Solar power with fusion reactors

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Post Reply
Kiernynn Lewis
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:11 pm
Real name: Kiernynn Lewis

Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Kiernynn Lewis »

Since fusion requires the plasma state, it gives off quite a bit of light energy, correct? I've heard hypotheses before about building a small fusion reactor and then setting up solar panels around it so that the panels capture the energy from the fusion reactors and then using that energy to keep powering the fusion. Would this work or not and why?
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Richard Hull »

It would not work.

1. Not cost effective
2. Not enough light of the right spectral type.
3. Panels would have to be inside the reactor and would not survive.

Probably many other reasons as well.

Your idea is typical of the outsider who doesn't consider the engineering limitations or what comes out of or goes on inside multi-megawatt nuclear reactors, whether of the fission or fusion variety. Where fusion is concerned the thinking and ideas abound. The reality in the doing is that not even one watt of usable electricity has ever been produced in a fusion process by the hand of man.

Fusion power languishes since fusion's discovery in 1932. We are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of no fusion power electricity since it was discovered. Real electrical power is from fission discovered in 1938....First fission reactor in only 5 years.....First fission bomb in 7 years and first fission electrical power reactor, ERB-1, in only 13 years!

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Kiernynn Lewis
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:11 pm
Real name: Kiernynn Lewis

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Kiernynn Lewis »

Aw you're thinking of me like I'm an outsider. If you thin that of everyone new to fusion, you'll shut out tons of new ideas. One of those might possibly work. If we only consider the engineering limitations before we actually prove the limitations exist, we will never be able to make fusion work. If we're thinking of engineering limitations then fusion isn't even an option, much less a possibility.

What seems to be the most effective way of getting energy from fusion? Not the most cost effective, but the most effective as in most energy from fusion?
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Dan Tibbets »

No , it will not work. That is the short answer. The long answer depends on all sorts of things. In a nuclear reactor fusing or fissioning fuel, most of the energy released is in the form of the kinetic energy of the particles. The protons, neutrons, alpha particles, beta particles and other material leave the reaction at very high speeds- high energy. It is this kinetic energy of charged particles or non charged particles that need to be interacted with to harvest useful energy. Classically, this involves the particles slamming into something and thereby heating it up. Steam can be generated and a turbine spun to generate electricity. There is also the possibility to harvest the kinetic energy of charged fusion products directly by slowing them down in electrostatic fields.

The light produced in nuclear reactions is often a small fraction of the total energy produced. The kinetic energy dominates. Some reactions release light in the form of gamma rays. This is very energetic light at very short wavelengths. To my knowledge there is no useful way to convert this to useful electrical energy except through a thermal cycle. Lawrence Plasma Physics has a scheme that may harvest X-rays (similar energy to some gamma rays) through a photovoltaic process. But this is applicable to the recovery of wast X-rays generated in hot plasmas. This may be useful, but it is not directly a result of fusion at all, it is from the hot fuel plasma. This lost energy can contribute considerably to the input costs of a reactor, so recovering it efficiently may be desirable, but again this is not harvesting the fusion energy. Light production (gamma radiation) is just not a big component of the energy output of a desired fusion or fission reactor fuel. It can still be a very dangerous dose to people, but this is still a small component of the total energies involved.

Having said all of this, the Sun is a fusion reactor, and photovoltaics are a modestly efficient way to convert some of the energy into useful electricity on Earth. It is important to note though that this light energy is due to the heating of the gas outside the fusion core of the sun. This gas is heated up to thousands of degrees and becomes incandesent. It is this secondary effect of solar fusion that shines on the Earth and may be captured through photovoltaics, solar thermal, wind, or burning of bio fuels that are produced through photosynthesis (either freshly grown or fossil fuels).
This is much like the turbine that converts steam heat to electricity. The energy from heating some substrate is what is converted to electricity. It is a thermal process at some stage after the actual fusion. the photovoltaics might be considered a direct converter, but it is acting on the photons emitted by the heated photosphere of the sun.

Also, it should be noted that these solar panels are placed a safe distance from the reactor (like 93 million miles). They are not exposed to the tremendous doses of neutrons, x-rays, gamma rays, alphas, or other hungry beasts that would quickly destroy them. The overlying gas outside the Sun's core shields us from the the terrible environment of the Sun's core. We are exposed to only the very mild ~ 6,000 degree glow of the gas on the Sun's surface. The Solar corona messes things up some and neutrinos are another story, but this "gentle" glowing gas at the Sun' surface is essentially all that we need to deal with.

Qzone depletion, solar storms, satellite and radio disruptions, temperature variations inside and outside of the Sun, stellar evolution, terrestrial fusion and fission and comparisons, thermal processes, radiative processes, electrical and magnetic processes, etc. are all fascinating and to appreciate them and how they play with each other you will need to pursue a whole library of books...

Dan Tibbets
prestonbarrows
Posts: 211
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:27 am
Real name:

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by prestonbarrows »

Kiernynn Lewis wrote:...fusion reactor and then setting up solar panels around it so that the panels capture the energy from the fusion reactor...
They already invented this. It is called the sun.
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Dan Tibbets »

PS:

Perhaps I am losing you in the forest by placing trees in the way. Ignoring the damaging effects of the high speed particles and energetic radiation inside a reactor. Even if you had a transparent reactor wall so that the radiation could fall on potovoltaic cells. This radiation is a tiny percentage of the energies produced by the fusion reactions. Mostly the energy is in the form of fast moving particles- neutrons, alphas, etc. This hot gas does emit radiation through black body radiation, and other processes, but remember that the concentration of the gas is tiny. The fusion product (very hot) gas is at a density of only about 1 millionth of an atmosphere. There is not much gas to glow. The intensity of the glow would not be much different from the glow you see in the demo fusor or dim fluorescent lamp. The average temperature would be much higher (and thus invisible to the naked eye (UV and X-rays)), but still dim relative to all of the energy tied up in the mass and velocity of the individual fusion gas products. I suspect the energy released through black body radiation of this gas would not be much different , and perhaps much less than the radiation from Bremsstruhlung radiation from the cooler fuel plasma/ gas. This energy is feeble compared to the KE of the fusion products, and so any direct conversion of this radiation glow is also feeble relative to the total energy budget.

So, yes, fusion can produce a hot glowing ball of gas that can provide photons for direct conversion through photovoltaics. But the contibution is trivial, the challenges are considerable. The difference with the Suns photosphere is is that due to the surface area, etc. the glowing gas is at a convenient and benign temperature, and there is so much of it that has trapped and converted the KE of the core fusion products, and so the nature of the fusion output energies have been converted to this primarily radiative surface.

Using photovoltaics, or thermocouples to convert some of the heat energy, especially infrared wavelengths, of the vacuum vessel wall and/or the coolent fluid is not unreasonable. But they have a long way to go before they can surpass a steam cycle process. They may suppliment and perhaps someday match the steam cycle conversion in nuclear or coal plants, but again, this is a step removed from direct conversion of the fusion produced plasma energy.

Note that Bremsstruhlung radiation contribution is a complex issue, especially in ignition machines where the fusion products thermalize with the fuel plasma. In a Polywell this is distinctly different. In a Fusor where the very hot/ fast fusion product particles fly straight to the walls, it is also different.

Dan Tibbets
User avatar
Rich Feldman
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:59 pm
Real name: Rich Feldman
Location: Santa Clara County, CA, USA

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Rich Feldman »

That down-conversion of energy to useful (?) forms also happens in one well-studied ignition device: the hydrogen bomb. Most of the gamma ray energy and nuclear particle KE goes directly or indirectly to heating a "jacket" of ambient air. Expansion of the air makes the blast, and incandescence of the glowing ball of air sets fire to things.

I imagine that on an airless body, an above-ground nuclear detonation would be almost unrecognizably different. (Even nuclear EMP is understood to be from atmospheric interactions.) Anybody seen any scientific predictions?
All models are wrong; some models are useful. -- George Box
Kiernynn Lewis
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:11 pm
Real name: Kiernynn Lewis

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Kiernynn Lewis »

Great! So to sum up a) the energy is the wrong kind for solar panels b) the solar panels would be obliterated by their close proximity to the reactor which means solar is not worthwhile. Thanks to all the people who replied!
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Richard Hull »

Also please realize that you will not get one watt of fusion power out of a wall outlet unless it is cost efficient. It is a real world out there and no power company gives power away for free. If it can't equal or beat coal or gas burning and cost less or equal to produce, then the power company bean counters and wall street investors will stay away like fusion has the plague. I think the lie of clean and carbon free power would fall on its face if the electrical bill for the average home became $1,858.29 per month in today's dollars.

So, be advised that cost effectiveness will enter the equation as the number one concern before you ever see one watt of fusion electricity. We still use and will continue to use the circa1820's method of final energy production whether from coal or fusion........Boiling a bunch of water in a pot. I am talking terawatts needed for the real world, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, dead of winter, dead calm air and totally overcast skys be damned. Not the tiny twenty megawatts from a monsterous solar panel farm taking up acres that a nuclear fission plant could make gigawatts on, but then only on a bright, cloudless, blue sky day while the Uranium plant or coal plant on a cloudy midnight is still kicking out gigawatt levels.

Scientists may have a fusion win at some point in a distant future, but engineers will have to make the real power come out of it and the bean counters and investors and home owners will have the final absolute say on whether they use it or not.

That is why "not cost effective" was number one on my list. The fact that the solr panels would be instantly destroyed in the reactor was number 3, a mere incidental. Money is every thing in the energy game.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Kiernynn Lewis
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:11 pm
Real name: Kiernynn Lewis

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Kiernynn Lewis »

Well sure, money is everything from a non-scientific point of view. While cos efficiency is a problem that we have to deal with eventually, the first problem is making it work. And there are tons of companies and individuals in the word that are working for that goal. While money is a problem, it is not the first problem. First and foremost, we make it work and we improve upon that. Money shouldn't be a focus of the scientific world. We focus on pollution from the energy, how to get the energy, how to convert it, how to use it, better ways to use it, what's going on and nowhere in there should money be the first thing you think about. If you try to jump straight to the solution, you'll never get there. We have to work our way through to the height of fusion technology and burn through billions on our way there if need be.

Clean energy has been available for years and years and the massive energy companies are the ones who have been keeping it back, yes. Chevron has some oil fields out in Coalinga, California and they are powering their operation with solar power. Obviously it's cost efficient. To get around these big businesses, we have o engineer better ideas that are cost efficient for users to install. Like the electronic roads idea. I forget who came up with the idea but they're roads made out of solar panels. Each panel is relatively small and hexagonally shaped. There are LED's that light up for the lines on the road, they can change relatively easily, they warn you if something is in the road ahead of you, and they can easily be applied to every flat surface. Things like that make cleaner energy more available and more practical.

And sure, solar would need more space than a nuclear reactor, but how much space out in the middle of a desert is needed to contain the radioactive waste (which isn't actually contained, btw)? And how many millions and billlions did it take to build something like that? How many scientists are employed in creating that and trying to find a way to contain it? People who could be working on something else like improvements to solar power? Surely using peoples' roofs and unused desert are and roads and patios would be better than radiation leaking into the ground and water sources?

And you're acting like we don't have the space for solar. Hundreds o miles in the Sahara aren't being used and won't be being used since it's, y'know, hard to live in the middle of a desert. Or in Coalinga. Miles and miles being drilled for oil could be being used for solar instead. We have overpopulation problems because humans flock to cities for jobs instead of subsistence farming. So that land that isn't being used could be being used.

So good thing this isn't the energy game, it's the science and figuring out if things work game.
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Dan Tibbets »

Cost efficiency and reliability are of course root considerations. but this is modified somewhat by political considerations. Government subsidies,and mandates, and public perception plays a role. The contribution may be artificial or even silly and often considerations like percentage contribution that is tolerable is not stressed. The picture is complex. My perception is that solar photovoltaics and even wind are moderatly attractive so long as their penetration (percentage of base load) is not too high. The cost to bring these systems online is close to coal, the operating costs are possibly low. The problem with fusion as represented by the Tokamak is that if the physics and engineering actually works, the cost of building the plants and operating them far exceeds even the heavily over supplied photovoltaics that would provide adequate coverage (most of the time).

This is one reason I am a Polywell fan boy. This fusion approach along with others like FRC, DPF, General Fusion, and possibly even stellarators actually have some potential to be be practical electrical power plants if they work (that is a big if). Tokamaks are a dead end.
I even appreciate the potential for advanced uranium and thorium fission plants, But the radioactive waste products and accident vulnerability in these systems is scary. Also, the costs are currently marginal, advanced designs would probably push them out contention, unless supported by government interventions.

Boiling water from these relatively small (and thus relatively cheap) reactors is the baseline requirement for deliverable electrical power. Improvements to the steam cycle, supercritical CO2 , direct conversion, recovery of waste heat through thermocouples or heating streets as in Stockholm can improve the picture somewhat. But the baseline requirement is the production of excess energy in a package that is economical.

Dan Tibbets
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Richard Hull »

We gotta' get there even if it costs billions!? It already has! The rush to give billions more to something that still hasn't happened is losing its appeal real fast with the holders and dolers of the money substances. Money and econmics drive it all and all the good wishes and the wringing of the hands, don't feed th' bulldog.

Ricahrd Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Kiernynn Lewis
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:11 pm
Real name: Kiernynn Lewis

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Kiernynn Lewis »

Yes, money is an issue, but I don't think it should stop us from improving and trying different things. Like you said Richard, we gotta do. We can't let these obstacles loom over us and stop us from doing things that might work. It'd suck if we had the information and ideas that would actually work and then not do them because of money issues. I understand that we do need money to actually, y'know, DO things but ideas like "oh I'll never get money from that" or "I'll never get enough money to do that" will only stop plausible ideas. Since we already have fed billions into it, we'll just have to feed in billions more. Until we get it right or everyone on the planet stops believing it could work.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solar power with fusion reactors

Post by Richard Hull »

Perhaps long before fusion power is a reality, the world energy crunch just might force more fission reactors to be produced (thorium breeders, traveling wave fission, etc.), or even more coal plants. Depends on the dire nature of the shortage and how far short of a crying need, the shortage becomes. It is nice knowing there are quick fixes there as fusion continuously languishes.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”