MIT continues progress toward practical fusion energy

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.

Visualization of the proposed SPARC tokamak experiment. Using high-field magnets built with newly available high-temperature superconductors, this experiment would be the first controlled fusion plasma to produce net energy output.Visualization by Ken Filar, PSFC research affiliate

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.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

177 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 28, 2019 4:11 pm

“A 1-meter change today, in either direction, would be very problematic for humanity,”

Over what time period”

he said, adding that expected changes in rainfall patterns could have serious impacts on access to water and food.

There’s that handy word again, “could”.

Paul Penrose
January 28, 2019 4:35 pm

Lots of hand-waving about the imminent doom of climate change and the need for more money, but little in the way of details on how they are going to spend that money to achieve the goal of a fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes. Seems like an Underpants Gnome explanation to me ($ = breakthrough = fusion). Although, I do admit it would be handy to have practical fusion power when the current interglacial period ends and the ice returns. Perhaps we should hedge our bets though and develop cheap fission (probably based on Thorium) in the mean time. Always good to have a plan B when the failure of plan A is assured death.

michael hart
January 28, 2019 4:55 pm

I was impressed with the last talk I saw from the MIT group a year or two ago. It certainly seemed like something more than just the usual incremental improvement at enormous expense. Much interesting stuff about how much better the magnetic containment had got from both a practical and theoretical perspective.
And they also did seem to be focusing on issues related to cost-containment as well as plasma-containment.

But I had to shut my ears at the point when they resorted to the global warming theory as justification for the need. They need to drop that sh!t. It only makes them look silly. The long term need already exists, whether cAGW is true or not.

Patrick B
Reply to  michael hart
January 28, 2019 8:04 pm

The MIT group should not be funded. If they think CAGW is proven science and that the CAGW measurements and statistics are valid science and math, they are not qualified to design and build fusion reactors.

tweak
Reply to  Patrick B
January 28, 2019 10:15 pm

Ding!

Twobob
January 28, 2019 5:17 pm

I hear that Mr Rossi starts selling heat today.

January 28, 2019 5:18 pm

“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.”

Low credibility Emanuel detracts from any claims MIT makes about their fusion program.
A) Emanuel abbreviates and drastically simplifies mankind’s history into a convenient summation that suits his purpose, then conflates that simplification with climate assumptions.

B) “exceptional climate stability”: Apparently Emanuel has never bothered studying historical and reconstructed climate. Otherwise, Emanuel might have noticed humans prospering during climate Optimums.

C) Emanuel apparently ignores how the Dutch have dealt with oceanside property.

D) Emanuel degrades his dismal credibility further.

Gary Ashe
January 28, 2019 5:57 pm

Hmmm isn’t easy to get free energy, or more energy out than is put in.
When you have to create a working real time/world model.

Easy when you can create the free energy by conjecture as in the thermalise-ation of”back radiation”.

Can they not get any back fusion mathemagiged in there, the nuclear bomb effect ?.

Flight Level
January 28, 2019 6:38 pm

We invested that much cash in regulatory house insulation and can’t afford a the bills to keep it warm. Hurry up guys, we’re freezing.

luysii
January 28, 2019 7:01 pm

Princeton freshmen in 1956 were treated to a lecture by Professor Lyman Spitzer about the Stellarator which would produce cheap abundant and clean power from nuclear fusion. It was the energy of the future. 63 years later it still is.

Richard Thornton
January 28, 2019 7:05 pm

A picture is worth . . so the atricles illustration of the greatest technology in the history of the world will have ten workers climbing and touching The Machine like a bunch of car geeks looking at a carburetor of a 57 chev. A real tell and the how the geniusses feel about the people.

January 28, 2019 7:37 pm

If it doesn’t work out, how about low=tech nuclear fusion? Use an underground thermonuclear bomb to heat up a large volume of some choice formation of heat storing rock and get some dispatchable geothermal energy. It would actually be hybrid fission/fusion. I understand that H-bombs pack their punch from using the neutrons from the fusion to create fission in low grade uranium.

SocietalNorm
January 28, 2019 7:43 pm

Research in fusion is a good thing, the payoff could be huge. Let’s not be too negative just because the people are saying stupid things.
Just as research in many other technologies is good.

Here is the issue as described in the article:
“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.

If the issue is what is claimed, I suggest that research on 1-meter tall dikes and on lower-cost transportation would be more likely to pay off in solving the problems they imagine.

Since we know the sea has been rising since long before humans were emitting any noticeable CO2. My solution would work even on the wild chance that the natural sea level rise did not suddenly stop in 1980 (or whatever year they are using now) and that all sea level rise is now due to man’s influence.

Thomas
January 28, 2019 8:32 pm

Fission is where a small push yields a big reaction. Fusion is where a big push yields a small reaction. Fusion is headed in the wrong direction unless you have a mass to work with on the scale of the sun where the force of the collapse is still larger than the force of the thermal release…I’m off to the beach to make some vitamin D.

Reply to  Thomas
January 28, 2019 10:03 pm

+1

Alan Tomalty
January 28, 2019 8:34 pm

“Only three large countries have successfully shifted their economies away from fossil fuels, Sweden, Belgium, and France. ”
THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE
France still consumes 53.5% of their total energy consumption with fossil fuels.
In Sweden the figure is 46%
In Belgium it is close to 70%.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 29, 2019 4:02 am

Not to mention that his concept of a large population is kind of off the mark by a few 100 millions.

Catcracking
January 28, 2019 9:17 pm

Good point, it will be too late to save us from the CORTEZ extinction. Don’t waste any more money!

tsk tsk
January 28, 2019 9:26 pm

No technical project should ever talk about “the narrative.” Those two words tell you everything you need to know about this group.

January 28, 2019 9:35 pm

“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.”

My dad went to MIT, graduated ME and Applied Mathematics. I went to Michigan, graduated ME. Neither one of us would have ever had our names associated with such a comment.

Get it to work, tell us about it. They have not gotten it to work.

Results first, publicity second.

Wow, MIT should look into this…

Moon

January 28, 2019 9:50 pm

I am sorry, nuclear fusion is not done until it is done. When it is done, front page news.

The super-conducting magnets will be a big part of it, once again, when it is done.

The Re-creation of the process of the Sun, weighs more than the rest of the Solar System by far, Trillions of times heavier than the Earth, the gravity at the center of the Sun is not achievable on Earth. They might be sniffing around the edges of this.

I would love this to happen, only way to escape our Solar System and explore the Galaxy.

Not yet though, not even close yet.

Superconducting magnets could possibly contain a plasma hot enough to create Fusion self-sustaining. These new ones, 32 Tesla, which is 32 times more powerful than what you experience with an MRI, closer.

But, think about it, the gravity at the center of the Sun, so large.

We will see…

Moon

Wondering Aloud
January 29, 2019 3:36 am

It doesn’t matter the “environmentalists” will make up some reason why it’s “bad for the environment”. Reality won’t enter into the discussion. If they cared in the least about carbon emission we could easily have replaced coal fired generation with nuclear and geothermal by now. Instead they lie about those and give us windmills.

Does anyone really think they won’t do all they can to block fusion?

Richard
January 29, 2019 5:26 am

Seems both the left and right are agreed on one thing. Seems both sides oppose fusion power.

Jim Kress
Editor
Reply to  Richard
January 29, 2019 10:17 am

I don’t think they oppose it. The problem is the vast amounts of taxpayer money that is being funneled into these black hole “research” scams that promise the universe but never deliver. They are always NNN year away with NNN ranging from 15 to 100 to Never.

The article brings to mind something my Chief Engineer told me once – The definition of an Engineer: A guy who sits on the side of the bed and keeps telling his girlfriend how great it’s going to be.

Fusion “experts” are “Engineers”

DCE
January 29, 2019 10:45 am

So we’re still “15 years away from fusion”? Hmm. That’s 5 years better than the old “20 years away”! I wonder how many years fusion will be only 15 years away?

MLCross
January 29, 2019 11:18 am

“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.”

Yeeeeeeeah, that’s been the holdup for fusion, they haven’t done enough work on the “narrative”.

DAVID HOOPMAN
January 29, 2019 11:18 am

Does anyone know when Dr. Emanuel is due to retire? I’m guessing, maybe in about 14 years?

Jan Verbeeren
January 30, 2019 4:31 am

“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.”
Belgium is closing all of its nuclear plants and replacing them mainly with natural gas plants.

John Tillman
January 31, 2019 12:04 pm
Verified by MonsterInsights