Focus Fusion news story

[rcain]

One of the things I ponder on, is if it breaks as viable, how fast and how vicious the energy sector oscillations will be. Especially in respect to unstable, little-to-no alternative oil economies.

they'll manage. believe me.

pigs at the trough. money is liquid.


nice thing is, if its polywell or any of the other IEC approaches that breaks news - they are all 'low capital' approaches in the scheme of things - so can pick up from the bottom/mid of the market (eg: industrial and commercial power) and slowly ease into adoption of 'base load' fossil/nuclear energy markets and transportation. notwithstanding military markets, obviously.

it'll be fine.

[rcain]

ps. once the Chinese get hold of them, they'll have a field-day. consumerism will all be saved once more/buys itself one more go.

[rcain]

One of the things I ponder on, is if it breaks as viable, how fast and how vicious the energy sector oscillations will be. Especially in respect to unstable, little-to-no alternative oil economies.

pps. thinking about your point a bit more - its true i think, there will be a major shakedown of all the major oil/petrochem businesses and douzens of middle eastern, south american economies - not to mention russia and america itself. scotland even.

however, anyone still left operating at the end of it will probably be in a better position with greater market share and higher profits then when it all started. after all the oil-industry isn't ever (in my opinion) going to disappear completely.

the ones that get kicked out of the game are going to have to find something else to base their economies on. but with cheap polywell's, focus reactors, whatever, that's no longer as difficult as it was.

but before that, yes, some shaky times ahead i suppose. though optimistic times i suspect - until that is, the same old commercial and legislative/legal 'franchises' bed in again - 'licenses' to operate, etc. but who know what else might be happening at the same time - maybe cold fusion in penlight batteries happens - who knows....

[Mike_P]

I have often seen the opinion expressed here on these forums that the oil industry will be devastated by the introduction of a commercially viable fusion power source. As nice a fantasy as this might be it is far from what reality will show us. Even if today we hear that the pb11 fusion problem has been solved it will take decades for the reactors to be built, power distribution systems to be upgraded, regulators to be satisfied, and local municipalities to get over their NIMBY fears. There is also the fact that way too much of our commercial infrastructure is oriented around gas stations, trucking, and natural gas for home heating to make any sudden changes possible.

What is far more likely is that there will be a boom in the construction business for new electrical infrastructure and possibly a few reactors will be built as tests at established power generation sites. There will be a momentary drop in oil prices as an emotional reaction but the prices will recover and then a slow reduction in imported oil will start. We still need the petrochemical industry for many more things than just the gas that goes in our cars.

What will be the most amazing new development will be that power production can be established anywhere we want to put it. In much the same way that the steam engine moved industries away from waterwheel friendly locations, aneutronic fusion will allow the establishment of power generation, and application, anywhere on the planet.

[ladajo]

the ones that get kicked out of the game are going to have to find something else to base their economies on. but with cheap polywell's, focus reactors, whatever, that's no longer as difficult as it was.

I think both yours and Mike's comments while to some degree true, fall short on realizing that in order for the challenged oil economies to move forward they will need cash.

They do not have it.

I do currently think that the more diversified econmies will be better off, and especially those with some capital bench depth to shift quickly from oil dominance to fusion. The bigger problem for the challenged economies will be "what next?". A good number of them do not have any viable alternative.

It is also interesting to note that most of the challenged economies are also at the high end of the oil price to make-ends meet neccessity balancing point. This means any drop in cost of oil is going to be very painful.

I think that the potential fast shift of viable economies towards fusion is goin to be potentially damaging to the point that may lead to some measure of desperation on their parts.

I agree it will not be overnight, but I also point out that given the relative simplicity of some approaches being tabled, as soon as it looks good, it would be very easy to run with it. Some measure of self-limiting containment will occur upfront as folks pay a premium to "be first", but I think that premium will go away quickly as economy of scale factors kick in.

All certainly debatable. As we have a couple of times now.

[Mike_P]

So what we are really saying here is that economies and political states (ie Iran, Saudia Arabia, Russia....) will go the way of Rome and collapse under the weight of their social offerings once the revenues from exporting gas and oil disappear or are substantially reduced.

Having spent some time in Asia I can readily agree with ladajo that once a viable solution is found countries China will jump on it a heartbeat. They don't have the issues with NIMBY that we do in the US. I've seen entire neighborhoods evicted and bulldozed with little if any public input when a new high-rise apartment dwelling was needed.

Which begs the question as to why a country like China which is flooded with US dollars hasn't in some form invested in one of the non-ITER fusion projects?

[Netmaker]

The most obvious place to put new reactors will be co-locating them on the grounds of existing coal and nuclear power plants.

Coal operators can justify it to themselves based on not having to install mercury/arsenic/CO2 scrubbers and reducing their operating expenses by not needing to buy coal and having to hold or dispose of coal fly ash.

They can "sell" it to the surrounding populace based on the cleaner air, no more massively long coal trains coming in and eliminating the danger posed by the ash storage ponds. Nobody likes having to worry about a billion gallons of fly ash wiping out their neighborhood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_F ... urry_spill

Nuke operators can justify it to themselves by not having to worry about running reactors with proven defective designs that are already well past their expiration date plus having no place to store/dispose of used fuel other than on the plant premises. The same arguments will be an easy sell to the surrounding populace.

In both cases I presume that the operators will shut down their existing plants after some cross-over period.


The second general area to investigate for plant sites would be in the rustbelt area. I'll bet Detroit would just love to be the energy capital of the region. Especially with them talking about razing 25% of the existing urban area because the population density has dropped too low. So they could place plants in the abandoned urban areas or the decimated manufacturing areas with little to no complaints. An added benefit would be the elimination of a major pollutant source of the Great Lakes.


The third general area to investigate for plant sites would be well off the coasts onboard ships (or power plant specific submarines). Plenty of water for cooling if it turns out they need to generate steam to run turbines. Then run underwater power cables to the cities. Out of sight, yet at the same time extremely close to where power demands in the country are highest.

Something might have to be done to help the existing coal mining regions in Appalachia but that would be small potatoes compared to the economic boon that would flow from extremely cheap energy.

The other issue would be the necessity of beefing up the local power distribution should battery powered cars win out over biofuels/fuel cell powered vehicles.

WDYT?

[rcain]

So what we are really saying here is that economies and political states (ie Iran, Saudia Arabia, Russia....) will go the way of Rome and collapse under the weight of their social offerings once the revenues from exporting gas and oil disappear or are substantially reduced.

Having spent some time in Asia I can readily agree with ladajo that once a viable solution is found countries China will jump on it a heartbeat. They don't have the issues with NIMBY that we do in the US. I've seen entire neighborhoods evicted and bulldozed with little if any public input when a new high-rise apartment dwelling was needed.

Which begs the question as to why a country like China which is flooded with US dollars hasn't in some form invested in one of the non-ITER fusion projects?

to your last point - i think it has been and is currently, pursuing those areas of research and investment that any other 'canny' investor in the sector 'should'/'might' be exercising.

but, nothing is certain yet the time is not right. we do not have the proof (of the pudding). but very soon i hope, we all hope.

as to going the way of Rome, with regards the middle east in particular - quite so. though as with Rome, the major impact will be felt be the monied and powerful classes - you're average peasant probably wont notice much difference, nor his goats either.

but the stresses that such economic and technical revolution will cause (for it is/will be just that - a revolution in the true historical sense), will undoubtedly cause existing weakness and fragmentation to to fracture/ ignite, at least amongst the most susceptible nations/organisations.

sheiks and oil dynasties will lose their power, existence even. territory will change hands, as it always has. this time however, the economic imperative for 'first world' countries to get involved in their affairs, no longer exists.

more agile economies, like those of south america, russia will divest in good time and develop alternative basis for sustainable development. though they already are confronted by more general issues such as employment to contend with - cheaper (energy) development of internal economics can only benefit further existing plans.

china already knows the score, and is prepared/preparing for some 'new' economy ( - '...with Chinese characteristics'). both china and india will go nuts when fusion ever hits.

america is a whole other case. but it will survive and prosper i am sure. though not without a further social/political revolution all its own - which i believe, has already started.

much of Europe will make it through. France will incur more debt in making the transition from fission, Germany will do well, as it normally does. England will bumble along/muddle through.

africa will possibly open right up - depending on investment cap and the shape of internal economies, as ever.

in the long game, it can only level the playing field for a while. the same political and economic 'interest groups' will reassert themselves at the end of the process.

lawyers will make money. we will pay our taxes. we will die.

unfortunately, even fusion energy, when it eventually becomes available, will not change any of that. there are even more powerful influences at play in man's (and earth's) history. it will however, buy our species some breathing space, for a while.

[rcain]

the ones that get kicked out of the game are going to have to find something else to base their economies on. but with cheap polywell's, focus reactors, whatever, that's no longer as difficult as it was.

I think both yours and Mike's comments while to some degree true, fall short on realizing that in order for the challenged oil economies to move forward they will need cash.

They do not have it.

- but others do. but money is only good for 3 things - stashing away, buying shit with, making more money out of. the otherwise 'challenged' oil economies continue to be (or not) 'legitimate' investment opportunities according to how well they are set up for that, compared to all alternative 'opportunities'.

materials, agriculture, manufacturing, media, etc, etc - all still exist, they don't suddenly cease to be of importance. though it's true, those relying on oil at present really need to be preparing an alternative trump hand. they have been duly warned.

(i am also supposing we are speaking of the 'second world' in this context rather than the 'first world' economies who can also be described as 'challenged' at present - ie. all of us.)

I do currently think that the more diversified econmies will be better off, and especially those with some capital bench depth to shift quickly from oil dominance to fusion. The bigger problem for the challenged economies will be "what next?". A good number of them do not have any viable alternative.

It is also interesting to note that most of the challenged economies are also at the high end of the oil price to make-ends meet neccessity balancing point. This means any drop in cost of oil is going to be very painful.

i agree with you. some 'softening of the blow', 'helping along the way' might benefit some of those affected. others still will simply have to go their own sweet way. (see other discussion below).

i think, as ive suggested to Mike_P above, that those who have forsight should be preparing now. in my estimation, most south american economies are agile enough and new enough in the game. i think that is what you are suggesting also.

the middle east, is still going through (has yet to pass into) it's 'age of reason'. those countries under good/adaptable governance will survive and prosper. those that do not transition will end up as basket cases. some familiar faces i am sure. less bling perhaps.

but demand for petrochemicals is going to continue to be enormous for decades to come. and ironically, i fully expect much of the investment in new fusion infrastructure will come from those same individuals in control of today's oil producing economies. why wouldn't they.

goats on the other hand will be herded in much the same way as they always have been.

I think that the potential fast shift of viable economies towards fusion is goin to be potentially damaging to the point that may lead to some measure of desperation on their parts.

desperate acts of desperate men. i think it just hastens the hour. what should we be on guard for, that we weren't (shouldn't have been) already?

I agree it will not be overnight, but I also point out that given the relative simplicity of some approaches being tabled, as soon as it looks good, it would be very easy to run with it. Some measure of self-limiting containment will occur upfront as folks pay a premium to "be first", but I think that premium will go away quickly as economy of scale factors kick in.

All certainly debatable. As we have a couple of times now.

it's certainly fun to discuss it as a real possibility.

and i agree, i think almost anything 'could' happen. (300$ table-top devices from china seems pretty certain to me). but in reality it will also take time all new cheap energy to translate through to impact on peoples lives. let alone turn a profit.

i see main positive impacts on 'social projects' - eg. municipal power, desalination, irrigation, transportation, etc. and economies of scale all shift, in may industrial models, so lots more opportunities are created, and lots of practical problems cracked. (eg: costs of unemployment in an economy are also lowered.)

[Robthebob]

so this is a pretty dumb question, i got lazy after google failed me.

I remember Dr. B saying that the size of a demo polywell reactor will be 3 meter in radius, lets say there's some problems, how much room do we have left to work with?

Say instead of 3 meter in radius, 10 meters in radius, vs how big is ITER?

I think for polywell to really make an impact, it has to be like at most half the radius of ITER, at most.

[Netmaker]

so this is a pretty dumb question, i got lazy after google failed me.

I remember Dr. B saying that the size of a demo polywell reactor will be 3 meter in radius, lets say there's some problems, how much room do we have left to work with?

Say instead of 3 meter in radius, 10 meters in radius, vs how big is ITER?

I think for polywell to really make an impact, it has to be like at most half the radius of ITER, at most.

There are probably more important factors like does either one work producing commercially viable net energy. In what time frame?

Is the Polywell producing electricity directly without requiring generators and their associated costs/complexity?

What's the working life span of a power plant based on the differing fusion architecture?

What type of regular maintenance is required and how many hours would the plant be offline for required maintenance?

Why would you make an absolute assertion that a Polywell must be at most half the radius of ITER?

[Mike_P]

Actually the issue with the ITER is not its size, large as it might be, it's that the design isn't conducive to steam generation on a continuous basis. Looking at the supercooled magnetic rings that are required to contain the plasma field I'm stumped as to how they expect to also squeeze in 1000 degree F steam pipes to spin the turbine..

It's one thing to run up the mag rings to a point to that fusion takes place and another to continuously generate enough heat to drive a turbine while maintaining the needed cooling as well.

As for applications, the first one that came to my mind was a steel factory. They consume a insane amount of power for the electric furnaces. Even if the power plant takes an acre to house it would be nothing compared to the environmental saving from not having to use coal. All you have really is hot metal. Micro steel mills could make a come back in the US.

[Joseph Chikva]

so this is a pretty dumb question, i got lazy after google failed me.

I remember Dr. B saying that the size of a demo polywell reactor will be 3 meter in radius, lets say there's some problems, how much room do we have left to work with?

Say instead of 3 meter in radius, 10 meters in radius, vs how big is ITER?

Major radius for ITER 6.21m, minor radius 2 m
Major radius for DEMO 8.5m

DEMO (DEMOnstration Power Plant) is a proposed nuclear fusion power plant that is intended to build upon the expected success of the ITER experimental nuclear fusion reactor. Whereas ITER's goal is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for at least 500 seconds, the goal of DEMO will be to produce at least four times that much fusion power on a continual basis. Moreover, while ITER's goal is to produce 10 times as much power as is required for breakeven, DEMO's goal is to produce 25 times as much power. DEMO's 2 to 4 gigawatts of thermal output will be on the scale of a modern electric power plant.[1] Also notably, DEMO is intended to be the first fusion reactor to generate electrical power. Earlier experiments, such as ITER, merely dissipate the thermal power they produce into the atmosphere as steam.

To achieve its goals, DEMO must have linear dimensions about 15% larger than ITER and a plasma density about 30% greater than ITER. As a prototype commercial fusion reactor DEMO could make fusion energy available by 2033. Subsequent commercial fusion reactors could be built for nearly a quarter of the cost of DEMO if things go according to plan.[2][3]

And nobody considers larger machines.
3 m radius Polywell together with all needed equipment will not be smaller.
And unlike TOKAMAKs Polywell has proved nothing yet.

[ladajo]

I do not think it has been a 3 meter radius. It has been a 1.5 to 2 meter radius.

And Joseph, once again: Just because you are not on the Polywell Reports distribution list, does not mean it has proven nothing. It means it has proven nothing to you. And, no ill will intended, you do not matter for Polywell research. The funders (ONR) matter, and so far they are happy enough to increase funding and continue the project. You can draw whatever conlcusion you wish from that simple fact.

[Robthebob]

man i have to stop reading this thread now too? If Joe posts in every thread in the news section, then I have nothing to read on this forum. darn.

I looked at the video, dr b says 1.5 to 2 for DT, 2 to 2.5 for PB11

Edit: nevermind, forget it. Joe loves to nitpick without providing any actual corrections.
uations.

I got DT with a max expected radius of 2 have 54% room to expand and for PB11 with a max expected radius of 2.5 have a 24% room to expand to be 1/2 the volume of ITER.