Finally, Fusion Power Is About to Become a Reality

A very optimistic story from Medium.

It’s long so I’m posting only a small excerpt.~ctm

 

Long considered a joke, or a pipe dream, fusion is suddenly making enormous leaps

Go to the profile of Brian Bergstein

Brian Bergstein

Jan 3

The idea first lit up Dennis Whyte when he was in high school, in the remote reaches of Saskatchewan, Canada, in the 1980s. He wrote a term paper on how scientists were trying to harness fusion (the physical effect that fuels the stars) in wondrously efficient power plants on Earth. This is the ultimate clean-energy dream. It would provide massive amounts of clean electricity, with no greenhouse gases or air pollution. It would do it on a constant basis, unlike solar and wind. Whatever waste it created would be easily manageable, unlike today’s nuclear power plants. And fuel would be limitless. One of the main ingredients needed for fusion is abundant in water. Just one little gram of hydrogen fuel for a fusion reactor would provide as much power as 10 tons of coal.

Whyte got an A on that paper, but his physics teacher also wrote: “It’s too complicated.” That comment, Whyte says with a hearty laugh, “was sort of a harbinger of things to come.”

Indeed, over the next few decades, as Whyte mastered the finicky physics that fusion power would require and became a professor at MIT, the concept seemingly got no closer to becoming reality. It’s not that the science was shaky: It’s that reliably bottling up miniature stars, inside complex machines on Earth, demands otherworldly amounts of patience, not to mention billions and billions of dollars. Researchers, like Whyte, knew all too well the sardonic joke about their work: fusion is the energy source of the future, and it always will be.

That line took on an especially bitter edge one day in 2012, when the U.S. Department of Energy announced it would eliminate funding for MIT’s experimental fusion reactor. Whyte was angry about the suddenness of the news. “It was absolutely absurd — you can put that in your article — fucking absurd that happened with a program that was acknowledged to be excellent.” But above all, he was dismayed. Global warming was bearing down year after year, yet this idea that could save civilization was losing what little momentum it had.

Wendelstein 7-X fusion reactor in Germany, 2017. Photo: Picture Alliance/Getty

So Whyte thought about giving up. He looked for other things to focus on, “stuff that wasn’t as exciting, quite frankly,” but stuff that would be achievable. “Everyone understands delays in projects, and science hurdles you’ve got to overcome, but I saw fusion energy being used for something accelerating away from us,” he says. “You start getting pretty dejected when you realize, in your professional career, you’re never going to see this happen.”

As it turned out, Whyte never really walked away. Instead, he and his colleagues and graduate students at MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center figured out a new angle. And last winter, MIT declared that Whyte’s lab had a fundamentally new approach to fusion and threw its weight behind their plan with an unusually public bet, spinning out a company to capitalize on it. An Italian oil company and private investors — including a firm funded by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos — put at least $75 million into the company, known as Commonwealth Fusion Systems [CFS]. The startup intends to demonstrate the workings of fusion power by 2025.

The recent progress is remarkable, says the founder of one startup developing fusion power. “The world has been waiting for fusion for a long time.”

Real, live, economically viable power plants could then follow in the 2030s. No joke. When I ask Whyte, who is 54, to compare his level of optimism now to any other point in his career, he says, simply: “It is at the maximum.”

But it’s not just MIT. At least 10 other startups also are trying new approaches to fusion power. All of them contend that it’s no longer a tantalizingly tricky science experiment, and is becoming a matter of engineering. If even just one of these ventures can pull it off, the energy source of the future is closer than it seems.

“It’s remarkable,” says David Kingham, executive vice chairman of Tokamak Energy, a British company whose goal is to put fusion power on the grid by 2030. “The world has been waiting for fusion for a long time.”


Imagine that I told you I was developing a special machine. If I put power into it, I could get 10 times as much out. Because of the undeniable laws of physics, I could show you on paper exactly why it should be a cost-effective source of vast amounts of electricity.

Oh, here’s the catch: My paper sketch would come true — especially the part about it being cost-effective — but only if I built the machine just right. Which might require materials that haven’t been invented yet. Until I perfected that design, my machine would use up more power than it produced. And I couldn’t get close to perfecting the design without spending years and years building expensive test machines that would reveal problems that I would try to address in subsequent versions.

If it seems crazy, well, that’s the story of fusion power.

Fusion definitely works. You see it every day. Our sun and other stars blast hydrogen atoms together with such intense force that their nuclei overcome their normal inclination to repel each other. Instead they fuse, sparking a reaction that transforms the hydrogen into helium and releases cosmic amounts of energy in the process.

We also have great paper sketches for fusion power machines. Fusion happens inside stars because of the crushing pressure created by their gravity. To generate that effect inside a fusion reactor, ionized gas — which is called plasma — must be heated and compressed by man-made forces, such as an ultra-powerful magnetic field. But whatever the method, there’s just one main goal. If you get enough plasma to stay hot enough for long enough, then you can trigger so much fusion inside it that a huge multiplier effect is unlocked. At that point, the energy that is released helps keep the plasma hot, extending the reaction. And there still is plenty of energy left over to turn into electricity.

The problem is that we’re still plugging away on predecessors to the machines that could generate that effect. Ever since the 1950s, scientists have used spherical or doughnut-shaped machines called tokamaks, including the one at MIT that lost funding a few years ago, to create fusion reactions in plasmas bottled up by magnetic fields. But no one has done it long enough — while also getting it hot enough and dense enough — to really tip the balance and get it going. Heating the plasma and squeezing it in place still takes more energy than you can harvest from it.

So, that’s the name of the game in fusion: to get past that point. ITER, a mega-billion-dollar reactor being built in France by an international consortium, is designed to do it and finally prove the concept. But ITER — which is also way behind schedule and over budget — overcomes the limitations of previous tokamaks by being enormous. It’s the size of 60 soccer fields, which probably isn’t an economical setup for power plants that the world will need by the tens of thousands.

ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) under construction. Photo: Christophe Simon/Getty

Read the full story here.

HT/Roger Knight

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

212 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 10, 2019 8:52 am

The pursuit of fusion is laudable, but the guy’s virtue-signalling to “climate change” is idiotic. I hope he doesn’t actually believe that — that it’s just a simple ploy for funding.

Adrian Ashfield
January 10, 2019 9:30 am

The first commercial operation of cold fusion started on Nov 19, with a single industrial E-Cat SK supplying 27 kW to heat a factory. You can see a live demo on Jan 31here. http://www.ecatskdemo.com/

As it is far cheaper than other sources of energy and clean,safe, with zero pollution, it should kill off the present renewable energy industry almost over night. I expect it to replace most fossil energy over the next couple of decades. The tiny reactor, about the size of your little finger is scheduled for mass production.

There is little point in describing the reactor until readers accept that it is real. Anthony maintains that it is bogus.

John Tillman
Reply to  Adrian Ashfield
January 10, 2019 11:34 am

If you were to describe it, then readers might be more inclined to accept its reality.

As of now, it’s not even a bad joke.

Gamecock
Reply to  Adrian Ashfield
January 10, 2019 12:07 pm

I’ve got one in my closet, next to the 100mpg carburetor.

John Tillman
Reply to  Gamecock
January 11, 2019 4:24 pm

Is your perpetual motion machine too big for the closet?

Gamecock
Reply to  John Tillman
January 13, 2019 9:11 am

Yes. I had to make it big to get it to work.

Perpetual motion doesn’t work on a small scale.

John Tillman
Reply to  Gamecock
January 14, 2019 2:26 pm

Good to know. That must be why mine doesn’t work.

Jim Whelan
January 10, 2019 9:45 am

“But no one has done it long enough — while also getting it hot enough and dense enough — to really tip the balance and get it going. Heating the plasma and squeezing it in place still takes more energy than you can harvest from it.”

Then problem is not “heating and squeezing” the plasma. That’s been successfully done for decades. The problem is that it’s unstable. As the article says, “no one has done it LONG enough.” I don’t see anything in the article that suggests they know how to address the instability.

tweak
January 10, 2019 9:54 am

‘If only we had more money…’

Same old song and dance.

Matthew R Marler
January 10, 2019 10:01 am

Hope springs eternal. I hope someone succeeds at this in my lifetime.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Matthew R Marler
January 10, 2019 5:22 pm

Matthew, a practical fusion reactor for producing electricity won’t be seen in ten of your lifetimes. Or ever, for that matter.

A hundred years from now, advanced fission reactors of various types will be producing an ever-growing fraction of the world’s energy.

I’m betting on the small modular reactors (SMR’s) to be the next generally-available major new advancement in nuclear power technology. NuScale will be the first SMR out the door with an NRC license and a full-scale 12-unit plant. Others will follow.

Even three hundred years from now, the fissionable source material is likely to be plain old uranium and plutonium, rather than thorium. (Take that, all you thorium groupies!)

For those like me who have a strong belief in the long-term value of fission as a practical energy resource, it can be said unequivocally that nuclear power gets glowing reviews.

John the Econ
January 10, 2019 3:06 pm

Even if proven to be conceivable, the green establishment will unilaterally reject the notion because any success would completely destroy what has always been the real agenda; the elimination of free markets and socialism/communism/fascism.

Bill Illis
January 10, 2019 3:19 pm

Joel O’Bryan is completely right here.

The fusion experiments with tritium and deuterium produces so many high energy neutrons that there is simply no way to contain it or make it safe for people.

In a way, it reminds of the climate debate. Fake science designed to support scientist’s income.

Fusion produces many times more radioactivity that fission does. Now if we could go back to the straight-up deuterium hydrogen fusion that doesn’t produce the extra neutron then we would have a power source. But it is much much harder to make deuterium fusion and then the energy produced is so much lower given you are not counting a high energy neutron flying away at the speed of light.

You cannot be near a fusion reactor made from tritium and deuterium. You would simply be disintegrated within several seconds as would all the blocking material you try to put in the way.

Jake J
January 10, 2019 5:44 pm

Interesting about “neutron embitterment.” 16 years ago, I treated myself & the other half to a top-class crossing on the QE2. True to myth, I ran into interesting folks on that trip, including a nuclear reactor engineer. I told him that I don’t know nothin’ about birthin’ babies or about nuclear reactors, but could he tell me if fusion power will ever happen? I first saw material about it when I was in college in the 1970s, so has there been any progress in the intervening 30 years?

No, he replied. We know how to fuse atoms — witness the hydrogen bomb — but we cannot contain the reaction. That is and will always be the show-stopper, he said. Then he explained how thick the steel and concrete containment walls would need to be; how short-lived the structures would be; and how nasty the waste would be when it came time to bury the parts.

Aha, I said. Thanks for burying that one. It would seem that it remains buried. We have great paper sketches for fusion power machines, the article said. Now there’s a priceless one-liner.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Jake J
January 11, 2019 10:37 am

Jake: That’s like asking a professional climate scientist if AGW is real. That argument is true of the enormous government sponsored programs like ITER, but there are several small organizations working on reactions that are not Deuterium-Tritium. I know of at least three that are working on reactors that use Boron-proton physics that do not release high energy neutrons.

John Tillman
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
January 12, 2019 8:06 am

Problems with boron fusion, from Feb 2018. Perhaps not insuperable:

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5007923

Afterthought
January 10, 2019 7:46 pm

We have fusion power already: gigantic caverns in which bombs are are detonated; because of politics – or perhaps better said because of emotions, we do not tap this amazing potential and instead try to miniaturize this beyond what physics can sustain so that it better fits the image of the commercial power plant.

Michael Keal
Reply to  Afterthought
January 11, 2019 1:32 am

“We have fusion power already: gigantic caverns…” It would be worth building one just to see the reaction! Imagine all those green heads exploding.

John Tillman
Reply to  Afterthought
January 12, 2019 8:29 am
Another Scott
January 10, 2019 9:41 pm

Can I get a fusion reactor for Christmas?
No – you’ll shoot your eye out, kid….

Johann Wundersamer
January 11, 2019 1:41 am

“Until I perfected that design, my machine would use up more power than it produced.” –

you depict real existing renewables – windelecs and PV.

Johann Wundersamer
January 11, 2019 1:55 am

” It’s the size of 60 soccer fields” and it should be erected in the Sahara or Antarctica because it’s a helluva machine and no one should stay near when it misconducts.

January 11, 2019 5:04 am

Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor. “If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive…” they said.

John Tillman
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 12, 2019 8:09 am

And the little, flying and swimming dinosaurs. Plus crocs.

Dylan
January 15, 2019 9:44 am

There is ample evidence that fusion occurs in stars, and that stars are in fact the source of heavy elements. However, I haven’t been convinced that fusion is the ‘power source’ of stars. Now that we are becoming aware of how much plasma there is out there, and how it travels insane distances while maintaining charge separation, another option presents itself. If stars are indeed strung like pearls along galactic-scale electric currents as some plasma physicists claim, the goal of self sustaining fusion will turn out to be as ridiculous as it appears.