sector, companies generally have more resources for trying new things, says Menard. “Some will work, some won’t. Some might be somewhere in between,” he says. “But we’re going to find out, and that’s good.”
Granted, there’s ample reason for caution — starting with the fact that none of these firms has so far shown that it can generate net fusion energy even briefly, much less ramp up to a commercial-scale machine within a decade. “Many of the companies are promising things on timescales that generally we view as unlikely,” Menard says.
But then, he adds, “we’d be happy to be proven wrong.”
With more than 40 companies trying to do just that, we’ll know soon enough if one or more of them succeeds. In the meantime, to give a sense of the possibilities, here is an overview of the challenges that every fusion reactor has to overcome, and a look at some of the best-funded and best-developed designs for meeting those challenges.
Prerequisites for fusion
The first challenge for any fusion device is to light the fire, so to speak: It has to take whatever mix of isotopes it’s using as fuel, and get the nuclei to touch, fuse and release all that beautiful energy.
This means literally “touch”: Fusion is a contact sport, and the reaction won’t even begin until the nuclei hit head on. What makes this tricky is that every atomic nucleus contains positively charged protons and — Physics 101 — positive charges electrically repel each other. So the only way to overcome that repulsion is to get the nuclei moving so fast that they crash and fuse before they’re deflected.
This need for speed requires a plasma temperature of at least 100 million degrees C. And that’s just for a fuel mix of deuterium and tritium, the two heavy isotopes of hydrogen. Other isotope mixes would have to get much hotter — which is why “DT” is still the fuel of choice in most reactor designs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fusion reactors, light isotopes fuse to form heavier ones and release energy in the process. Shown here are four examples of reactor fuels. The first, D-T, combines two heavy forms of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). This mix is most common because it begins to fuse at the lowest temperature, but tritium is radioactive, and the generated neutrons can make the reactor radioactive. A reaction between two deuterium nuclei (D-D) proceeds more slowly and requires high temperatures. Using a deuterium-helium-3 mix is also less common, in part because helium-3 is rare and expensive. Perhaps the most tantalizing is a mix of protons and boron-11 (P-11B). Both isotopes are non-radioactive and abundant, while their fusion products are stable and easy to capture for energy extraction. The challenge will be to get the mix to fusion temperatures of more than 1 billion degrees Celsius.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But whatever the fuel, the quest to reach fusion temperatures generally comes down to a race between researchers’ efforts to pump in energy with an external source such as microwaves, or high-energy beams of neutral atoms, and plasma ions’ attempts to radiate that energy away as fast as they receive it.
The ultimate goal is to get the plasma past the temperature of “ignition,” which is when fusion reactions will start to generate enough internal energy to make up for that radiating away of energy — and power a city or two besides.
But this just leads to the second challenge: Once the fire is lit, any practical reactor will have to keep it lit — as in, confine these superheated nuclei so that they’re close enough to maintain a reasonable rate of collisions for long enough to produce a useful flow of power.
In most reactors, this means protecting the plasma inside an airtight chamber, since stray air molecules would cool down the plasma and quench the reaction. But it also means holding the plasma away from the chamber walls, which are so much colder than the plasma that the slightest touch will also kill the reaction. The problem is, if you try to hold the plasma away from the walls with a non-physical barrier, such as a strong magnetic field, the flow of ions will quickly get distorted and rendered useless by currents and fields within the plasma.
Unless, that is, you’ve shaped the field with a great deal of care and cleverness — which is why the various confinement schemes account for some of the most dramatic differences between reactor designs.
Finally, practical reactors will have to include some way of extracting the fusion energy and turning it into a steady flow of electricity. Although there has never been any shortage of ideas for this last challenge, the details depend critically on which fuel mix the reactor uses.
With deuterium-tritium fuel, for example, the reaction produces most of its energy in the form of high-speed particles called neutrons, which can’t be confined with a magnetic field because they don’t have a charge. This lack of an electric charge allows the neutrons to fly not only through the magnetic fields but also through the reactor walls. So the plasma chamber will have to be surrounded by a “blanket”: a thick layer of some heavy material like lead or steel that will absorb the neutrons and turn their energy into heat. The heat can then be used to boil water and generate electricity via the same kind of steam turbines used in conventional power plants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A fusion power plant could use one of several different reactor types, but it will turn fusion energy into electricity the same way that fossil-fuel power plants or nuclear-fission reactors do: Heat from the energy source will boil water to make steam, the steam will flow through a steam turbine, and the turbine will turn an electric generator to send power into the grid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many DT reactor designs also call for including some lithium in the blanket material, so that the neutrons will react with that element to produce new tritium nuclei. This step is critical: Since each DT fusion event consumes one tritium nucleus, and since this isotope is radioactive and doesn’t exist in nature, the reactor would soon run out of fuel if it didn’t exploit this opportunity to replenish it.
The complexities of DT fuel are cumbersome enough that some of the more audacious fusion startups have opted for alternative fuel mixes. Binderbauer’s TAE, for example, is aiming for what many consider the ultimate fusion fuel: a mix of protons and boron-11. Not only are both ingredients stable, nontoxic and abundant, their sole reaction product is a trio of positively charged helium-4 nuclei whose energy is easily captured with magnetic fields, with no need for a blanket.
But alternative fuels present different challenges, such as the fact that TAE will have to get its proton-boron-11 mix to up fusion temperatures of at least a billion degrees Celsius, roughly 10 times higher than the DT threshold.
A plasma donut
The basics of these three challenges — igniting the plasma, sustaining the reaction, and harvesting the energy — were clear from the earliest days of fusion energy research. And by the 1950s, innovators in the field had begun to come up with any number of schemes for solving them — most of which fell by the wayside after 1968, when Soviet physicists went public with a design they called the tokamak.
Like several of the earlier reactor concepts, tokamaks featured a plasma chamber something like a hollow donut — a shape that allowed the ions to circulate endlessly without hitting anything — and controlled the plasma ions with magnetic fields generated by current-carrying coils wrapped around the outside of the donut.
But tokamaks also featured a new set of coils that caused an electric current to go looping around and around the donut right through the plasma, like a circular lightning bolt. This current gave the magnetic fields a subtle twist that went a surprisingly long way toward stabilizing the plasma. And while the first of these machines still couldn’t get anywhere close to the temperatures and confinement times a power reactor would need, the results were so much better than anything seen before that the fusion world pretty much switched to tokamaks en masse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tokamak reactors (left) and related designs known as stellarator reactors (right) both confine the superhot plasma (yellow) with magnetic fields (purple) that are generated by electromagnetic coils (blue and red). With tokamaks, the most common type of reactor, these coils also start an electric current flowing through the plasma, which helps keep the reaction stable. The stellarator design likewise confines the plasma inside an airtight donut, but eliminates the need for a donut-circling current by controlling the plasma with a much more complex set of external coils (blue).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since then, more than 200 tokamaks of various designs have been built worldwide, and physicists have learned so much about tokamak plasmas that they can confidently predict the performance of future machines. That confidence is why an international consortium of funding agencies has been willing to commit more than $20 billion to build ITER (Latin for “the way”): a tokamak scaled up to the size of a 10-story building. Under construction in southern France since 2010, ITER is expected to start experiments with deuterium-tritium fuel in 2035. And when it does, physicists are quite sure that ITER will be able to hold and study burning fusion plasmas for minutes at a time, providing a unique trove of data that will hopefully be useful in the construction of power reactors.
But ITER was also designed as a research machine with a lot more instrumentation and versatility than a working power reactor would ever need — which is why two of today’s best-funded fusion startups are racing to develop tokamak reactors that would be a lot smaller, simpler and cheaper.
First out of the gate was Tokamak Energy, a UK firm founded in 2009. The company has received some $250 million in venture capital over the years to develop a reactor based on “spherical tokamaks” — a particularly compact variation that looks more like a cored apple than a donut.
But coming up fast is Commonwealth Fusion Systems in Massachusetts, an MIT spinoff that wasn’t even launched until 2018. Although Commonwealth’s tokamak design uses a more conventional donut configuration, access to MIT’s extensive fundraising network has already brought the company nearly $2 billion.
Both firms are among the first to generate their magnetic fields with cables made of high-temperature superconductors (HTS). Discovered in the 1980s but only recently available in cable form, these materials can carry an electrical current without resistance even at a relatively torrid 77 Kelvins, or -196 degrees Celsius, warm enough to be achieved with liquid nitrogen or helium gas. This makes HTS cables much easier and cheaper to cool than the ones that ITER will use, since those will be made of conventional superconductors that need to be bathed in liquid helium at 4 Kelvins.
But more than that, HTS cables can generate much stronger magnetic fields in a much smaller space than their low-temperature counterparts — which means that both companies have been able to shrink their power plant designs to a fraction of the size of ITER.
As dominant as tokamaks have been, however, most of today’s fusion startups are not using that design. They’re reviving older alternatives that could be smaller, simpler and cheaper than tokamaks, if someone could make them work.
Plasma vortices
Prime examples of these revived designs are fusion reactors based on smoke-ring-like plasma vortices known as the field-reversed configuration (FRC). Resembling a fat, hollow cigar that spins on its axis like a gyroscope, an FRC vortex holds itself together with its own internal currents and magnetic fields — which means there’s no need for an FRC reactor to keep its ions endlessly circulating around a donut-shaped plasma chamber. In principle, at least, the vortex will happily stay put inside a straight cylindrical chamber, requiring only a light-touch external field to hold it steady. This means that an FRC-based reactor could ditch most of those pricey, power-hungry external field coils, making it smaller, simpler and cheaper than a tokamak or almost anything else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shown here is a linear reactor concept based on an especially stable plasma vortex that is held together with its own internal currents and magnetic fields. Called the field-reversed configuration (FRC), it is formed from the merger of two simpler vortices that are fired from each end of the reaction chamber by plasma guns. Beams of fresh fuel coming in from the side keep the FRC hot and spinning briskly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In practice, unfortunately, the first experiments with these whirling plasma cigars back in the 1960s found that they always seemed to tumble out of control within a few hundred microseconds, which is why the approach was mostly pushed aside in the tokamak era.
Yet the basic simplicity of an FRC reactor never fully lost its appeal. Nor did the fact that FRCs could potentially be driven to extreme plasma temperatures without flying apart — which is why TAE chose the FRC approach in 1998, when the company started on its quest to exploit the 1-billion-degree proton-boron-11 reaction.
Binderbauer and his TAE cofounder, the late physicist Norman Rostoker, had come up with a scheme to stabilize and sustain the FRC vortex indefinitely: Just fire in beams of fresh fuel along the vortex’s outer edges to keep the plasma hot and the spin rate high.
It worked. By the mid-2010s, the TAE team had shown that those particle beams coming in from the side would, indeed, keep the FRC spinning and stable for as long as the beam injectors had power — just under 10 milliseconds with the lab’s stored-energy supply, but as long as they want (presumably) once they can siphon a bit of spare energy from a proton-boron-11-burning reactor. And by 2022, they had shown that their FRCs could retain that stability well above 70 million degrees C.
With the planned 2025 completion of its next machine, the 30-meter-long Copernicus, TAE is hoping to actually reach burn conditions above 100 million degrees (albeit using plain hydrogen as a stand-in). This milestone should give the TAE team essential data for designing their DaVinci machine: a reactor prototype that will (they hope) start feeding p-B11-generated electricity into the grid by the early 2030s.
Plasma in a can
Meanwhile, General Fusion of Vancouver, Canada, is partnering with the UK Atomic Energy Authority to construct a demonstration reactor for perhaps the strangest concept of them all, a 21st-century revival of magnetized target fusion. This 1970s-era concept amounts to firing a plasma vortex into a metal can, then crushing the can. Do that fast enough and the trapped plasma will be compressed and heated to fusion conditions. Do it often enough and a more or less continuous string of fusion energy pulses back out, and you’ll have a power reactor.
In General Fusion’s current concept, the metal can will be replaced by a molten lead-lithium mix that’s held by centrifugal force against the sides of a cylindrical container spinning at 400 RPM. At the start of each reactor cycle, a downward-pointing plasma gun will inject a vortex of ionized deuterium-tritium fuel — the “magnetized target” — which will briefly turn the whirling, metal-lined container into a miniature spherical tokamak. Next, a forest of compressed-air pistons arrayed around the container’s outside will push the lead-lithium mix into the vortex, crushing it from a diameter of three meters down to 30 centimeters within about five milliseconds, and raising the deuterium-tritium to fusion temperatures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Magnetized target fusion is the 1970s-era name for an approach that amounts to firing a plasma vortex into a metal can, then crushing the can. Shown here is a modern version in which the metal can is replaced by a molten lead-lithium mix that’s held against the sides of a spinning container by centrifugal force. Plasma guns fire vortices of deuterium-tritium plasma into the container’s hollow interior while pistons arrayed around the container’s outside push the lead-lithium mix inwards, crushing the plasma and igniting fusion. The blast pushes the molten lead-lithium mix back out and resets the system.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The resulting blast will then strike the molten lead-lithium mix, pushing it back out to the rotating cylinder walls and resetting the system for the next cycle — which will start about a second later. Meanwhile, on a much slower timescale, pumps will steadily circulate the molten metal to the outside so that heat exchangers can harvest the fusion energy it’s absorbed, and other systems can scavenge the tritium generated from neutron-lithium interactions.
All these moving parts require some intricate choreography, but if everything works the way the simulations suggest, the company hopes to build a full-scale, deuterium-tritium-burning power plant by the 2030s.
It’s anybody’s guess when (or if) the particular reactor concepts mentioned here will result in real commercial power plants — or whether the first to market will be one of the many alternative reactor designs being developed by the other 40-plus fusion firms.
But then, few if any of these firms see the quest for fusion power as either a horse race or a zero-sum game. Many of them have described their rivalries as fierce, but basically friendly — mainly because, in a world that’s desperate for any form of carbon-free energy, there’s plenty of room for multiple fusion reactor types to be a commercial success.
“I will say my idea is better than their idea. But if you ask them, they will probably tell you that their idea is better than my idea,” says physicist Michel Laberge, General Fusion’s founder and chief scientist. “Most of these guys are serious researchers, and there’s no fundamental flaw in their schemes.” The actual chance of success, he says, is improved by having more possibilities. “And we do need fusion on this planet, badly.”
This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, a nonprofit publication dedicated to making scientific knowledge accessible to all. Sign up for Knowable Magazine’s newsletter.
“Something is happening—but you don’t know what it is.”
I have previously resisted replying to you belittling personal insults. Grow up, learn how the world works and don’t keep getting fooled.
Good Bye
Even Helion says IF!
........
Of course.
Why don’t you go to COP28.
That way you’ll be minding your business.
Yeah, you’re right. I have been insulting. Apologies.
////
I’ve done some research which you might find to be helpful.
Light water reactors went through a huge period of innovation from very roughly 1940-1980. But for better or worse three mile island and the new safety measures it caused—along with goverment cut backs in r&d funding during the 70’s —ended the innovative phase of Light water reactors. Changes subsequently were incremental.
At the same time there there was a 70 year period from roughly the 1900 to the 1970’s where basic research in physics provide a constant stream of new mathmatical tools that could be used across many industries including nuclear. That came to an end sometime in the 1970’s when the theoretical physicists fell in love with the beauty of string theory and quantum gravity. This stuff might in the long run prove to be true—but in practice has not produced much in the way of tools in the way that the physics of the previous seventy years was able to do so.
What I’m getting to is that if you are about my age or 70 years old—you came on the scene just as the nuclear industry was ending its period of innovation. So you have never seen rapid innovation before.
I learned an interesting thing. The guy who held the original patents on the light water reactor was Alvin Weinberg. He also developed the first Liquid flouride thorium reactors —the LFTR reactors. He said the LFTR reactors were superior to the light water reactors. This research program was killed and mothballed in the 70’s. Weinberg went to his grave saying that the USA had made a terrible mistake in killing those reactors. Edward Teller seemed to confirm this as his last paper in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s was on LFTR reactors.
The LFTR reactors are now back in development —but they’re in the slow lane in federal labs behind light water reactors based SMR’s like Nucor.
You probably know all this stuff better than I do.
My point is that since you have never experienced rapid technological development—you might want to chase down the fusion research in all its angles, go their conferences, meet the principle researchers, executives and the government people and private investors involved with them.... and write a book on it. That’s a lot of people.
But if this this story is true—its a story worth telling. You may have the chops for it.
One way or the other it’ll do your heart good.
“Yeah, you’re right. I have been insulting. Apologies.”
I accept.
I suggest you research the cold fusion and Theranos scams.
I have sent you lots and you still have the same position so nothing else will convince you otherwise.
“My point is that since you have never experienced rapid technological development—”
Research ITER. $22 Billion and counting. Some say it may cost $45 billion. ITER will not produce electricity nor can it run continuously.
They originally had a 2025 target now it is 2035.
absolutely agree that there have been a lot of dead ends.
no one believes that ITER will amount to anything more than a declaration of faith in fusion. (which in some ways is very important—because where there is a will there is a way.)
there is still a worldwide group that studies cold fusion but again they seem on the fast track to nowhere.
my vote for the most likely to succeed fission group is one from indonesia. they’re testing in american labs. they’re doing some version of g4 fission. They’re already working on a plant to mass produce them and get costs down to the .02@kwh range. I think they want have them fully built to put them on barges next to coastal cities.
I would have absolutely agreed with your take on all these fusion start ups maybe 18 months ago. But something is happening. liken it to a warm front that passes over a half dozen states in the summertime. the warm front generates thunderstorms along its edge. liken those thunderstorms to the small fusion start ups that are popping up all over. liken too the convergence of a couple systems/techniques/technologies/tools to the warm front passing over a couple states in summer that generate the thunderstorms/fusion companies.
another words—the proliferation of fusion companies is not about the companies but rather the ideas/systems/techniques/technologies/tools that generate them.
None of these do I understand well. Nor do I have the time or expertise to understand well.
But you do.
“my vote for the most likely to succeed fission group is one from indonesia. they’re testing in american labs. they’re doing some version of g4 fission.”
G4 is Generation 4. It is a timeline, not a type of fission.
“I would have absolutely agreed with your take on all these fusion start ups maybe 18 months ago. But something is happening.”
They keep revising their milestone projections.
“no one believes that ITER will amount to anything more than a declaration of faith in fusion. “
ITER’s mission was only to produce a good faith reaction. The whole world and $40 billion for goof faith by 2025.
And you Ave faith that a startup and a billions dollars will have a licensed power plant by 2028.
NO WAY!
Whatever happened to that LENR Rossi character?
Or is this a different unicorn?
What’s significant about this is the collapsed time frames for their expectations. Likely like a lot of Musk deadlines—they’ll blow past this one—but they’re not talking about getting the job done in 10-20 years.
/////////////////
Commonwealth Fusion predicts it will have the world’s first net-energy fusion device by 2025 and is already building a factory in Devens to make the machine.
Work is in high gear as Richard Holcomb, director of construction and facilities, walks the 47 acre site in Devens.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power
Professor Dennis Whyte, director of the Plasma Science and Fusion Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the U.S. has taken a smart approach on fusion by advancing research and designs by a range of companies working toward a pilot-scale demonstration within a decade.
“It doesn’t guarantee a particular company will get there, but we have multiple shots on goal,” he said, referring to the Energy Department’s milestone-based fusion development program. “It’s the right way to do it, to support what we all want to see: commercial fusion to power our society” without greenhouse gas emissions.
On other topics, Granholm said that depending on whether the U.S. government shuts down or not, the Biden administration could announce in October details on an $8 billion hydrogen hub program that will be funded by the bipartisan infrastructure law.
A hub is meant to be a network of companies that produce clean hydrogen and of the industries that use it — heavy transportation, for example — and infrastructure such as pipelines and refueling stations. States and companies have teamed up to create hub proposals.
What’s significant about this is the collapsed time frames for their expectations. Likely like a lot of Musk deadlines—they’ll blow past this one—but they’re not talking about getting the job done in 10-20 years.
/////////////////
Commonwealth Fusion predicts it will have the world’s first net-energy fusion device by 2025 and is already building a factory in Devens to make the machine.
Work is in high gear as Richard Holcomb, director of construction and facilities, walks the 47 acre site in Devens.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power
A reasonable question to ask is...what is collapsing the time frames for the development of fusion energy.
Well first in line is AI.
So this is the question that I googled.
how has ai influenced fusion energy research and development
Answer
AI has had a significant impact on fusion energy research and development in several ways:
Data Analysis and Prediction: Fusion experiments generate vast amounts of data from sensors and diagnostic instruments. AI techniques, such as machine learning, help scientists analyze this data more efficiently and extract valuable insights. AI algorithms can identify patterns, anomalies, and correlations in the data that might be challenging for humans to detect. This accelerates the process of understanding plasma behavior and optimizing fusion reactions.
Control and Automation: Fusion reactors are highly complex and require precise control to maintain the conditions necessary for sustained fusion reactions. AI can be used to automate and optimize control systems. Reinforcement learning algorithms, for example, can learn to control plasma parameters and adapt to changing conditions in real-time. This improves reactor stability and performance.
Plasma Modeling: AI can enhance plasma modeling and simulation efforts. Neural networks and other AI techniques can be used to improve the accuracy and speed of simulations, allowing scientists to explore various scenarios and design strategies more efficiently. This is particularly useful for predicting and mitigating disruptions, which can be a major challenge in fusion research.
Materials Discovery: Developing materials that can withstand the extreme conditions inside a fusion reactor, such as high temperatures and radiation, is crucial. AI-driven materials discovery approaches can help identify promising candidate materials with desired properties faster than traditional trial-and-error methods. This can accelerate the development of materials for fusion reactors.
Optimization of Experimental Design: AI can assist in the design of fusion experiments. It can suggest optimal experimental configurations, parameters, and setups to maximize the chances of achieving successful fusion reactions. This reduces the cost and time associated with experimental trials.
Remote Operation and Maintenance: AI-powered robotics and remote operation systems can be used to operate and maintain fusion reactors, especially in cases where the environment is hazardous for humans. These systems can perform tasks like inspection, maintenance, and repair more efficiently and safely.
Energy Production Forecasting: AI can be employed to predict the energy output and performance of fusion reactors, aiding in their integration into the energy grid. Accurate forecasting helps grid operators manage the fluctuating energy supply from fusion reactors effectively.
Optimization of Magnetic Confinement: In magnetic confinement fusion, AI can be used to optimize the magnetic field configurations and confinement strategies to achieve higher plasma stability and longer confinement times.
In summary, AI has the potential to revolutionize fusion energy research and development by improving data analysis, control systems, simulations, materials discovery, and overall reactor performance. It can accelerate progress towards achieving practical and sustainable fusion energy as a clean and abundant power source for the future.
A reasonable question to ask is...what is collapsing the time frames for the development of fusion energy.
Well first in line is AI.
So this is the question that I googled.
how has ai influenced fusion energy research and development
Answer
AI has had a significant impact on fusion energy research and development in several ways:
Data Analysis and Prediction: Fusion experiments generate vast amounts of data from sensors and diagnostic instruments. AI techniques, such as machine learning, help scientists analyze this data more efficiently and extract valuable insights. AI algorithms can identify patterns, anomalies, and correlations in the data that might be challenging for humans to detect. This accelerates the process of understanding plasma behavior and optimizing fusion reactions.
Control and Automation: Fusion reactors are highly complex and require precise control to maintain the conditions necessary for sustained fusion reactions. AI can be used to automate and optimize control systems. Reinforcement learning algorithms, for example, can learn to control plasma parameters and adapt to changing conditions in real-time. This improves reactor stability and performance.
Plasma Modeling: AI can enhance plasma modeling and simulation efforts. Neural networks and other AI techniques can be used to improve the accuracy and speed of simulations, allowing scientists to explore various scenarios and design strategies more efficiently. This is particularly useful for predicting and mitigating disruptions, which can be a major challenge in fusion research.
Materials Discovery: Developing materials that can withstand the extreme conditions inside a fusion reactor, such as high temperatures and radiation, is crucial. AI-driven materials discovery approaches can help identify promising candidate materials with desired properties faster than traditional trial-and-error methods. This can accelerate the development of materials for fusion reactors.
Optimization of Experimental Design: AI can assist in the design of fusion experiments. It can suggest optimal experimental configurations, parameters, and setups to maximize the chances of achieving successful fusion reactions. This reduces the cost and time associated with experimental trials.
Remote Operation and Maintenance: AI-powered robotics and remote operation systems can be used to operate and maintain fusion reactors, especially in cases where the environment is hazardous for humans. These systems can perform tasks like inspection, maintenance, and repair more efficiently and safely.
Energy Production Forecasting: AI can be employed to predict the energy output and performance of fusion reactors, aiding in their integration into the energy grid. Accurate forecasting helps grid operators manage the fluctuating energy supply from fusion reactors effectively.
Optimization of Magnetic Confinement: In magnetic confinement fusion, AI can be used to optimize the magnetic field configurations and confinement strategies to achieve higher plasma stability and longer confinement times.
In summary, AI has the potential to revolutionize fusion energy research and development by improving data analysis, control systems, simulations, materials discovery, and overall reactor performance. It can accelerate progress towards achieving practical and sustainable fusion energy as a clean and abundant power source for the future.
6 months ago AI researchers were saying that they are at the elbow of exponential growth.
It appears that what set off the soap opera at OpenAI was that researchers sent a letter to the board of OpenAI warning of the dangers of what they were seeing in their research. They had just developed internally the first “artificial general intelligence”.
that spooked the board and set events into motion.
There are a lot of youtubes that discuss this. If you’re into geeky detail—here is one. The big thing is that huge strides have been made in terms being able to do math, invent math and apply math to novel situations and more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d0kk88IE8c
In practice, what this means is that in a year or four—new math will become available for fusion research and developement—on an ongoing basis—as it was prior to the 1970’s for fission r&d. Only this time, the rate of development for new math will be exponential on a scale that frightens people....as it seems to frighten the geeky podcaster above.
Source?”
Not responsive to your question:
“AI can be used ...”
“AI can be used ...”
“AI can be used ...”
“AI can be used ...”
“AI can be used ...”
“What’s significant about this is the collapsed time frames for their expectations. “
Huh?
In 2015 Helion was THREE years away.
In 2023 Helion says FIVE years away.
What else is accelerating the development of fusion?
Here is an article dated 2021.
Five years ago a tokamak at MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center produced, for a few milliseconds, the intense pressure and temperature needed to make fusion. The Center’s director, Dennis Whyte, says the magnets used in that device, were made with ordinary copper wire.
“And when that turned on to produce that confining magnetic field, it consumed over 200 million watts of electrical power,” he says. “So you say, ‘Well, what a great scientific achievement; hotter than the center of the sun’ ... but it’s hard to imagine it as a practical power source because you’re using so much electricity to generate the magnetic field.”
But the new high temperature superconducting magnet, like those that will be used in Commonwealth Fusion’s SPARC device, will consume just 20 watts,1/10,000,000th the amount of energy as the copper wire magnets. It means far lower costs to operate the company’s device, making commercial fusion financially feasible.
“The idea is you get one major disruptive technological breakthrough and it speeds everything else up,” Whyte says. “But the technology didn’t exist until it did a few weeks ago ... here.”
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power
Another reasonable question to ask is—why is fusion energy facing so few regulatoy challenges?
Answer:
Inside the tokamak, the plasma fuel will be five times hotter than the center of the sun. But it’s delicate, so there’s nothing to be afraid of, says Mumgaard.
“Some people think of fusion as like lava … you know, hot like lava ... but that’s actually not what it is,” he says. “It’s actually closer like a candle in the wind.”
The conditions to make fusion in a tokamak are so difficult to create and sustain, which makes the devices inherently safe, says Mumgaard. They can’t melt down.
“If you think about it, stars are out in space, they don’t touch anything,” he says. “And that’s what you have to basically build in a fusion machine. And the minute it touches something, it doesn’t melt through like lava. It extinguishes like a flame.”
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power
What else is accelerating the development of fusion power.
Answer: money
/////////////////
MIT and Commonwealth Fusion Systems have formed a unique corporate-academic collaboration. They share a common agenda — making fusion energy viable — but have separate agendas. The company wants to make money; the University wants discoveries about the fundamental energy that powers the universe.
“Fusion is the greatest technological challenge that I think humanity has ever undertaken,” says British plasma physicist Arthur Turrell. In his new book, “The Star Builders and The Race to Power the Planet,” he says we are closer than ever in achieving net energy from fusion devices and credits the emergence of private sector funding. “It’s not really about time,” he said in a recent interview. “It’s about the investment that we’re putting into it as a society and the kind of priority that we give it and the number of people who are working on it.”
The race to make commercial fusion heats up
There are about two dozen companies competing to produce fusion energy devices, promising unlimited safe power, free of carbon emissions.
Helion in Everett, Washington is backed by tech billionaire Peter Theil. Jeff Bezos is behind General Fusion in British Columbia, Canada, and Bill Gates has invested in Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which will have 300 workers when the Devens is
Mumgaard predicts that, by 2025, SPARC will produce ten times more energy than it consumes, and the company will have a commercial fusion device, capable of powering a town, in the early 2030s. He says the company will be selling them around the world.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power
“But the new high temperature superconducting magnet, like those that will be used in Commonwealth Fusion’s SPARC device, will consume just 20 watts”
Assuming ZERO losses it would take three years just to build up the 100 Mj of stored energy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.