Working Fusion Reactor by 2017?

[magnemoe]

My point. 16 years, plus preliminary studies and design of the plant. 20 years is pretty much at the lower end of the ballpark.

If somebody achieved fusion today in an experimental lab, it would take at least 20 years before the first full-scale fusion power plant would go operational.

I agree, but people have been failing at both large and small fusion projects for decades. I was replying to a comment saying that we would have fusion power plants by 2025, which simply isn't possible with current planning regulations for large construction projects like this.

Yes as the first fusion reactors who work is unlikely to work very well, they will be an prof of concept design showing that it work, now you get money and can start improving.

If someone presented an reactor who worked well as in ready for use it would be used pretty fast as in years.

Fusion is not fission and would not have the regulating overhead it has, more like natural gas powerplant.

[cptdavep]

To be honest, while I'm certainly no expert, I can't see fusion being a decent economic energy source for generations, just seems like it'll need some sort of breakthrough in the science before it's really practical and affordable.

A more promising medium term energy source seems to be thorium based fission reactors, they seem to have a lot of advantages over the current nuclear reactors and seem to have good potential to exist alongside renewables and get us away from carbon fuels a lot quicker.

[Nibb31]

Fusion is not fission and would not have the regulating overhead it has, more like natural gas powerplant.

You wanna bet? We won't know about that until the first experimental fusion power plant is built , the actual requirements and safety regulations have been determined, and the political support has been acquired. Public support will only happen when there will be ample acceptance that the technology is safe, which might take years. The design needs those years to mature from a lab model into a viable industrial plant design.

And then it will still be a major construction project, just like a bridge, a dam, a motorway, an airport, a major shopping center, or indeed a natural gas powerplant. Those things typically take many years of planification and engineering, with safety, economical and environmental impact studies conducted by various bodies, followed by approval and appeal procedures involving various levels of government bodies, commissions and local associations.

Fusion plants will not be cropping up all over the countryside a few months after a lab figures out a way to generate electricity with them.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Nibb31

[78stonewobble]

Didn't Rober Bussard claim that the polywell technology had so thoroughly tested, that the only real thing left to do, was to scale it up enough. Which presumably would cost a bit?

I presume, he was referring to just producing enough power to selfsustaining fusion and a net gain, not an actual powerplant design.

[Nuke]

Didn't Rober Bussard claim that the polywell technology had so thoroughly tested, that the only real thing left to do, was to scale it up enough. Which presumably would cost a bit?

I presume, he was referring to just producing enough power to selfsustaining fusion and a net gain, not an actual powerplant design.

he did in his 2006 google talk. he wanted to do a rather ambitious jump up to a 3 meter reactor. which wasnt that much bigger than what they had already been running up to that point. he saw taking an intermediate step ad being pointless. but i guess after he died emcc decided to take a more conservative approach and try to prove high beta was the way to go (which they have done).

their next step is a 3 year commercial research program which will cost about 30 million. im not sure where they are getting their funding from, but this program will pretty much determine if polywell is viable or not (this is about equivalent to the iter reactor in that it is the last step before a breakeven demo system).

Edited February 16, 2015 by Nuke

[lajoswinkler]

LOL no. Won't happen.

[Hary R]

Oh really?

God I love your argument:sticktongue:

[lajoswinkler]

Oh really?

God I love your argument:sticktongue:

If I tried to present arguments, you'd know it.

[PB666]

I've just read on Forbes site, that Lockheed Martin, pomised to build a working fusion reactor by 2017, whet do you think about it? Is it really going to be that fast? Even if not we will propably see them during our lifespans...

I get dibs on the 200 to 300 msec. That's how long it will work before it goes phhhzzzzztttttttt [poof] and the company decides it was just too damn expensive.

[Laie]

No, the main holdup is technical issues. There are tons of labs around the world working on fusion research, and none have come even close to fruition in economical fission (with the NIF seeming to be the closest). ITER isn't guaranteed to produce useful energy, in fact, it isn't really expected to.

Way back when I gave a talk in school, the then current european reactor/experiment was wrung out -- basically, we've learned a lot but further progress will require a bigger device. That was supposed to be ITER; talks about financing were underway. JET (if it was JET, I'm really not sure anymore) was seen as proof of concept: fusion is possible. ITER should be the proof of feasability, it was supposed to be the last "experiment"; if it worked as expected (little doubt) and would be practical (uh-oh), it would lead to actual power plants within another twenty years.

That was some time ago. ITER's mission and the expectations of it may have changed, I don't know. What I do know is that I've lost my hair, my classmates have adult kids, and ITER is still ten years away.

[bartekkru99]

I didn't expect so many replies...

[TheGatesofLogic]

From a business standpoint it's a very good idea not to show any evidence of your highly sought out device.

This is not purely correct. From a marketing standpoint, nobody will take you seriously if some data is not provided. Since none actually is, it's safe to assume the worst.

[Albert VDS]

This is not purely correct. From a marketing standpoint, nobody will take you seriously if some data is not provided. Since none actually is, it's safe to assume the worst.

When you are creating a product you don't need to convince anyone, only potential investors.

Now if your product is finished, then yes you need to demonstrate it/prove working proof.

But that's quite obvious, how else are you going to sell it.