From the “we are this close to nuclear fusion department, 7th decade edition” and MIT:
In series of talks, researchers describe major effort to address climate change through carbon-free power.
A year after announcing a major public-private collaboration to design a fusion reactor capable of producing more power than it consumes, researchers from MIT and the startup company Commonwealth Fusion Systems on Tuesday presented the MIT community with an update on their progress. In a series of talks, they detailed the effort’s continuing work to bring about practical fusion power — based on the reaction that provides the sun’s energy — on a faster timescale than any previous efforts.

At the event, titled “The MIT Fusion Landscape,” speakers explained why fusion power is urgently needed, and described the approach MIT and CFS are taking and how the project is taking shape. According to Dennis Whyte, head of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC), the new project’s aim is “to try to get to fusion energy a lot faster,” by creating a prototype fusion device with a net power output within the next 15 years. This timeframe is necessary to address “the greatest challenge we have now, which is climate change.”
“Humanity is standing on the edge of a precipice right now,” warned Kerry Emanuel, the Cecil and Ida Green Professor in Earth and Planetary Sciences, who studies the impacts climate change will have on the intensity and frequency of hurricanes and other storms. Because of the existential threat posed by climate change, it is crucial to develop every possible source of carbon-free energy, and fusion power has the potential to be a major part of the solution, he said.
Emanuel countered the claims by some skeptics who say that climate has always been changing, pointing out that human civilization has developed during the last several thousand years, which has been a period of exceptional climate stability. While global sea level rose by 400 feet at the end of the last ice age, he said, that was a time when humans were essentially nomads. “A 1-meter change today, in either direction, would be very problematic for humanity,” he said, adding that expected changes in rainfall patterns could have serious impacts on access to water and food.
Only three large countries have successfully shifted their economies away from fossil fuels, he said: Sweden, Belgium, and France. And all of those did so largely on the strength of hydropower and nuclear power — and did so in only about 15 years. “We’re going to have to do whatever works,” he said, and while conventional fission-based nuclear power may be essential in the near term, in the longer term fusion power could be key to weaning the world from fossil fuels.
Andrew Lo, the Charles E. and Susan T. Professor of Economics at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, said that for large projects such as the development of practical fusion power plants, new kinds of funding mechanisms may be needed, as conventional venture capitalists and other traditional sources may not be sufficient to meet their costs. “We need to get the narrative right,” he said, to make it clear to people that investments will be needed to meet the challenge. “We need to make fusion real,” which means something on the order of a billion dollars of investment in various potential approaches, to maximize odds of success, Lo said.
Katie Rae, executive director of The Engine, a program founded by MIT and designed to help spinoff companies bridge the gap between lab and commercial success, explained how that organization’s directors quickly came to unanimous agreement that the fusion project, aimed at developing a demonstration fusion device called SPARC, was worthy of the maximum investment to help bring about its transformative goals. The Engine aims to help projects whose development doesn’t fit into the 10-year expectation for a financial return that is typical of venture capital funds. Such projects require more long-range thinking — up to 18 years, in the case of the SPARC project. The goals of the project, she said, aligned perfectly with the reasons The Engine was created. “It is so central to why we exist,” she said.
Anne White, a nuclear physicist at the PSFC and the Cecil and Ida Green Associate Professor in Nuclear Engineering, explained why the SPARC concept is important for moving the field of fusion to a path that can lead directly to commercial power production. As soon as the team’s demonstration device proves that it is possible to produce more power than the device consumes — a milestone never yet achieved by a fusion device — “the narrative changes at that moment. We’ll know we are almost there,” she said.
But getting to that point has always been a daunting challenge. “It was a bit too expensive and the device was a bit too big” to move forward, until the last few years when advances in superconducting magnet technology made it possible to create more powerful magnets that could enable a smaller fusion power plant to deliver an amount of power that would have required a larger power plant with previous technology. That’s what made the new SPARC project possible, White explained.
Bob Mumgaard, who is CEO of the MIT spinoff company CFS, described the next steps the team is taking: to design and make the large superconducting magnet assemblies needed for a working fusion demonstration device. The company, which currently has 30 employees but is growing fast, is in the process of “building the strongest magnets we can build,” which in turn may find applications in other industries even as the group makes progress toward fusion power. He said within two years they should have full-scale magnets up and running.
CFS and the MIT effort are far from alone, though, Mumgaard said. There are about 20 companies actively involved in such fusion research. “This is a vibrant, evolving system,” he said. Rather than a static landscape, he said, “there’s a lot of interplay — it’s more of an ecosystem.” And MIT and CFS, with their innovative approach to designing a compact, lower-cost power plant architecture that can be built faster and more efficiently, “have changed the narrative already in that ecosystem, and that is a very exciting thing.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MIT: How could you fall so low with your hysteria, false and crooked IPCC ‘s climate change propaganda?
It is telling that Dennis Whyte thinks that “climate change” is the greatest challenge they face. Such delusions indicate that he doesn’t understand either “climate change”, or the difficulties his spinoff faces, or both. This is not reassuring.
So MIT can beam sounds directly into your ear but they have had decades on fusion but can make no genuinely advances?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/new-tech-from-mit-uses-lasers-to-beam-whispers-only-you-can-hear/amp
Hmm.. maybe fusion isn’t really possible on Earth?
Sure it is. We’ve done hundreds of positive energy-out/energy-in demonstrations since the 1950s. The first was Ivy Mike, the first thermonuclear detonation conducted on November 1, 1952.
Getting a steady-state fusion reaction is much more difficult. However, when I did a stint as a DARPA program manager, I took a tour of the General Atomics Tokamak, kindly guided by their chief scientist. The GA Tokamak is the only operational one in the Western Hemisphere. It is used by a number of countries and research institutions to conduct experiments on the control of fusion plasma, and runs continuously for hours at a time. It consumes more energy than it delivers, but here’s the catch: they only run it on deuterium. The chief scientist told me that they weren’t “licensed” to use tritium (I wasn’t aware of such a requirement until then), and that the facility is not equipped to handle the 14.1 MeV neutron flux from a D-T reaction. It does reach D-D fusion temperatures, which are much higher than D-T requires. The fact that D-T requires significantly lower temperature, but yields three times the energy, means that the GA Tokamak is probably a breakeven reactor already.
They have made an astonishing amount of progress, not only in control of the plasma (the biggest task), but developing materials to handle the heat and radiation flux. ITER uses this facility heavily, and has been shaped by its technology.
I believe that ITER will prove to be an engineering breakeven reactor, based on what I’ve seen. Whether it can be made into an economically feasible powerplant is another matter. Solar photovoltaic cells have been around for over a century, and the “fuel” is free. But the devil is in the details, and the details of solar PV are so overwhelming that it can never (for terrestrially based solar PV) be a viable source of energy.
“…global sea level rose by 400 feet at the end of the last ice age ….”So? How much of humanity is going to be around at the end of the next ice age when once again the 400 feet that retreated to form ice melts? Surviving the ice age will be the challenge, not the aftermath. If the world population is foolish enough to keep spending $trillions on worth-less-than-nothing wind and solar we’ll run out money long before we drown our coastal cities or “choke to death on CO2″(famous less-than-wise quote from former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid).
Every state university needs a fusion power program to stabilize their funding, including agri schools, teacher colleges, and vo-tech schools. The online education schools could also benefit.
The forever manana technology. I remember fusion being trumpeted in the 1960’s
Belgium is a larger country? I don’t think so. It certainly has the largest network of lit roadways in the EU.
Progress, monotonic, maybe. Evolution, or perhaps development, certainly, which may or may not be viable.
That is, economic, or practical, not social or political, viability.
If MIT was really, really, really convinced that we are all going to die if we don’t stop using fossil fuels, they would be putting their research money into improving fission reactors. So all their hype just makes it look like they are lying to get more funding. Which, of course, they are.
For the record, Sweden was never dependent on fossil fuels for its electricity, at least not anytime during the 20th century
I think he was talking about Norway. It’s been independent of Sweden since 1905. He may not have heard.
Reminds me of a sign you sometimes see in a bar, “Free Beer Tomorrow.”
…new kinds of funding mechanisms… meaning the venture capitalists and banks (I’m guessing that what they mean by other traditional sources) are to smart to invest in something so risky so “government funding” via higher taxes (including but not limited to a carbon tax) on US taxpayers. Well, thanks for your efforts – – but I’ll pass on this one.
“. . . a fusion reactor capable of producing more power than it consumes . . .”
Ahhh, those crazy scientists . . . will they never learn that that is a rather meaningless stand-alone goal in terms of PRACTICAL power generation? The fundamental question: Is the output power such that it can overcome the basic Carnot-cycle efficiency constraints? As was once remarked about the possibility that “cold fusion” was confirmed by reported warming of a water bath something like 0.5 K, the last thing the world needs is another source of unusable waste heat.
It is far worse than that. Even if they succeed in making a fusion reactor that can produce 100 times the power out versus power in, it will have to be economical viable over the reactor’s many billion dollar price tag and operating lifetime.
The fundamental physics of D+T fusion, which is the only viable pathway due to confinement time and temperature considerations, produces a high energy neutron. Most neutrons will penetrate the confinement vessel and be absorbed by a coolant fluid to capture the energy. The inside of the reactor is held in a high vacuum of course, so there is considerable pressure on the reactor walls. However there will be neutron capture by the reactor wall metals. This will chemically change their properties, inducing defects in metal crystal structures. Eventually micro-cracks will form. The metal also gets brittle. With continued bombardment (use) larger cracking to millimeter size will occur. Eventually the reactor walls will catastrophically fail unless they are replaced. These reactors cost many many millions of dollars to fabricate. And to replace them in current designs is an extensive tear-down and highly complex rebuild due to the many cryogenic (liquid helium) cooled magnets that are part of the reactor walls design.
The LHC helium explosion incident of 19 September 2008 is of some note since many of these systems will be quite similar in a fusion reactor. In that incident, an electrical arc punctured a liquid helium pipe that cools the magnets. The released helium rapidly expanded in the confined spaces and into the beam tube causing a small explosion. But the damage was severe.
So the fusion reactor will have to be regularly replaced (something like every 3-6 months). That completely destroys the commercial viability of useful fusion -power electrical generation for a grid application.
Excellent explanation.
“D+T fusion .. is the only viable pathway” – then you show that it is not viable. I hope that an aneutronic fusion might prove viable – but I agree that a tokamak looks like a waste of effort.
No. D+T fusion done in some sort of Tokamak (ITER, Lockheed’s design, MIT/CFS) design may indeed get past break even power generation in the next few years. That is a technical point. Yes, a milestone. But that is a long, long way from a commercially viable fusion reactor power station connected to the grid.
First off, it’ll have to economically compete with natural gas and fission nuclear to get private investment funding without a massive government subsidy. Then with massive government subsidy, the investors would be investing *not* in fusion power, they’d be mainly harvesting the subsidies, just as wind and solar does today.
The fast neutron is 14 MeV. It’s an ionizing radiation. You need a moderator or else it can vaporize the unprotected reactor wall metal. 80% of energy released by D-T fusion is fast neutrons.
“The fundamental question: Is the output power such that it can overcome the basic Carnot-cycle efficiency constraints?”
You have to change the 2nd law of thermo. Kelvin and Clausius derived the 2nd law from Carnot efficiency
Energy from Nuclear Fusion is always just far enough in the future that no one is really investigating the researchers as to what they are actually doing right now and close enough in the future that people do not lose hope and create a threat to the continued funding and grants for Nuclear Fusion.
Have we ran out of yellow cake and thorium?
Are there any bets being taken on when they finally get it working, will the first generation fusion technology be able to compete economically with current generation nuclear?
If all the money being spent on wind, solar, batteries, and fusion were instead invested in making plasma furnaces and traditional nuclear less expensive, how much further ahead would we be?
Questions:
1. How do you get the heat out to run a generator?
2. How do you get the fusion waste products out?
3. How do you get new fusion fuel in?
4. How do you all the above while maintaining the fusion reaction?
Those are just engineering details. 🙂 Scientists love doing research not engineering!
Sounds like a lot of con-fusion
Well, think about internal combustion engines. The power comes from explosive detonation of a petroleum/air mixture. Now, now do you make this actually work? How do you get the combustion products out and the new fuel/air mixture in?
A hard problem …
Not exactly the same for a fusion reactor, but similar in concept.
The trick is that it is not a continuous process like the sun.
However, the engineering problems are significantly harder, but probably not impossible.
Well, at least the left and right agree on one thing. Both sides oppose fusion power.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez would support an accelerated 12 year program.
Whether this MIT stuff, or the Lockheed high Beta confinement stuff, fusion is just very difficult because the Colomb barrier (like charges repel) must be overcome, which equires enormous pressures/temperatures.
Stars do this very easily using gravity. The Sun is an example. Jupiter is an excellent example of ‘just missed’ not enough mass/gravity.
For all these fusion efforts, I am reminded of the quote from French physics Nobelist de Gennes:
“We say that we will put the Sun in a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don’t know how to make the box.”
The quote is from essay ‘Going Nuclear’ in ebook Blowing Smoke, leading into the section on fusion that covered Skunkworks, NIF, ITER, and several fusion wildcats not including MIT.
“Rud Istvan January 28, 2019 at 2:59 pm
Stars do this very easily using gravity.”
Quite right. And we will never have that box to put a star in to IMO. A term coined by G. E. Smith (Have not seen a post from him in ages, hope he’s ok) was “Gravity Sucks”, it sure does and is how Stars (Fusion) work. The only fusion device I know made by humans that has any practical, albeit very destructive use, is a thermo-nuclear bomb.
Only because of extremely transient extreme pressure/temperature gradients generated by the nuclear fission core pit, obviously neither confinable nor sustainable. And the resulting fusion is a fraction of a reflected radiation shell microsecond (before it vaporizes) sustained by tritium, not by ordinary hydrogen as in the gravity ‘powered’ Sun.
Fission >Fusion >Fission >Fusion I think, IIRC, is the sequence…maybe another “fission” squirt in the last “fusion” reaction. It’s the only fusion “product” humans have made that actually works. Controlled fusion power? Yeah, tomorrow. Tomorrow never comes.
It’s much worse than that.
The fusion reaction in stars is actually pretty slow. Stars are very, very big, so only very small percentage of their matter has to participate in the reaction to produce all that power.
Man-made fusion reactor requires much higher temperatures and plasma densities then what you’d normally find inside stars.
Yes, and that is the problem. How to, in effect, “miniaturise”, the gravity of mass. Not doable on earth IMO.
It isn’t the particular energy ranges that are the problem but the fact that thermal fusion is just that, thermal, i.e. Boltzmann. You waste a tremendous amount of energy because only a tiny fraction of your reactants have the correct energy to fuse. That’s the beauty of electrostatic confinement like Polywell. The problem with Polywell is that it has too many electron losses at the cusps. Too bad really, but like so many things it’s the perfect solution except for one major problem.
Maybe MIT could use some of the mental horsepower to determine if climate change is really a problem at all.
Without the climate change lie, they’d have no incentive in the form of grants or investor funding. And No virtue signaling investors to bilk.
I stopped reading the article after I saw the words “the greatest challenge we have now, which is climate change.”
We have viable nuclear fission technology the greens won’t let us use. What makes them think fusion won’t be blocked be similar protests?
One big problem with Fusion is what safety factors are to be built in.
After all it needs a lot of electrical energy to using electro magnets to contain the bubble which is converting the hydrogen into Helium. So what happens if the power r fails. I suspect one big bang.
Lets stick to the nuclear which we do know a lot about. Lets ask the French engineers how they managed to tame the nuclear genie before we get carried away with this version ” of “Free Energy
Inside a General Fusion Power Plant; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3zcmPmW6dE
https://generalfusion.com