DailyDirt: Baby Steps Towards Fusion Reactors
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Fusion is always just 30 years away, but we seem to be actually making some progress after decades of building huge superconducting magnets that will probably be impractical for producing net energy. We’ve seen Lockheed Martin and a bunch of fusion energy startups claiming to be able to control a fusion reaction in less than 30 years, but economically generating energy is still a distant milestone.
- Are tokamak designs for fusion reactors a dead-end technology for ever producing energy? Safety regulations and the complexity of the tokamak design might prevent this fusion reactor technology from becoming a commercial venture. [url]
- A stellarator fusion generator is based on a design from the 1950s that might be getting popular again. Stellarators are a bit more complicated to build than tokmaks, but they’re less prone to disruptions that could shut down operations, so they can run for a bit longer and could give us a better idea of how to control continuous fusion in a contained plasma. The billion-euro Wendelstein 7-X is about to turn on, and it could lead to a more reliable fusion reactor design. [url]
- Perhaps “big science” funding isn’t the right strategy, and science should follow a startup incubator model? YC Research (a Y Combinator project) is going to try to tackle fundamental science problems… starting with just $10 million in funding. Perhaps more companies like Helion Energy will emerge to produce fusion generators — but how does a non-profit division with a 30-year horizon for its goals… feed into a startup incubator? (Ask
GoogleAlphabet?) [url]
After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.
Filed Under: big science, energy, fusion, fusion reactor, plasma, stellarator, tokamak, wendelstein 7-x, yc research
Companies: helion energy, y combinator
Comments on “DailyDirt: Baby Steps Towards Fusion Reactors”
all we need is solar, really.
Solar should be good enough, actually. We just need to figure out how to store solar energy. Damn battery technology.
Re: all we need is solar, really.
If you use a Solar Updraft Tower with Saltwater base for thermal storage, you could have 24 hour a day generation. If you put them offshore say in California waters, it would increase humidity and rainfall for hundreds of miles downwind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
Re: all we need is solar, really.
We just need to figure out how to store solar energy. Damn battery technology.
I came across this recently, apparently saltwater batteries are a real thing! And Aquion Energy is a real manufacturer (as opposed to battery technologies that are only in the lab and might come out in 20 years).
They’re still kind of pricey, but they’re a fairly new company paying off their R&D and new manufacturing plant so I can wait.
But I mean, saltwater, what could be cheaper than that!
Re: all we need is solar, really.
Management of solar energy is mostly already solved, and has been since the premordial ooze. The question is not one of storage, but of management.
The permaculture hippies are right on that particular subject. They typically don’t know why they’re right, but they are right. Probably 2/3rd of what we conceive of as an energy storage problem, is instead an entropy management problem.
Economics isn’t about dollars. It is about Watts. Economists generally study dollars instead of watts, which is how you can tell the difference between a sports coach in the game of finance, and a scientist.
“The human body generates more bioelectricity than a 120-volt battery.” — The Matrix
A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
After all, we know how to make fission reactors that work fine.
Nobody wants to build any, but if we really need the power we know how.
Not only do we have no clue how to build a practical fusion power reactor, we don’t have any need for fusion power.
We have plenty of power sources as it is.
Re: A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
I volunteer to take all of the nuclear “waste” and turn it into energy over the next 50 years. Thorium reactors would eat the waste from the current generation of reactors and give you energy as a result.
Re: Re: A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
Hello Japan
is that you?
Re: A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
After all, we know how to make fission reactors that work fine.
Chernyobyl and Fukushima are examples of “fine working” – right?
Re: Re: A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
Chernobyl was an OLD design that should have never been made. Modern designs don’t have those troubles. And the problem with Fukushima was WHERE they built rather than WHAT they built.
Re: Re: Re: A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
Point being, they were built.
At the time of their construction it is most likely they were hailed as being indestructible whilst hushing critics, some being scientists, who claimed the safety features were insufficient.
Guess what happened next.
Why not build upon a known fault line, what’s the worst that could happen – right?
Re: Re: Re:2 A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
“hailed as being indestructible”
Much like the Titanic
Re: Re: Re: A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
Oh yeah … what they built was a crappy cooling system run on electricity. I wonder what happens when the electricity is wiped out by a tsunami.
Re: Re: Re:2 A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
The cooling system was fine and had backup generators. However, there is almost nothing that can stand up to a Tsunami… certainly not a backup generator. They needed to heed the warnings left by the people after the last Tsunami and not build below the Tsunami water line clearly marked around the area. What good is a warning when it’s not heeded?
Re: Re: Re:3 A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
What’s wrong with a gravity feed safety system, other than it is an added cost?
Re: Re: Re: A giant jobs program for unemployed physicists
Chernobyl was an OLD design that should have never been made.
It’s not that it was an old design, it was designed with producing weapons grade material as a higher priority than safety. When the coolant system failed, the reaction continued, which is prevented by safer designs.
oh YES
the environmental disposal of nuclear waste and the disaster insurance
are already in the pricing equation… RIGHT?
after the managerial revolution
it will always be unsafe to run a nuclear plant for profit
Fusion funding
Spend the money. Use the shotgun approach. Spend a lot of money. 1/3 to just ideas. 1/3 to experiments. 1/3 to prototypes. You review the ideas and fund the best ideas. You review the experiments and fund the best ones. And the same with the prototypes.
Baby
Baby Steps Towards Fusion Reactors
Why is a baby anywhere near the fusion reactors in the first place?