Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Reflections on fusion history, current events, and predictions for the 'fusion powered future.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

The latest results for the Wendalstein Stellarator 7-X has achieved and successfully held plasma densities at levels that would be required for a power plant. Under these conditions it has held the plasma for 100 seconds. While only using hydrogen, and rather low plasma temps (just 20 million K) these results are records for that type of device. They will continue to upgrade the machine and advance their temps and confinement times with a goal of 30 minutes, with similar densities and heated plasma's temps near power plant levels (using 50 MW microwave heating systems.) This device continues to show improvement and isn't a concrete foundation with vague promise of future success, assuming that doubling again of its cost doesn't occur, like a certain unnamed device.

While purely a research device, this approach and concept is showing that its early promise might very well be a viable path to successful magnetically confined fusion. Unlike many current systems, this one is steadily improving and making real progress towards its stated goals.

Details at: https://www.ipp.mpg.de/4550215/11_18
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Richard Hull »

20million K = 1740 volts of potential difference between ions. This is about the potential I start with to ion bombard the water out of my fusor, once my forepump bottoms around 15 microns. As the pressure drops, (water leaves), I push it up to about 3kv to keep the bombardment alive. (34 million k).

The difference is that, in theory, they will have no wall heating as the plasma is contained. The fusor heats up nicely with zero containment. But then I don't suffer the monstrous wattages associated with the magnetic confinement and the RF exciter for the plasma.

I would love to know the summation of all the power needed for 100% of all the ancillary gear needed to "do stellaration" to the level of the 1740 volt effective ion velocities for 100 seconds.

They wouldn't dare publish this figure.

The best of all multi-million/billion dollar efforts get sooo close. They always have. Some few actually did some fusion.....Just never enough or long enough to be worth writing a letter home to mom about.

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
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

While very true Richard, can you do that for a loop of ions about a centimeter in cross-section, with a radius of nearly 2 meters, and an hydrogen ion density of 10^20 ions/cc against a 10^-9 to 10^-11 torr vacuum for 100 seconds using just a magnetic bottle? Also, while actively pumping it to maintain said temperature stable for that 100 seconds?

I believe they are using a 50 MW microwave driver for heating.

As you know well, temperature is the easy part - good size collides can get to within 10^-34 sec of the big bang in temperature - many of orders of magnitude hotter than the hottest blue giant stellar core or even hotter than a super nova exploding core. Ion temperature alone is a Red Herring

Keeping the ions stable in an orbit at these very high densities is drastically difficult and why most other approaches fail. Their achievement is a world record for a reason relative to stellarators - one should also recall that Tokamaks are lucky to run a few seconds at best. While they have a ways to go, they are certainly going in the right direction and if they do achieve their goals (run a plasma at density and temp of the best tokamak for 30 minutes then they will be very close to what is required for a true reactor.)

If, and experiments to date indicate they are on the right path, do achieve this goal, then they will have the most impressive machine in the world - not proof but certainly the required step to demonstrate that a reactor is possible. While only in time we will see, so far to date, they are achieving results that exceed their predictions and are setting records. Not bad for their second run campaign for a machine that was built on budget.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Richard, all things related to controlled fusion is a bit of a calculated crap-shoot. Theory can take one only so far; then the experiment has to be built and tested.

Only in the last twenty years has physics advanced enough thanks to all the experiments (and associated failures) to finally get to the point where scientific 'break-even' is something one can approximately claim. Controlled real energy based fusion is still not within realistic feasibility - and in that, you are correct.

It is likely that ITER will produce significant energy but frankly, that is at least twenty years away (by their estimates) and that design , even if it works, is a terrible power plant design. Basically, an expensive physics experiment that even if successful, is a dead end.

Now the stellarator concept has been revived but not because it is a sure thing but unlike a tokamak, it can run continuously, and in theory, is innately stable to all first order plasma instabilities that plagued tokamaks. While no one could build a stellarator twenty years ago that would have any chance to even be called a real fusion test device, this isn't the case anymore.

This current device is the best hope to change the calculus of fusion research. This is due to this design being an ideal configuration for a power plant - continuous operation, the design is modular (making up keep easier), fuel addition isn't an issue nor execrating plasma.

Will it achieve their desired goals? Well, the W-7X is working better than expected (to date; that might change with more challenging experiments) and came in on budget. Those are encouraging signs unlike most past experiments by every other major project to date.

Still, even if they achieve power plant temperatures, heating rates, and densities for a full 30 minutes, it still isn't a fusion dervice at all. Adding neutrons to any device opens a monstrous set of problems that will bedevil future engineers.

But this device offers many promising avenues and is progressing unlike all other major devices - either ITER, or NIF; both of which are the big guys and total failures so far. I do believe the W-7X will achieve their goals and when (or if, as most people would feel) they get to that point. When they do in 5 - 8 years, then a real fusion device would be its logical progression (a factor of five bigger in size to achieve power plant energies; which translates to at least an order of magnitude increase in cost, at the very least - assuming the Germans build it; otherwise, as we have learned of late, then all bets are off if anyone else tries - looking at the US with both NIF (missed break even fusion by five orders of magnitude!) and Princeton (failed magnets for their newest tokamak, and their stellarator attempt ran so far over budget, it was abandoned at 80% construction point; that sounds a lot like all current fission power plants built of late here in the US, as well.)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Richard Hull »

Regardless, Fossil fuels will be the major suppliers of all electricity for a very long time to come. Fission will trail at a distant second. Renewables will never, ever, make honorable mention on a global scale. Current fossil fuel plants, actually planned or under construction world wide, number in the thousands! Mostly in China, India, South America, Africa and Japan. 1600 coal fired plants alone are either planned or under construction in 62 countries right now! Remember, this is just all coal burning. Most all of these countries are part of the Paris Accord! We just dropped out of the Accord and boo'ed world wide for it. Australia who is making a great show of it has only a national total of 24 coal fired plants and is not doing new fission construction. For all of that Australia have been making big news of late with rolling blackouts of the big cities being rationed electricity. Great work "down under" for doing your bit. 83% of the US energy is powered by fossil and nuclear. Hydro 7.4%, 6.3% by all forms of wind. Solar contributes 1.3% while almost equaled by the renewable of 1% wood fired electrical plants in the U.S! Solar power slightly edges out wood burning electrical plants!

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Notice how 3% of the renewables involve setting stuff on fire! (burning it just like coal).

As CO2 plays almost no role in any global warming scenario we need to worry much more about global cloud cover increasing as water vapor is the number one absorber of solar heat in the atmosphere.

Fusion just will not be here. Fission is not being constructed to any usable degree. Old fission plants are aging out and being shut down. All nuclear energy may soon be a lost effort with coal, natural gas and wood burning, (which in the energy world is considered carbon neutral and a renewable), will take over as they have for hundreds of 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
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Stellarators are just the result of scientists getting their knickers in a knot :)

I'm with Richard on this one (for a change).

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Richard, certainly fusion is not available even if all went perfectly for the W-7X or ITER over the next twenty to thirty years. And fusion is not the answer for AGW by any means unless a real proto-type plant is ever built. As for solar, it and wind, as well as the Candu fission reactors could do a great deal for non-CO2 energy generation in a safe and cost effective manner. But facts are facts and natural gas, as well as coal are, and will be our major source of energy for some time due to their currently accepted costs.

I would prefer not to get into human induced climate change issues here - but scientific fact is that CO2 is the primary driver of the increase temperatures the world is seeing; yes, water vapor is our dominate atmospheric gas that keeps the planet warm and far exceeds CO2 in quantity; however, water vapor maintains a relatively stable atm percentage and is not causing the increases the world has experienced the last hundred years. Yes, increased cloud cover can and will occur as CO2 increases cause these world wide temperature increases; that is, warmer air has room for more water vapor and evaporation rates are increased by these increased temperatures, as well.

Absolute facts are facts: World wide average temperatures are rising at an increasing rate. Only one gas has steadily increased in the atm during the time frame (the last few hundred years) the Earth has seen the increasing average temperatures, and that is driven by man-made gases: CO2 being the major one, and methane and nitrous compounds being further but far smaller drivers. Water vapor isn't the cause of the current warming rates the world has been seeing the last few hundred years.

Aside: the term "Green house gas"; that concept was disproved for real Green Houses: that is, being warmed by trapping long wavelength radiation - around 1914. I have pointed this out to the community and it is slowly being accepted so that term is falling into dis-use. While CO2 does trap long wavelength radiation, and keep the world warm (like water vapor) the process is very minor on a small scale like a green house and requires planetary scales to be seen.
Ameen Aydan
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:33 pm
Real name: Ameen Aydan

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Ameen Aydan »

It's very nice to see the Wendelstein 7-X break records! When I first heard of it I thought it would be another one of those hoax machines but I must say, they're doing very well compared to other multi-billion dollar rearch facilities.

Now, I would just like to ask a question. What do you think would be the easier path in changing the CO2 crises in America and the world? It's very hard to think about which energy source would better fit in being a zero emission source. Nuclear energy is a very promising energy source with only two big problems:

1. Most of the reactors we see today are based off 1950's designs and science. From my understanding, the majority of nuclear power plants that we see today are not even computerized. Half of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors are over 30 years old, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Most of the remaining reactors are at least 20 years old.

2. The US, the biggest consumer and influence of nuclear energy, has refused on multiple occasions to change it's views on better alternatives to Uranium. I'm mostly hinting at Thorium. Obviously this is to maintain its supply of nuclear arsenals and ensure it remains that way. I'm not trying to blame the US in any way, as Russia is doing very similarly. But as I see it right now, even India and China are doing better in the promotion of this method.

All the other problems associated with nuclear energy are pretty much solved. We now know how to properly store spent fuel for drastically longer times then its half life and know how to easily prevent meltdowns and other issues. The problem I see now is just adding on to this list. We know how to fix these issues, but do we have the infrastructure or the proper backing? These two issues require months if not years of painstaking pencil and eraser minds as well as major reforms to the public view of nuclear energy. If these two problems are solved, then my friend, we have reached the ultimate haven for the energy crisis.

All these issues with only one suggested solution, which I will mention soon. What i'm thinking now is, if we have to solve all these issues, would it all really be worth the time and effort? We already have renewable's at our finger tips and ready to be used. All the current technology and trouble shooting has made these a very good, and decently priced energy source. So, if we have the infrastructure for clean and efficient renewable's, why should we spend even more time fixing the mentioned issues with nuclear power? THAT is my main question! I cannot think of an answer. The closest I get is because greedy oil companies will have no benefit with renewable's. But other mining companies will make big cash selling the huge deposits of Uranium and Thorium ore, paving an easier path towards using nuclear power. But as far as it goes, is that really accurate?

On a slightly different note, the solution to the issue of nuclear is simply two words. Public awareness. The public's notion on nuclear energy is very simple to think of. When we even hear nuclear we associate it with the cold war, nuclear bombs, nuclear meltdown and God forbid nuclear war. The simple solution is to change that view into one that favours nuclear energy. Like that, support and funding will shoot up and we will see a better and greener future. How to do this however, I have not a clue. This presents yet another barrier in the path towards the success of nuclear energy.

In this whole entire thing I included only two sources, the nuclear regulatory commission, and my not so reliable brain. There will be places in this post that will NOT be accurate at all. Please point these out as to ensure this is as accurate as possible. Thank you.

Ameen Aydan
Last edited by Ameen Aydan on Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Futter
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
Real name: John Futter
Contact:

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by John Futter »

Ameen
obviously you read this
http://english.hf.cas.cn/new/news/rn/20 ... 01186.html
before making your last statement


if not I would do a minor web search first (like I did) so as to not embarras myself


I SEE ameen HAS EDITED OUT HIS PROVOCATIVE ANTI CHINA PART OF HIS LAST POST
This leaves this reply hanging which has happened before on FUSOR.net and editing priviledges for normal users were withdrawn for quite some time

Richard feel free to erase this next week after most regulars will have seen it
Last edited by John Futter on Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

First, I see you have read up on many issues relating to these topics. I will address some of your statements and questions. It is good you have such interests and do try to understand some of the topics related to this very complex and frankly, very technical topic (when one trys to get into the facts of why a given system is used over another available system.)

The Candu reactor is the most likely fission reactor design that can be built in a cost effective manner while offering maximum safety. Unfortunately, it is useless as a submarine reactor. So, the US nuclear industry will not build such a reactor (i.e. natural uranium and heavy water.) Their main customer (the Navy) just will not buy that design nor pay to research/develop such a design. It is the Navy with its subs and surface fleet that drives nuclear power here in the US. The weapon community has little impact out side of wanting a reliable tritium source.

There are good reasons that new US reactors have become too expensive to build - using enriched fuel has, and still does opens a Pandora's box of problems. These are not easy to address so that the reactor is low cost to build or operate.

Thorium reactors were looked at in the 60's and reexamined by others a few times over the last fifty years. They are not the answer because they cost more than uranium systems and produce less energy. Also, thorium requires uranium to operate. So, besides a large complex industry to create thorium, extract the old fuel elements to get the "activated" thorium, then deal with its wastes, along with a still required uranium industrial base, all one gets is a lower energy fuel (compared to uranium.) That just isn't cost effective. Until uranium isn't available (and the world has a lot - ignoring the oceans and that can be extracted within a factor of eight compared to the cost from most available ores), thorium isn't going to be used for fission plants.

I will discus a few issues to why reactors are so expensive and to address the issue of why human operators can not be easily replaced.

Due to the vast complexity of maintaining steady and safe power levels in any enriched fuel reactor, writing the vast array of code, debugging it, and then certify it so as to "computerize" a reactor is not considered feasible - the length of code is too vast for any group of humans to reliably do. So, to my knowledge only one such reactor has ever been "computerized". No surprise, it was a Candu reactor. Hence human required operator costs are an issue for fission reactors (ignoring the large requirement of security people and complex security systems: these add to the cost that coal or natural gas plants don't require to such levels.) Also, waste fuel can be weaponized - that doesn't occur for other power systems. That creates even more issues that most people overlook in saying we should build more reactors. Finally, facts are facts: stuff happens and when a fission reactor does go, (or its temp storage waste fuel pool) things can get very, very ugly (remember Japan recently - those open reactors are still burning and creating a very bad nuclear contamination issue; no one has yet figured out what to do.) People do notice these issues and engineers must, if responsible, build to handle such events.

Storing waste safely for many hundreds of thousands of years isn't really well known. But I consider this a red herring (once we develop even just an ITER level reactor, waste fuel could be made safe using the neutron flux.)

If you think all problems with fission based nuclear power are solved, you need to get into that field and tell them. Making inexpensive, reliable and truly safe fission based reactors is far from "well understood."

As for why renewable sources are not even more common, that is a topic far beyond these pages or forum. Suffice it to say that this is a fairly cost effective technology that is mature, and works well for what it does. Wind can compete with coal where there is sufficient wind! But generally, renewables - especially solar - simply cannot provide power in any way or manner at power levels that coal or natural gas can (giga-watts in small plants) in places we desire/require massive sources of power. This ignores aircraft - there is not any good substitute for kerosene - no, hydrogen isn't.

The simple answer is most certainly not public awareness of the technology issues alone; please. Global warming caused by humans is a scientific fact and large numbers of educated people refuse to believe this easy to understand issue. Saying awareness of the complex and very high level issues related to trade offs and special requirements as well as safety and costs associated with new power sources/technological advancements is far beyond the average person who is more concerned about maintaining their life style in this very rapidly changing economic environment. But I digress. We are all cost sensitive and cheap energy is what drives all our lifestyles and provides the living standards we expect. That factor has to always be added to the calculus (which I really haven't.)

I wish to apologize to both Richard and forum readers for bring up these topics that have little to do with the forum but I feel answering questions with as accurate information as I can (within limits of space) is part of this forum requirements, even when off topic.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Richard Hull »

Energy discussions are fine as long as they don't get political. Energy is a major issue and fusion is at a forefront of promised solutions, yet to be delivered. None of us want increased energy prices, but they will surely come.

John, thanks for the update. I did not see the erased part of the text. I will try and remember to erase your posting in about a week. If I forget, poke at me with a private e-mail.

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
Ameen Aydan
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:33 pm
Real name: Ameen Aydan

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Ameen Aydan »

I sincerely apologize about this. I thought it would be better off erasing it since I thought it wasn't accurate after reading the provided text briefly. I just didn't want any inaccurate information to spoil my post. I really am sorry. I also didn't know that we aren't allowed to edit our posts. I don't think deleting it would be a good idea because a lot of people will be left hanging with this discussion scratching their heads wondering if a part went missing. But for the record I did edit the Chinese part because I didn't want the information to be inaccurate.

Sincerely,
Ameen Aydan
John Futter
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
Real name: John Futter
Contact:

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by John Futter »

Ameen
no problem you now understand

I for one like the ability to edit --this was taken away from all of us for quite a while because of miss use
that left a whole lot of threads hanging not making sense because the original poster deleted making all following comments nonsense
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Ameen - your post was find and had a lot of good information and wasn't off topic. I merely wanted to point out details and correct a few really minor points. If any one should apologize it is me to you. I did not intend to imply your post was anything but relevant and it was on point. It was I getting wordy on this topic that merited an apology.

So do post your comments and please don't worry about making some mistakes or errors. Many do - certainly I've made a few really good ones (LOL) and people here can attest to that. It is about learning and sharing here. Thanks for adding your post relative to this thread!
Ameen Aydan
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:33 pm
Real name: Ameen Aydan

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Ameen Aydan »

Hello again,

As a follow up to the previous thread, I wanted to ask a simple question. How can we bring nuclear energy back? I thought that it could be done by teaching others through persuasive education to the public. An example is telling them the benefits and why nuclear is such a great solution. Dennis, however, knows that is a total lie and mentioned why it is.

So if this is not a good idea... What is. For a long time now I have seen people on these forums go on about how nuclear energy is the holy grail that had been sitting in front of our eyes. All of them speak about great ideas and technologies, but never act on it. We all already know that there is proper infrastructure and the proper minds to tackle this problem, but how are we really going to present the idea?

To elaborate on this: I remember seeing Taylor Wilson on YouTube bloating about his accomplishments. As of now he is on a Thiel fellowship trying to advocate for his invention of the underground reactor thingy. I don't know much about it. But if this "discovery" of his is so important than why is it that I haven't heard about him until I was interested in building a reactor?!?!?! Wilson has the proper elements and basis to begin his designs, but no result as of yet. The issue I see is he can't find the proper attention because we here have spent years sitting and rotting away watching as the name of nuclear is overcome by of dogma of fear of an impending nuclear war. Just look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI

So out of all this writing and thinking I can't think of a solution to properly advocate for nuclear energy. It seems for now it is only the educated who understand this issue, and even then, some don't want to accept it. The population of Karen mothers who unvaccinate their children is also a lost cause. I think we need to focus on the majority of the population who aren't so smart. I'm really not trying to be arrogant or say that everyone except us is dumb. I'm trying to say that right now we have a huge population of people who have minds that quickly associate nuclear bombs and wars with the word nuclear. It's not they are "dumb" per say, but just unable to understand and perceive this issue for what it really is. But then again, according to those who disagree, this is just an opinion, not a full blown science and fact backed issue that is prevalent among us.

So my question still remains... In the simplest words and with the most logical explanation... How can we bring nuclear energy back?

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

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Richard Hull »

Uranium fission will be around for a long, long time yet, period. Fusion if ever, will also be a long, long time away. As I have said many times. No child born today will ever live so long as to see one watt of salable fusion energy come out of their wall socket outlet. Renewables are a grand joke we play on ourselves, just like the bugga boo about "look out for the CO2 monster...He's comin' to get us all".

All we can do is short term stuff because people live in the here and now. Fission, coal, gas and hydro are the here and now at the terawatt level. All the people really care about is power to keep the electricity flowing into tomorrow...like 24 hours from now. They only want bread and circus and all governments know they better keep both coming or it will be bad.

High minded ideals and fears for the future sound great and get a lot of press, sympathy and a bit of activism. Yet, the common Joe could really care less about the future beyond his immediate tomorrow, regardless of what nice things about the distant future that comes out of his or her mouth.

What will be, will be, regardless of the plans of mice and men.

I like thorium but the word "breeder" strikes as much fear into the moderately informed public as the word Chernobyl. Extant fission is accepted as a less than happy given. Fusion is a joke, of course and a wonderful make busy project and employer of the best of the anointed in the field, working on our behalf, naturally.

Man has always loved fear. We absolutely must fear something. What's more, the general feeling is that all must share in the same fear as no man really wants to be alone with his fears and it is natural to seek to gain adherents to fear along with you. Common, universally shared fear, it seems, is always with us. It is part of us and we dare not set it aside. In short, fear helps drive us like cattle and just like cattle we really just go along with the herd to "wherever".

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
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by JoeBallantyne »

Wind and solar are currently VERY cost competitive with fossil based power plants. Which means that as long as that calculus does not change, the day will inevitably come when the vast majority of electricity generated on this planet will be from renewable sources. The way capitalism works, guarantees that. (Maximized profits.)

Now will it take a long time? Yes. But I for one would not at all be surprised if the USA is at >50% renewables for the electical grid (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear) in 20 years or less. Probably less.

Wind is huge, and growing fast, and very very cheap. The nice thing about renewables is that once the installation is built, there are no ongoing fuel costs, unlike fossil fuel plants. (Ok, there is for nuclear, but not for hydro, wind or solar.)

So, I think Richard, that on this one your statement that renewables are a grand joke we play on ourselves, is simply wrong.

Yes, getting renewables to 80-100% of grid energy production will take time, but it WILL happen.
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Politics and energy production go hand-in-hand, of course - our very way of life exists solely due to available energy so politics are deeply ingrained as are economics relative to energy - how not? That is an economic science issue so not relevant to the Fusor Forum. I will add that this aspect of "political" isn't related to political parties so not exactly a political issue in the classical usage of the word.

That all said, fission (uranium based) power failed for purely economic issues and thorium has been ignored for many reasons besides cost (not to say it can't be useful but it does have serious problems that make it far from a slam-dunk.) Why the cost of fission power became cost prohibitive I covered and it it is pointless to continue that issue - it is what it is and education of the public has essentially zero bearing on that matter. Plants aren't costly (currently running over $10 billion and climbing for the latest US plant still under construction) because the public is ignorant of the facts nor because they have many false ideas. So public out reach and education isn't the issue there at all.

Solar has its uses and while nowhere near as cost effective as compared to carbon based fuels (ignoring the role of carbon waste causing global environmental changes like AGW - a cost that isn't generally included in the cost equation) it has serious storage issues as well as location issues. Wind, while far closer to economical compared to carbon based sources has the same storage issues and has issues related to the wind blowing - an effect that can be very variable. Again, the reason wind isn't viable for replacing carbon based fuels in most locations (but certainly not all as one see's in places.)

I tend to believe fusion can occur in our children's lifetime but that is still an opinion; current research is definitely pointing in the direction that success is possible but until the latest class of projects (excluding ITER - that is doomed) are completed, Richard's point is more correct than not. However, whether fusion will produce cost effective power if (or when) it is achieved, isn't so easy to say since it will require massive plants even in the best case with major engineering problems to overcome (i.e. very expensive.) I do, however, believe that in the best case scenario fusion ignition with net power can be achieved in about twenty years. Now when all carbon costs are included, at that time fusion could be superior in cost to carbon fuels but that isn't easy to believe.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Richard Hull »

Dennis has covered very well many of the issues of successful fusion. Will it be any cheaper than working fission per watt hour? All of the big costs are in up front construction when you talk nuclear be it fission or fusion. We are told there will be no neutrons. Well if anyone here believes no neutrons will be created in a thermo-nuclear, multigigawatt reaction in a closed vessel run 24-7-365, they just do not know nuclear at all. From my view point. fusion has only two advantages if working perfectly.
1. it can be immediately shut down....Can't blow up
2. it has a virtually limitless, safe fuel source provided tritium is not used or bred. (current fusion hopes are totally based on the D-T reaction)

I think 50% renewables of the total grid needs within 20 years matches fusion's "real soon now" claim. The real issue is dead-time, zero energy production energy storage and costs to maintain that at 50% total grid. Go on you tube and watch the wind energy machines go high order. Solar cells still degrade over time if in a high sun energy value area run near their maximum current ratings. Both wind and solar absolutely demand superior, reliable storage to be grid ready 24-7-365. No wind = no power...too much wind at high speed or horribly gusting = no power.

Whenever and wherever you make megawatts or gigawatts of energy in a confined space, high order fails are always major fails with significant down times.

Richard
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
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: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Rich Feldman »

... fusion has only two advantages if working perfectly.
1. it can be immediately shut down....Can't blow up ...
To clarify that point:

Nuclear fission reactors maintain a chain reaction at the edge of criticality, 24/7/365, but they have not been known to blow up.
Chain reaction can be terminated immediately (a "SCRAM") with high reliability in an emergency.
How high is high reliability? Insurance providers are used to figuring probable losses. Cost of a disaster times probability of that disaster.
For nuclear power plant hazards, runaway chain reaction leading to "atomic explosion" ranks low in terms of probable loss.

So why did cores melt at Three Mile Island and at Fukushima?

In a freshly fueled reactor, heat generation stops when the chain reaction stops.
But as the fuel is used up, incredibly radioactive fission products accumulate in the core.
They can build up to a level where at normal power, 90% of the heating is from fission and 10% is from radioactive decay.

You can't shut down the decay power. Readers schooled in nuclear engineering could tell us how much heat continues to be produced one minute, one hour, or one day after the fission chain reaction is stopped. Actual disasters have confirmed what designers knew from the outset:
if you can't cool a conventional core, decay heat can accumulate until parts are hot enough to sag or to melt.

It's my understanding that cores and reactor vessels are designed with that risk in mind.
As long as Earth gravity doesn't fail, a sagging or melting core will not go critical again because of changing geometry.
All models are wrong; some models are useful. -- George Box
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Richard Hull »

The fission plant explosions are all hydrogen explosions or steam explosions and not fission explosions. Most all accidents thus far have either run a high probability of hydrogen explosion or have actually had a hydrogen explosion, thus, blown up in actuality.

I feel or rather felt that every one knew that.

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
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

American level enriched fission reactors can't create a nuclear explosion as pointed out. Yes, as Richard said, hydrogen gas has been the issue in any such explosions - in a runaway situation the hot fuel breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. A mixture not friendly to ignition sources - and also under a lot of pressure making it more unstable still.

That all said, breeders can support a nuclear explosion due to the plutonium fuel elements (in rods) used for the breeding process. Hence, melting (for any reason) can lead to a real danger of a nuclear explosion. Hence, these are not reactors to be taken lightly. That said, any nuclear run away and fuel melt down in a breeder will not in any manner, shape or form be like any atomic bomb explosion - it does not have even remotely that level of weapons grade fuel density.The building will be breached in a big way and the reactor core turned into a large pile of shrapnel thrown many hundreds of meters and certainly a large vapor cloud of very fun radioactive waste burning away until stopped by desperate means (air drop comes to mind.) Not a situation anyone would want to be downwind for a very long way and a few thousand years there after.

As for thorium breeders, a bit different fuel system (enriched uranium rods are added) but I have no real knowledge if they offer similar issues. I do not believe they do.

There is one reactor that is essentially fool proof in a safety sense (of course, we know what that implies ...lol) and that is the Candu reactor. It uses heavy water so is costly in that respect. It can't really melt down so that failure path isn't a concern (unless one pumps out the water) and since it uses un-enriched uranium has a far cheaper fuel that again, is safer to install and posses no weapons risk to make or install (at first; in time it produces a lot of plutonium (more slowly than a US plant) so that becomes an issue with time.) It is less efficient than any American plant and produces as much waste (per kilowatt generated) as any plant.

So, while a lot cheaper to build and requiring fewer operating personnel, the heavy water cost is not cheap so the net cost to build was similar in the late 60's as American plants then. I guess compared to modern plants, it would be a lot cheaper to build due to not needing new fancy design safety systems nor suffer massive design changes during construction like current American plants (why? That drives me crazy to understand and I gave up trying) but that is complete speculation on a Candu current cost, and hardly science.

Finally, even best case fusion (and that assumes all goes well for the stellarator), twenty years to get a net power, ignition reactor (used ONLY as a test bed) would really require everything to flow perfectly. As for a power plant level, that is far, far more difficult and in that, Richard isn't too far off at all. So, while I'll say that a test bed fusion reactor will occur within our children's lifetime, that time frame isn't anywhere as likely for a real power plant - certainly not unless a major need is found. The engineering issues for a commercial fusion power plant are massive - i.e. the extreme neutron and gamma ray production of a deuterium/tritium fuel burn in a plasma makes a fission reactor environment look somewhat tame. I'll add that super conducting magnets have little long term tolerance to any significant neutron flux and do remember that magnet field strength is a one over "R" squared issue so thick absorbents aren't easy to deal with in that design situation. Also, first walls won't last very long, either and become fiercely radioactive, as well. Gotta love those neutron effects.
Ameen Aydan
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:33 pm
Real name: Ameen Aydan

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Ameen Aydan »

I had the opportunity to see one of the Canadian made CANDU reactors a long time ago here in Ontario. Now looking on the internet, I can find that this design is in fact a very desirable one. The only problem with this reactor is as you mentioned, the cost. They sold a couple reactors at first and later got f*cked over because of the prices. No one bought the design and the company failed to keep the design in the market, eventually forcing them to cancel the design and move to a different one. The ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor) was another design they tried to sell. No buyer, the company cancels.

In all of these situations the cost always forced very good designs to be retired. Now here's a slice of my cake.

I think that though the over whelming costs is not a good factor to consider in this reactor it will always become cheaper. It is the most basic knowledge of a business. People will always find ways to make things cheaper and more accessible to sell better. A good example is Tesla's batteries. They used to be relatively expensive to manufacture which is why lots of people turned away from it in the beginning. But now with ever increasing efficiency in production, they managed t bring the price, A LOT. I don't have any number but it's easy to find.

So where does this connect? Well, this always turns out to be the outcome in this certain aspect of capitalism. If the heavy water was really that expensive and people really want the CANDU reactor, then people would find ways to make better production methods. Ones that are cheaper and easier. Or, the production method in hand is enhanced to satisfy this equation.

People can always find a way to do what they really want. But the only barrier here is if they WILL do it. That, that is the problem we have.

Ameen Aydan
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Check out how heavy water is made. Thermodynamics is cruel but CANNOT be overcome by any means - if someone finds a way, besides a Noble they'll do away with quantum mechanics, all known chemistry and create a universe based on magic - lol.

More to the point, there is no cost effective way to create heavy water but frankly, that is the only real issue with Candu reactors. Unlike most reactors, they are innately safe so can be built close to where they are needed (assuming sufficient water cooling is available) and don't require expensive fuel. While this ignores waste processing and storage - those two problems certainly DO lend themselves to mass production cost reductions - these are great advantages compared to other nuclear reactor designs.

That said, efficiency is an issue as is the requirement for natural uranium. But those can be dealt with - in the case of fuel, the ocean has more than enough and is cost effective to extract (currently, a factor of eight more expensive than ore but that would come down by economics of scale. Also, enrichment is a very expensive process. Don'y have the figures but I bet sea water derived uranium for a Candu would cost less compared to land based ore that is enriched and used in normal reactors.)

As for efficiency, one accepts what it has but compares the cost to carbon and its real social cost relative to AGW. Since fission is our only low carbon power source that provides giga-watts of power in most places where it is needed - neither solar nor wind can make that claim - and the Candu uses uranium safely, this is our best hope for a low carbon future over the next thirty years. These can be built now.
Peter Schmelcher
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:56 am
Real name: Peter Schmelcher

Re: Wendelstein 7-X has successfully finished its second major experimental run

Post by Peter Schmelcher »

Hydrogen isotopes can now be separated from regular hydrogen using a membrane. I can’t remember the original research article read sometime in the last two years but it was a notable American university. I was amazed that a Nano technology membrane could exploit the very subtle atomic differences.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-deuterium ... ework.html
Another research article I read in the last two years was a new material for reactors that improves with neutron exposure, again it was a notable American university (unfortunately I don’t remember the title so I can’t find any equivalent link).
-Peter
Post Reply

Return to “Fusion --- Past, Present, and Future”