Talk-Polywell.org

mvanwink5 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 5:43 pm

What this means is that Helion's fusion electric generator will be manufactured, then delivered to the site rather than the other alternatives which will be built on site from parts shipped in. Massive advantage in cost, beyond the already advantage of not needing huge heat rejection systems like cooling towers seen on fission or fossil plants, with the large consumption of cooling water.

Yup, this is what they are going for. Built entirely off site, then transported to the site in several truck loads (one for the core, the others for things like bio-shield and power supply, all pre- manufactured).
Build times should be really short, after license for the site has been granted.

Sites with nuclear power plants should be straight forward for installations.

mvanwink5 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:50 pm

Sites with nuclear power plants should be straight forward for installations.

Existing nuclear power sites are in remote locations. Which makes for huge investments in electricity transfer infrastructure and long commutes for service staff.

At normal operations, this technology should have an environmental impact roughly eqaulling to zero. A worst case scenario accident has neglible consequences.

So why not put these units where they are needed? At existing substations and in immidiate vicinity to high volume end users?. Low cost, distributable small scale fusion will transform society in so many ways.

But for now, we only need to know if it works. Halleluja we can yell when the first watthour of eletricity is produced.

We will see how it goes a lot of the future of the entire fusion industry hinges on the NRC and whether it will offer a more favorable regulation to fusion than to fission. This is a topic, where IMHO all fusion companies need to form as a closed front and can not put their own interests over the ones of the industry as a hole. Otherwise, this could open angles of attack from opposing (political, industrial, etc) entities that can ruin it for everyone.
From what I hear some (mostly older) DOE scientists are propagating outdated views, based on ITER- scale designs in regards to Tritium inventory and potential dangers from fusion. Thankfully, there are also people within the DOE who have a much better and clearer view of the current state of the fusion industry, namely Scott Hsu and his team. Very glad that he is in his position at this point in time. He is a good guy!

https://mailchi.mp/generalfusion/buildi ... c2986861e1

General Fusion building a global market for fusion energy with industry leaders

World’s leading energy and industrial companies advising General Fusion on the development of practical commercial fusion power

4 April 2022: General Fusion announced today the formation of a unique Market Development Advisory Committee (MDAC) to guide the development of its commercial fusion power plant. MDAC members include utilities serving millions of customers, innovative renewable energy providers, and companies leading the decarbonization of heavy industry. These companies span global markets in need of carbon-free, on-demand power to meet increasingly ambitious net-zero carbon emission policy goals. Many bring extensive expertise in evaluating, deploying, and operating commercial power generation assets.

TVA, Southern Co., Duke, Bruce Power have joined with General Fusion in an advisory capacity. Perhaps Helion Energy would be able to also engage these top Electric Utilities that are owner / operators of nuclear fission plants?

Not real big news but still cool: New crane getting installed at Antares and they will do the same at Polaris next week.

Helion continues on track.

So Far in 2022
We’ve seen a tremendous amount of progress at Helion in 2022. Here’s what we’ve been up to since January:

We tested a new configuration in Trenta and observed FRC plasmas that have 25% more trapped flux than has ever been recorded. This is awesome news. More flux means we are doing a better job of confining the plasma fuel. This ultimately means more energy output.

Our team assembled the first coil for Polaris. Next, we’ll test the coil to ensure it performs the way we expect.

I had the opportunity to speak at the White House alongside my fusion industry colleagues. I am excited to bring what I learned back to Helion and to push forward a decadal vision for fusion in the United States.

We’re officially moving to Everett! In March, we were granted our Certificate of Occupancy for our new headquarters, Antares. Many members of our team have already started working in the new (beautiful!) facility.

We have grown 20% as a team in the last three months. These new team members are already making a huge impact at Helion, and I’m excited to add more talented individuals to our team. Check out our open positions.

These last few months have been extremely productive at Helion. It’s a promising start to meeting our goal to demonstrate net electricity from fusion by 2024.

Now, back to building.

David

Co-Founder & CEO, Helion

Beat me to it! I saw it just earlier, but haven't had a moment yet to make a post. Yes, things are moving along for Helion! So happy for them!

We tested a new configuration in Trenta and observed FRC plasmas that have 25% more trapped flux than has ever been recorded. This is awesome news. More flux means we are doing a better job of confining the plasma fuel. This ultimately means more energy output.

This should make it easier for Polaris to make net electric in 2024. Commercial cargo ships, military vessels would all benefit. Has the US Navy awakened to near term fusion?

mvanwink5 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:51 pm

We tested a new configuration in Trenta and observed FRC plasmas that have 25% more trapped flux than has ever been recorded. This is awesome news. More flux means we are doing a better job of confining the plasma fuel. This ultimately means more energy output.

This should make it easier for Polaris to make net electric in 2024. Commercial cargo ships, military vessels would all benefit. Has the US Navy awakened to near term fusion?

50 MWe is exactly what the large cargo ships need.

mvanwink5 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:51 pm

(Yada, yada...) Commercial cargo ships, military vessels would all benefit. Has the US Navy awakened to near term fusion?

While the US Navy does not have any current ship designs calling for FUSION power, we do have a number of fission based nuclear ships (mostly carriers and submarines). We used to also have nuclear cruisers, but those are out of the inventory now.

It would take strong interest to get such a power plant incorporated into a warship in the near term, but from an acquisition viewpoint, "technology pull" would probably drive at least a proof-of-concept, and out of that there would be lessons learned. Additionally, the press coming out of such an initial trial, especially in the whole carbon-avoidance/green world, would be significant.

Once proven out, ship manufacturers could incorporate fusion plants into their designs, and the whole POM/Budget/Funding cycle would eventually support fusion powered warships.

If this proves out, and IF it was of a ~"nice" form-factor, it might be able to be substituted into to existing warships. Cargo ships might be an easier retrofit, as they don't have as many systems (sensors, weapons, etc.) to have to avoid during a major modification.

But a working fusion power plant - be it steam or direct electric - offers tremendous possibilities for ships. (Now we just need to talk costs, presumably much less over a life-cycle, as the whole fuel bit is much reduced...)

The benefits and possibilities have never been the issue. Actually having a working fusion power plant has been the rub...

Well, we will know whether we can do a working fusion power plant in 2024 (if there are no delays) and so far things are looking good for Helion.

One of the issues with nuclear in ships is where they can go. Portcalls are limited because not every city/country is willing to have a nuclear reactor sitting in their harbor, especially pier side. There is also the cumbersome nature of fission reactors. A gas turbine power plant ship can go from dead cold to pulling away from the pier in about the same time it takes to pull all the lines in and disconnect all the shore connections. In other words, minutes versus the days ahead planning and startup of a nuclear fission power plant (if not kept in a ready operating state).

So, a fusion based nuclear power plant negates those concerns (fission reactor in harbors and startup time). Especially in a direct to electricity configuration. I would think the Navy would be highly interested as having an all nuclear (fusion!) powered fleet would increase operational flexibility tremendously (speed, range, endurance, reduced logistics, reduced maintenance (probably?), etc.).

Perhaps Ladajo could shed some light on U.S. Navy awareness/intentions with respect to nuclear fusion integration into the fleet.

I have heard that training was a huge issue for fission and for a direct to electric fusion plant, there should be a large benefit to training. Further, gas turbines, and really all heat cycle power plants have thermal cycle issues. A direct to fusion plant would avoid that too.

Btw, from what I gather, this 25% improvement in trapped flux would result in an 80% increase in yield! So they can get the same yield with a smaller machine or almost double the yield with a machine of the same size.
This is wild and it drastically improves their chances of success!