Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BeeeMOe t1_irwjb8n wrote

Reply to comment by DariusIsLove in UK to build first grid connected Fusion Power plant by noelcowardspeaksout

Do you know when we might see stuff like this actually being finished?

12

thegodfatherderecho t1_irwjkn9 wrote

Fusion energy is 20 years away from being 20 years away.

69

oldcreaker t1_irwl66s wrote

That's an improvement - I've been watching it be 30 years away from being 30 years away for a very long time now.

29

imperfectably t1_irwpurw wrote

By very long time do you mean 40 years ago?

6

Junesucksatart t1_irxasmh wrote

I definitely wouldn’t hold my breath but some companies are getting really close to breaking Q.

3

CelestialWonderer t1_iry9rqo wrote

What does Q mean? Sorry, I’m a bit ignorant on this topic

1

Junesucksatart t1_iryb5ux wrote

Q refers to the ratio of energy put into the fusion system compared to the energy that comes out. Creating a fusion reaction is the easy part, getting more energy than you put in is the hard part.

1

beatthestupidout t1_irzx1kz wrote

It is an improvement. I bring it up in every thread where someone says the same thing, and if you track mentions of the time to fusion over the last 70 years, the jokes and reality seem to converge on a point about 10-20 years away.

1

tall_strong_master t1_irx3xn8 wrote

Not anymore. Its now Z > 1.0, so now its 5 years away from being an engineering problem.

This for d-T fusion needing a steam generator.

In 20 years they may be able to do p-B fusion, which wouldn't need steam and has no radioactive byproducts.

7

beatthestupidout t1_irzx9y1 wrote

Not no byproducts, but significantly reduced. You can't control side reactions, however unlikely they are. B11 + He4 (the expected byproduct of p + B11) = N14 + n. There's also a rare p + B11 = C11 + n to watch out for as well.

It's a massive improvement on every reaction shitting out neutrons though, and because the main byproduct is a charged particle you can use direct energy conversion instead of going via steam which means the energy output threshold for viability is around 60% of what it would be otherwise.

*C11, not C12 sorry. That then decays with a half life of 20 minutes back into boron-11.

4

BeeeMOe t1_irwkg41 wrote

Lmao alright thanks I'm looking forward to it

5

anschutz_shooter t1_irwo5jd wrote

The claim is a design concept by 2024, first plasma by 2040.

So... first plasma by 2060 maybe?

20

BeeeMOe t1_irwoeo1 wrote

Well, maybe I'll make it

5

simple_mech t1_irwrsuv wrote

We'll make sure you're cremated in the fusion reactor's core.

7

Glum_Can1264 t1_irycylt wrote

What a great send off that’d be

2

saberline152 t1_irzq30p wrote

nah make them put your ashes in a firework shell and let the funeral be lit

2

Samurai_PR t1_irzkybc wrote

I wanna be responsible for powering a city for a millisecond

2

malayaputra t1_irxge6h wrote

Simcity 2000 was released in 1993 and had a fusion power plant option. That was the first time I heard of fusion and I was under the impression it would be ready by 2000.

10

PapaAlpaka t1_iry0l0b wrote

I've got a children's book that outlines how every home has a small fusion reactor in the basement to meet all energy needs. Written in ~1992, set in 2000. An even smaller fusion reactor powers the flying car we're using to get to work. Guess what? I'm keeping it. To show my kids how some things that may seem possible by 2030 might not be that true.

9

HardCounter t1_irzjh0i wrote

5-10 years away is the eternal technological promise so they can keep getting funding despite all the 'minor setbacks' and 'delays' from the tech not existing. Reporters are especially bad about vastly underestimating the amount of time it takes to develop tech and make it ready for wide commercial use.

2

Deyvicous t1_irwossh wrote

Fusion is already being done. The only issue is nobody has figured out how to make it produce energy.

The plasma is insanely hot, so it has to be trapped magnetically in order to not melt everything. However, magnets do not just hold the charged particles in place, it causes them to move. They use a combination of magnets and injecting neutrons and other techniques to try and hold the plasma for as long as possible. In addition, the entire apparatus takes a beating and I believe needs to be repaired every time they run it.

ETA is still unknown.

3

[deleted] t1_irxfoqw wrote

We already know how to harness fusion energy. Put your fusion energy collector panels on your roof and wait 8 light-minutes for the energy from the nuclear source to provide power.

10

Oh_ffs_seriously t1_irwun6z wrote

There are few companies that claim they are going to achieve net gain in energy this decade.

2

hopefulatwhatido t1_irxoqa0 wrote

I was watching a lot of videos on this yesterday and pretty much everything says it’s 2100 most likely. There is simply nothing to sustain plasma at the temperature of our sun for prolonged periods of time.

It also got me thinking, so for like a century we have been taking significant risks by splitting atoms of radioactive isotopes and now to combine atoms and generate and heat plasma hotter than surface temperature of the sun just to boil the water? There’s got to be an easier way than this to generate stream to spin the turbine.

Definitely huge chunk of our energy should be coming from non nuclear renewable sources already. Ideally 100% from non nuclear renewables and then using reactors as contingencies and downtime or just trying to keep the cost down for end consumer by keeping the supply higher than demand. But here we are relying on Russia for oil and gas.

1