Yeah I know 30 years away.
Small pilot plants in Germany and the UK have had limited success from what I’ve read’
The big international plant in southern France is still to come on line but if their original concept is flawed it will be a white elephant that has gobbled up billions of dollars.
Other punters in the US and Russia are working on it but apart from media releases that are probably cries for more funding their results are meh.

About 150 million kilometres away…

I’m impressed we can even design machines to try and achieve it.
Perhaps some huge material science breakthrough is needed to simplify it

Cymek said:

I’m impressed we can even design machines to try and achieve it.
Perhaps some huge material science breakthrough is needed to simplify it

Yeah the science and the maths are fine, but the engineering, well………………

SBS or the ABC had a documentary earlier in the year about the various approaches used for fusion power.

Michael V said:

About 150 million kilometres away…

Well yes but I’d like to see it scaled down.

Cymek said:

I’m impressed we can even design machines to try and achieve it.
Perhaps some huge material science breakthrough is needed to simplify it

Material science isn’t going to help.

Peak Warming Man said:

Michael V said:

About 150 million kilometres away…

Well yes but I’d like to see it scaled down.

a brown dwarf?

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Michael V said:

About 150 million kilometres away…

Well yes but I’d like to see it scaled down.

a brown dwarf?

Lower.

By commercial fusion I wonder if they mean profit making or ones that work and can replace our coal, oil and gas plants but aren’t useful for making a profit just as a long term replacement

Cymek said:

By commercial fusion I wonder if they mean profit making or ones that work and can replace our coal, oil and gas plants but aren’t useful for making a profit just as a long term replacement

Once you get one the other will follow.

Cymek said:

By commercial fusion I wonder if they mean profit making or ones that work and can replace our coal, oil and gas plants but aren’t useful for making a profit just as a long term replacement

Well at the moment I think it’s all government funded scientific research.

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

By commercial fusion I wonder if they mean profit making or ones that work and can replace our coal, oil and gas plants but aren’t useful for making a profit just as a long term replacement

Well at the moment I think it’s all government funded scientific research.

Yes, I was thinking perhaps it should be the benefit for all humankind instead of profit making

Michael V said:

About 150 million kilometres away…

:)

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

By commercial fusion I wonder if they mean profit making or ones that work and can replace our coal, oil and gas plants but aren’t useful for making a profit just as a long term replacement

Well at the moment I think it’s all government funded scientific research.

Yes, I was thinking perhaps it should be the benefit for all humankind instead of profit making

Not on this planet.

buffy said:

Michael V said:

About 150 million kilometres away…

:)

But seriously, long range, low loss transmission seems like the best and easiest way to make use of fusion power, without the drawbacks of local solar.

Peak Warming Man said:

Yeah I know 30 years away.
Small pilot plants in Germany and the UK have had limited success from what I’ve read’
The big international plant in southern France is still to come on line but if their original concept is flawed it will be a white elephant that has gobbled up billions of dollars.
Other punters in the US and Russia are working on it but apart from media releases that are probably cries for more funding their results are meh.

The joint european torus isn’t trying any more. They’re just doing materials testing for the next generation machine.

“Although very successful, JET and its counterpart TFTR failed to reach breakeven. This was due to a variety of effects that had not been seen in previous machines operating at lower densities and pressures. Based on these results, and a number of advances in plasma shaping and diverter design, a new tokamak layout emerged, sometimes known as an “advanced tokamak”. An advanced tokamak capable of reaching breakeven would have to be very large and very expensive, which led to the international effort ITER.”

“Construction of the ITER Tokamak complex started in 2013 and the building costs were over US$14 billion by June 2015. The construction of the facility is expected to be completed in 2025 when commissioning of the reactor can commence. Initial plasma experiments are scheduled to begin in 2025, with full deuterium–tritium fusion experiments starting in 2035. If ITER becomes operational…”

Planned.

DEMO; 2000 MW, continuous operation, connected to power grid. Planned successor to ITER; construction to begin in 2024 according to preliminary timetable.

CFETR, also known as “China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor”; 200 MW; Next generation Chinese fusion reactor, is a new tokamak device.

K-DEMO in South Korea; 2200-3000 MW, a net electric generation on the order of 500 MW is planned; construction is targeted by 2037.

lol

dv said:

lol

Et tu Devious?

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

I’m impressed we can even design machines to try and achieve it.
Perhaps some huge material science breakthrough is needed to simplify it

Yeah the science and the maths are fine, but the engineering, well………………

Yes, no, no, well.

Yes i’m impressed.

No, materials science can’t help, not at temperatures way hotter than the core of the Sun.

No, the science and maths aren’t fine. This is intrinsically unstable, and nothing will fix that.

But the engineering, well …….

the problem with stonking big huge expensive fusion power stations as I see it, is what happens when you need to take one off line ..

how much of your generation capacity do you lose…..

Dropbear said:

the problem with stonking big huge expensive fusion power stations as I see it, is what happens when you need to take one off line ..

how much of your generation capacity do you lose…..

Transmission losses are also a factor.

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

the problem with stonking big huge expensive fusion power stations as I see it, is what happens when you need to take one off line ..

how much of your generation capacity do you lose…..

Transmission losses are also a factor.

that goes for anything though, unless you have localised neighbourhood level generation..

Dropbear said:

the problem with stonking big huge expensive fusion power stations as I see it, is what happens when you need to take one off line ..

how much of your generation capacity do you lose…..

Maybe you don’t use fusion power directly, maybe you use it to fill pumped storage for hydro.

Well, because the ekectricity would be too cheap to meter you’d also have a massive desal plant to go with it, which feeds water into a massive header dam on the western side of the blue mountains, which drought proofs the inland river system and also acts as your pumped storage for hydro.

lol but intermediate storage is actually a reasonable solution to that issue …

out of the mouths of …… pants

Dropbear said:

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

the problem with stonking big huge expensive fusion power stations as I see it, is what happens when you need to take one off line ..

how much of your generation capacity do you lose…..

Transmission losses are also a factor.

that goes for anything though, unless you have localised neighbourhood level generation..

True, but more, closer stations reduce the losses & also make the system less liable to collapse in the event of a very large station going off line.

party_pants said:

Dropbear said:

the problem with stonking big huge expensive fusion power stations as I see it, is what happens when you need to take one off line ..

how much of your generation capacity do you lose…..

Maybe you don’t use fusion power directly, maybe you use it to fill pumped storage for hydro.

Well, because the ekectricity would be too cheap to meter you’d also have a massive desal plant to go with it, which feeds water into a massive header dam on the western side of the blue mountains, which drought proofs the inland river system and also acts as your pumped storage for hydro.

ahhhh but will it make a toasted cheese sandwich as well?

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

Tamb said:

Transmission losses are also a factor.

that goes for anything though, unless you have localised neighbourhood level generation..

True, but more, closer stations reduce the losses & also make the system less liable to collapse in the event of a very large station going off line.

I think we are a LONG LONG way off from a “small scale” affordable q>1 fusion plant

Dropbear said:

lol but intermediate storage is actually a reasonable solution to that issue …

out of the mouths of …… pants

You can solve so many problems by thinking bigger :)

party_pants said:

Well, because the ekectricity would be too cheap to meter

In the same way that electricity from nuclear fission power is too cheap to meter?

Capital intensive energy generation that needs to be kept on as much as possible needs substantial storage capacity just as much as irregular supplies do.

Dropbear said:

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

that goes for anything though, unless you have localised neighbourhood level generation..

True, but more, closer stations reduce the losses & also make the system less liable to collapse in the event of a very large station going off line.

I think we are a LONG LONG way off from a “small scale” affordable q>1 fusion plant

Again, true.