Fusion record - 59 megajoules (MJ) of fusion energy over 5 seconds - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: perdrix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2022, 05:26:41 pm
content: https://physicsworld.com/a/fusion-energy-record-smashed-by-joint-european-torus-facility/There's hope yet - though it's probably still 20 years away!David

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2022, 06:25:50 pm
content: A discussion is already underway...https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/no-need-for-solar-panels-china-is-doing-what-americas-and-europeans-havent/msg3996251/#msg3996251EDIT: Well it managed to stick to the JET Fusion update for a couple of pages - it's wondered off into the familiar Fission versus Fossil debate again now, as these things usually do!

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2022, 09:17:47 pm
content: While it is a "milestone", we need of course to put it in perspective:Quote"Mastering" fusion on Earth is an impressive achievement in itself, but it's nowhere near practical for actually producing energy, since it takes in a lot more power than it puts out.As to tritium, while it is what's being used currently, I don't think that's where we're really headed. They are looking at using Helium 3 from what I gathered, which is sort of "abundant" on the Moon, and one of the main reasons there is a "sudden" renewed interest in going to the Moon and installing bases on it. I have no clue (not my area) whether fusion with Helium 3 is at all doable with current, or foreseeable technology.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2022, 11:05:33 pm
content: It would be very odd if there is abundant helium on the moon and helium-3 is usually only a very small part of it. No way the helium would stay there unless in a steel bottle.He-3 is generated when tritium decays - so like tritium is one of the very expensive and rare materials. Compared to this gold is really cheap.Out of deparation one may go to also "burn" some He-3, as some tritium will decay before it can be captured and thus would come out as a kind of waste at a small rate.Fusion with He3 would need mode power to start and AFAIK has less neutron radiation.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2022, 06:02:33 pm
content: It is not odd. I put "abundant" in quotes on purpose. While there's not much, it's estimated to be about 3 orders of magnitude more than on Earth.https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surfacehttps://asiatimes.com/2021/11/helium-3-the-secret-mining-war-in-space/While not everyone agrees on that being practical at all, both China and Russia definitely have lunar programs that include mining He-3, while apparently the US and Europe do not show much interest, but as China an Russia progress, we'll eventually want to beat them to it.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2022, 09:36:19 pm
content: The idea with he 3 from the moon is highly controversial. The He3 to He4 ratio is something like 100 time higher for the moon that for the earth, but there ist still very little of it. 100 times nearly nothing is still not much. It would need large scale mining on the moon and quite some processing to actually capture the helium and separate the isotopes (relatively simple, but still energy consuming).https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014cosp...40E1515K/abstractThe other point is that He3 based fusion is quite a bit more difficult, needing more temperature or pressure. Chances are the reactor operation alone would be too expensive, even of the fuel would be for free.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2022, 03:29:06 am
content: Whether it is practical at all in the foreseeable future is questionable, but the reason it gets some interest is that contrary to tritium, He-3 is non-radioactive, which admittedly is a big plus.I have no clue whether we'll ever be able to build a fusion reactor using He-3. Or when. We're having a hard time enough as it is.But China is definitely interested:https://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-on-earth/everyday-life/china-helium-3-program/

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2022, 04:46:50 am
content: Fusion is easy.https://phoenixwi.com/neutron-generators/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FusorIt's the "getting more power out of it than what you put in" bit that's tough. Like, without a h-bomb.

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2022, 08:32:24 am
content: Yes, a major advance is the BS industry!All the attention goes on the confinement of a plasma. The plant required to support a fusion reactor is massive even for an experimental set up.No on has so far expained how to fuel these things continuously nor how to get rid of the tons of neutron irradiated chamber linings.Are we twenty years from solving these isuses and the major power consumption of the support plant?

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2022, 10:19:13 am
content: The power consumption part seems solvable. Make is larger and Q will go up - they expect a Q of about 10 for ITER and that would be OK to produce excess ernergy. The support part especially to generater the tritium is large and expensive, but there is no new physics or thechnology brake-through and large scale upfront experiments needed there. It is just large and expensive and in the way when doing the experiments. The more tricky part is the radioactive walls, not so much the chamber linings. This may still want better materials to make them last longer. Depending on the choice of materials used, the time the wall material will be radioactive can be relatively short. One just has to avoid certain elements. Chances are much of the maerial could also be recycled for future reactor use.The bigger problem I see with the walls is the lifetime before they need to be redone. This could end up in cycle of 5 years operation, 6 months waiting for the radiation levels to come down and than 1 year for a rebuilding the reactor. After some 10 or 50 years the old wall material may be Ok to be recycled for a new reactor.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2022, 07:38:45 pm
content: Neutron absorption can be minimized using Zirconium, now used to sheath uranium fuel elements in fission reactors. Zr has a really low neutron capture cross section. It is still an issue for structural components.Jon