Guarantee you they weren't generating a whole lot of power though....
-
Agreed. But just to go along with the flight analogy proposed earlier, it took hundreds of years from Da Vinci’s flying machine designs to get to one that actually worked.
-
Verified electrical output, the answer is verified electrical power generated.
...as in we should measure power generation experiments by how much power they generated.
Isn't that obvious?
-
In 1932, Walton produced the first man-made fission by using protons from the accelerator to split lithium into alpha particles.[5]
We've been at this for coming up to 100 years too.
Let me know when they actually generate power. I don't want another article about a guy jumping off the eifle tower in a bird suit. A successful flight should be measured by the success of the flight.
Power generators should be measured by the power generated.
0 watts. Franz Reichelt went splat on the pavement having proven nothing.
America, the UK, France, Japan, and no doubt other places have been toying with fusion "power" for 90 years... We've created heat and not much else as far as I can tell.
-
If you're not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.
-
It's almost as if fusion is a significantly more difficult problem to solve than powered flight
-
They weren't trying to generate electricity in this experiment. They were trying to sustain a reaction. As you said in another comment, they are different problems.
Converting heat to electricity is a problem we already understand pretty well since we've been doing it basically the same way since the first power plant fired up. Sustaining a fusion reaction is a problem we've barely started figuring out.
-
Fission isn’t fusion, the first artificial fusion was two years later in 1934. That gives us a mere 332 years to beat the time from Da Vinci’s first design to the Wrights’ first flight
0 watts. Franz Reichelt went splat on the pavement having proven nothing
He demonstrated pretty clearly his idea didn’t work.
-
Converting heat to electricity is a problem we already understand pretty well since we've been doing it basically the same way since the first power plant fired up.
I don't think we do have a means of converting this heat energy into electrical energy right now. With nuclear we put radioactive rods into heavy water to create steam and drive turbines...
What's the plan for these fusion reactors? You can't dump them into water, nor can you dump water into them... I don't believe we have a means of converting the energy currently.
Even if we could dump water into them it would explosively evaporate because they run at 100 million degrees Celsius. That would be a very loud bang and whatever city they were in would be gone.
-
We were absolutely not sure how fire really works (low temperature plasma dynamics and so on) when we used it in caves eons ago.
-
The idea is to have water or molten salt cool the walls of the torus from outside, and those drive ordinary turbines like any other generator. The main issue is that particles fly out of the confined plasma donut and degrade the walls, whose dust flys into the plasma and reduces the fusion efficiency. They're focusing on the hard part - dealing with the health of plasma sustainment and the durability of the confinement walls over time. Hot thing that stays hot can boil water or salt to drive regular turbines, that's not the main engineering challenge. I get your frustration where it feels from news coverage that they're not focusing on the right stuff, but what you'll likely eventually see is that the time between "we figured out how to durably confine a healthy plasma" will quickly turn into "we have a huge energy output" much like inventors puttered around with flight for hundreds of years until a sustained powered flight design, however crappy, finally worked. From that point, it was only 15 years until the first transatlantic flight.
-
Most fission plants transfer the heat away from the reactor before boiling water. The same can be done with fusion.
The main difference with fusion is you have to convert some of the released energy to heat first. Various elements have been proposed for this.
-
Thank you for your understanding and explanation.
-
The walls get hot, you absorb the heat from the walls with a fluid. You use the fluid to heat water, you use the steam to drive a turbine, you use the turbine to turn a permanent magnet inside of a coil of wire. In addition, you can capture neutrons using a liquid metal (lithium) which heats the lithium, which heats the walls, which heats the water, which makes steam, which drives a turbine, which generates electricity.
If you poured water onto them they wouldn't explode. 100 million degrees Celsius doesn't mean much when the mass is so low compared to the mass of the water.
-
At least learn a little bit about the technology you're criticizing, such as the difference between fission (aka not fusion) and fusion (aka....fusion), before going on a rant about it saying it'll never work.
None of the reactors are being built with output capture in mind at the moment, because output capture is trivial compared to actually having an output, let alone an output that's greater than the input and which can be sustained. As you've clearly learned in this thread, we're already past having an output, are still testing out ways to have an output greater than an input, with at least one reactor doing so, and we need to tackle the sustained output part, which you're seeing how it's actively progressing in real time. Getting the energy is the same it's always been: putting steam through a turbine.
Fission is what nuclear reactors do, it has been used in the entire world, it's being phased out by tons of countries due to the people's ignorance of the technology as well as fearmongering from parties with a vested interest in seeing nuclear fail, is still safer than any other energy generation method, and would realistically solve our short term issues alongside renewables while we figure out fusion.....but as I said, stupid, ignorant people keep talking shit about it and getting it shit down....remind you of anyone?
-
We also did not build turbines then.
Also, a campfire is not plasma, so you probably shouldn’t be building any turbines either.
-
If you’re not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.
Leaving the arguments up to this point aside (because I am not agreeing with or supporting @DarkCloud), your comment on its own doesn't make much sense. In general, the beauty of of a steam turbine electrical generator is that you don't have to care how the heat gets generated. You can swap it out with any heat source, from burning fossil fuels, to geothermal, to nuclear, to whatever else and it works just fine as long as the rate of heat output is correctly calibrated for the size of the boiler.
-
That's my point: fusion is just another heat source for making steam, and with these experimental reactors, they can't be sure how much or for how long they will generate heat. Probably not even sure what a good geometry for transferring energy from the reaction mass to the water. You can't build a turbine for a system that's only going to run 20 minutes every three years, and you can't replace that turbine just because the next test will have ten times the output.
I mean, you could, but it would be stupid.
-
Good point. Uncertainty over the magnitude and longevity of the heat source, and therefore how big to make the turbine and whether it would remain in operation long enough to exceed the payback period of its cost, is definitely a valid reason not to bother attaching a steam generator to a thing.
-
It was about 1800 years between the first steam engine and a practical steam engine. I'm sorry that one or two generations is too long for you.
-
TIL. That sucks.
