Fusion Power Plant Simulator
Posted by sam 9 hours ago
Comments
Comment by dale_glass 7 hours ago
Because IMO all that is extremely critical. I fully support the pursuit of fusion as a scientific endeavor, but given that we're probably at least 30 years away from having anything approaching commercial deployment (assuming ITER is built, works, is followed promptly by DEMO, it works, and is followed promptly by people building more reactors. That's a heck of an assumption), it's not at all a given that it'll ever make a profit. That's a lot of time to build a lot of very cheap renewables.
And there's also opportunity costs. I see a lot of hopes put on fusion and don't really understand this chasing of the perfect solution. Even best case, it's not happening in decades, and it'll take decades more to build fusion as anything more than one off multi-decade-long research projects. That's a lot of time for the world to get worse while waiting for fusion to happen, and we might as well just throw renewables at the problem now instead of waiting.
So opportunity costs would also make for an interesting thing to calculate. Given that fusion will likely not make a major difference climate/pollution-wise for half a century, what else could we build in that time, and how much and what effect would that have?
Comment by AnthonyMouse 40 minutes ago
That's not really how it works. ITER has a budget measured in billions over multiple years, the global energy industry is trillions every year. The amount needed to do the research is such a small proportion that if there is even a tiny possibility that it could long-term provide a significant proportion of world energy, it's well worth doing the research. The scientific knowledge gain is just icing on the cake.
> That's a lot of time for the world to get worse while waiting for fusion to happen, and we might as well just throw renewables at the problem now instead of waiting.
We can do two things at once.
Comment by leonidasrup 3 hours ago
The bigger, principal problem of ITER is the used magnet technology (niobium–tin, niobium–titanium). This was safe and conservative choice in 1990s, but as consequence the tokamak has to be big and therefor expensive to build.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems is currently building a tokamak based on the same physics as ITER, but with modern magnet technology using rare-earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) high-temperature superconductors. Their ARC tokamak should be smaller and cheaper than ITER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems
Of all the fusion energy startups Commonwealth Fusion Systems is nearest to demonstrating a realistic fusion power plant.
Comment by the8472 2 hours ago
Comment by dale_glass 2 hours ago
For example, HVDC. Interconnect and buy power from somebody with more sun. Or just overbuild solar by a lot. It's cheap, so chances are having too much of it still works out economically.
Comment by AnthonyMouse 53 seconds ago
Who is Japan interconnecting with, or any other country that doesn't trust its neighbors? What is Canada supposed to do when it's ~6000 km from the equator and might not want to rely on the US for electricity regardless?
> Or just overbuild solar by a lot. It's cheap, so chances are having too much of it still works out economically.
Solar is cheap per kWh but those kWh come disproportionately in the sunnier months of the year at any non-equatorial latitude. To build enough for January you'd then have oversupply and a price of zero for the nine months out of the year when you have the most output, requiring you to make back the entire cost in the three months when solar output is lowest. Then you're only getting paid anything for e.g. 12.5% of the kWh you generate (the 25% of the months that have 50% of the average output) which means you need the price during those months to be 8x the average price you need to break even, but then you're not cheaper than existing alternatives. And that's before you even deal with nights or cloudy winter days.
It obviously makes sense to use solar to reduce the need for natural gas plants during hot summer days with a lot of air conditioning demand, or for charging electric cars that can hold off a couple days if it's cloudy. It equally obviously doesn't make sense to try to generate 100% of electricity from the same intermittent source whose output is regionally correlated by season and weather systems.
Comment by Gud 4 hours ago
Comment by alas44 3 hours ago
Comment by mono442 4 hours ago
Comment by dale_glass 4 hours ago
Now of course that's a research reactor full of experiments and instrumentation that wouldn't be part of a normal power plant, but given current experience that I think we can expect we won't suddenly knock down the cost to $100M. It's going to be somewhere in the billions. And we have expectations of that DEMO is going to make 750MWe.
We can then plug those estimates into the calculator and basically figure out how cheap and how powerful a fusion reactor has to be for it to make economical sense.
Comment by DennisP 1 hour ago
The size and also the complicated governance have made ITER very slow to build, which also increases expense. The JET tokamak is about the size of the reactor CFS is building, and JET was built in a year for the reactor itself, plus three years before that for the building they put it in.
Comment by tovej 3 hours ago
Comment by nomel 40 minutes ago
Comment by dale_glass 3 hours ago
It took us a lot of time to standardize computers. We made lots of weird architectures before things settled down.
Comment by sandworm101 4 hours ago
Comment by leonidasrup 8 hours ago
Fusion Reactor First Wall Cooling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJyoqDO0zw
One of the designs uses 3D printed silicon carbide vacuum vessel cooled by a layer of molten lead and a layer of FLiBe (a molten salt made from a mixture of lithium fluoride (LiF) and beryllium fluoride (BeF2)).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLiBe
The lithium component of FLiBe is used for breeding of the radioactive isotope tritium, which will be extracted from the salt and used for making the deuterium-tritium fuel of the tokamak.
Comment by nerdsniper 6 hours ago
The big takeaway is that better magnets reduce reactor size by the 4th power, and energy output and cost by the cubed power. Finding a material for the magnets which doubles their strength would reduce the size of the reactor by 94% and the cost by 88%.
A possible conclusion one could make is that with regular advancements in magnets it’s very possible that the first operational commercial fusion reactors will be relatively low-cost compared to current and planned fusion reactors, and even though they may begin construction after the next generation of super-sized fusion reactors - they might be finished and operational before their “predecessors” with inferior magnets have completed being built.
Comment by aaroninsf 4 hours ago
will AI help us get through blockers like this?
I'm out of the prediction business but my guess is: absolutely, but iff we don't collapse in some way first.
Wild to be alive as the centuries-long horse race of industrialization between doom, or the stars, approaches its finish line.
Comment by jcims 6 hours ago
This is why I love the idea of Helion so much.
Who knows if it will ever work, but skipping the thermal transport and doing direct current generation from EMF in the reactor seems like it has tremendous potential for simplifying (and eventually downsizing)
Comment by TheAceOfHearts 4 hours ago
Comment by ASalazarMX 3 hours ago
Really gives a perspective on the range of temperatures handled.
Comment by FiatLuxDave 3 hours ago
That said, one big missing thing (other than the economic stuff, mentioned by others) which would add a lot to this simulation would be more about 'where does Q come from?'. Obviously this could be too complicated for a little sim, but perhaps a few simple things could be added like showing how increasing the volume/surface ratio for tokomaks/sphereomaks can help, or how getting rid of certain types of instabilities can improve say mirror or pinch designs. This might help people to understand why certain design decisions (like building ITER so big) were made.
Comment by leonidasrup 3 hours ago
"The limitations of 20+ year-old Nb3Sn superconductor magnet technology forces ITER to be so large it is taking the entire world to build a single device"
Comment by sam 3 hours ago
Comment by MisterTea 8 hours ago
On a serious note: I wonder how practical and safe it would be to build fusion pants close to city centers in order to harvest the excess heat for district heating. Would be a boon in e.g. NYC which already has a large district steam system. You can do cooling too, look up "steam absorption chiller."
Comment by ExpertAdvisor01 5 hours ago
E.g. Temelín Nuclear Power Plant, Paks Nuclear Power Plant And many more
Comment by MisterTea 2 hours ago
And further, if they are safe, what is the public's perception of fusion? Do people hear "nuclear fusion" and immediately think nuclear disaster imagery brought about by incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?
Comment by DennisP 1 hour ago
Comment by advisedwang 7 hours ago
The cost/benefit for doing this seems pretty similar between fusion as gas power. We don't usually do this with gas, so I guess it's probably not viable for fusion.
Comment by nerdsniper 2 hours ago
San Francisco has[0][1][2][3] at least five combined heat and power plants that generate electricity and also sell steam to neighboring buildings via 72,000 feet of pipes.
I worked at a privately-owned for-profit "factory" in Santa Monica whose primary product was chilled water (their other product was warm water). They built pipelines to nearby large buildings and sold chilled water to them.
0: https://cordiaenergy.com/locations/san-francisco-3/ (2 for-profit CHP plants)
1: Skanska (for-profit)
2: San Francisco General Hospital
3: Apparently there are some "Muni" CHP plants scattered about SF as well (publicly-owned)
Comment by markvdb 5 hours ago
Comment by grishka 4 hours ago
Comment by cyberax 6 hours ago
Comment by adrianmonk 4 hours ago
A fission power plant simulator lets you have fun playing through a meltdown disaster scenario. A fusion power plant simulator is "worse" because it takes away the "fun" of meltdowns. The humor is in reacting to the simulator as if it were a game (some are, but this one isn't).
Comment by PunchyHamster 4 hours ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago
Eh, a core-containment failure (in any magnetically-contained system) would involve superheated hydrogen getting friendly with oxygen. That, in turn, would give neutron-impregnated barrier materials a free ride on propellant. It's not strictly a melt down. But it's in the same practical category of failure.
Comment by gmueckl 6 hours ago
The truly concerning failure modes would be related to release of radiation or activated materials. But that would require damaging the reactor in ways that the reactor is incapable of imparting on itself.
Overall, the technology is remarkably safe.
Comment by JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago
Thanks for the correction. If you're breeding lithium in the walls, might that be an incendiary concern?
Comment by rnhmjoj 5 hours ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago
When the vessel works. If the vessel breaches, that lithium could ignite. Note a showstopper. But I suppose a risk to be thought about by the engineers (probably not by policymakers).
Comment by leonidasrup 3 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 5 hours ago
With all that said, it seems to be way less 'dangerous' material than would be in your average nuclear reactor, making it more of an industrial accident versus a planet contaminating mess.
Comment by Symmetry 6 hours ago
The proliferation risk of someone using the neutron flux to produce an atomic or dirty bomb are real but that exists no matter where it is.
Comment by leonidasrup 3 hours ago
Hybrid nuclear fusion–fission power plants have been already proposed and studied in theory.
"In general terms, the hybrid is very similar in concept to the fast breeder reactor, which uses a compact high-energy fission core in place of the hybrid's fusion core. Another similar concept is the accelerator-driven subcritical reactor, which uses a particle accelerator to provide the neutrons instead of nuclear reactions."
Comment by bleepblap 1 hour ago
I have a hand-wavy hard sci-fi universe I've been rolling around my head for years and I eventually came to the conclusion that fission-fusion drives would be really handy for spacecraft, since it would be much easier to start a fission reaction in a cold/dark ship than fusion because of the power requirements. Otherwise you need some other way to generate 10s or 100s of MW to start the fusion reaction.
Comment by DennisP 1 hour ago
Comment by cyberax 1 hour ago
Modern fission power plants are designed with a reactor vessel to last a century and to withstand high pressures and temperatures. It's built and emplaced permanently in a large concrete shielding structure.
In a hybrid design this just won't work. Fuel will need to be right next to a high-vacuum chamber that will need periodic maintenance.
Comment by Aardwolf 6 hours ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago
I'd imagine this is, like with fission plants, deeply dependent on the specific design.
Comment by cyberax 5 hours ago
The plant will have some tritium, and the material in reactor walls will get activated by the neutron flux. Some of the activated materials can disperse in case of a catastrophic explosion (e.g. a couple of large airplanes being flown the reactor building).
But the material of the walls is not volatile, so it'll stay on the site. And tritium is very volatile, so it'll quickly disperse to safe levels. You'll be able to detect them with sensitive equipment, but it won't be dangerous.
Comment by derriz 3 hours ago
Fusion is that faster horse - promising a cheaper to operate firebox which when attached to a stream engine attached to an alternator can produce electricity.
This approach to generating electricity has been superseded by new technologies - first by gas turbines which removed the steam engine and then by wind turbines which removed heat from the process and now by solar PV which has removed all the mechanics.
I just can’t see any circumstances under which steam engines are “coming back” and becoming competitive for electricity no matter how cheap the firebox fuel is.
Comment by minihat 2 hours ago
You can slow down those particles against an electric field and harvest the energy as electricity directly. No steam turbine. No Carnot limit.
Comment by andrewla 4 hours ago
We are not in a place where we expect fusion power to be incrementally achieved by the current systems. We need major breakthroughs that are both impossible to predict and may not even exist outside of stars or thermonuclear devices.
The idea that we'll get massive improvements in Qsci, while maintaining the same basic structure as existing fusion systems, is in the end a bit silly. What would we estimate our confidence to be that when someone invents the Fromboculator, that the Fromboculator will even have a heating system or "vacuum vessel" or a plasma system.
In the end, this looks like it's a steam engine simulator more than anything else, but with some fancy words thrown in.
Comment by DennisP 1 hour ago
Comment by 0cf8612b2e1e 5 hours ago
Comment by chris_va 5 hours ago
Comment by sam 5 hours ago
Comment by chris_va 5 hours ago
And can in many cases be much higher than the heat energy (e.g. theta pinch).
Comment by ajmarsh 6 hours ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago
Comment by sam 8 hours ago
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article/29/6/062103/2847827/Pro...
It’s open access and you can download the PDF directly from there.
Comment by NooneAtAll3 7 hours ago
If I enable advanced mode, the "exiting" in Heating Power (exiting) gets overlapped with corresponding numbers
Display menu doesn't allow switching to Energy mode
Comment by sam 7 hours ago
Comment by caldis_chen 7 hours ago
Comment by rao-v 8 hours ago
Comment by logicallee 7 hours ago
[1] https://stateofutopia.com/experiments/wheeeeeloop/wheeeeeloo...
Comment by ck2 8 hours ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAJN1CrJsVE
(fusion is -always- just a decade away, perpetually, lol)
Comment by dale_glass 4 hours ago
Fusion is ultimately a fancy way to boil water. The tokamak (or stellarator) heats a given amount of water per second, which after losses to power the plant itself and the losses in the steam turbine, makes some finite amount of MWh to output to the grid. This contraption is as the video says very non-trivial to design and build and so it costs some very non-zero amount of money, and lasts a finite time (walls are damaged)
Big $$$ / finite_amount_of_mwh / life_expectancy = min_cost_per_mwh, if we want to pay this thing off. Very possibly more than existing methods.
I'm extremely on the side of doing scientific research, but I'm baffled by constantly bumping into people who suggest somehow fusion is going to mean infinite free power, or anything even close to that.
So far the tech seems headed towards just being an alternate form of a fission plant -- complex, expensive, slow to build, possibly won't ever make a profit. Likely worse, since fission is a known, mature tech.
Comment by toraway 27 minutes ago
Since you'd still end up having to build a gigantic heat exchange setup with steam turbines, pipes/ducts/pumps, generators, valves, gauges, vents, maybe even a cooling tower, etc. Plus a labyrinth of catwalks, ladders, access tunnels for workers in hard hats servicing/inspecting/replacing stuff who are on-site 24/7 and exposed to non-trivial occupational hazards dealing with superheated liquids at high pressure every day.
The entire concept of a steam turbine is just fundamentally a big hassle compared to an inexpensive solid state slab + batteries that are modular and basically plug-and-play by comparison.
Comment by JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago
Wasn't it perpetually 20 to 50 years away? I'm not an expert on the space. But new computational methods and magnets seem to be genuine steps forward.
Comment by rcxdude 5 hours ago
Comment by ck2 6 hours ago
it consumes itself or makes molecules that are destructive to the walls or insanely toxic so can never risk leaks
whatever solution they come up with I suspect it will require a lot of constant maintenance on the first generation
Comment by johnea 2 hours ago
That's awesome. Maybe we can fly it around the moon and take selfies with it!
Might as well roll all the high cost pseudo-science into one big instagram package...
p.s. Of course this is in contrast to using the giant fusion reaction that we have running, literally over our heads...
Comment by Lapsa 7 hours ago