Talk-Polywell.org

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 326/aa88e0

A DT fusion reactor design in field-reversed configuration using normal conductive coils

Assuming continued stability, favorable energy confinement time scaling, and an effective current drive and maintenance methods, a feasible DT fusion reactor design is proposed for field-reversed configuration (FRC) which uses normal conductive copper magnetic field coils at room temperature.

[....]

Plasma has an almost straight cylindrical shape of 40 m in length and 8.6 m in diameter. FRC can obtain very high beta (over 0.7 in average) and the magnetic field strength of the reactor will be 1.215 T, which can be produced by normal conductive coils having 70 m in length, 17.6 m in diameter, and 1.5 m in thickness with 0.6 effective conductive area ratio.

Anyone having access to the full article?

Looks a bit like it. But man! Those sizes! Not sure how they get to those huge size requirements. You might just as well stick with a tokamak then!

What matters is cost, not size. It is still microscopic compared to a wind power park of the same power.

Munchausen wrote:What matters is cost, not size. It is still microscopic compared to a wind power park of the same power.

Not so sure about that. With a large vessel like this and D+T fusion the running costs will be quite high since large pieces of first wall will have to be replaced frequently. Plus, there are other, smaller FRC fusion reactor concepts out there.

I'm also unsure about the economic scalability. It depends on the cost and operating costs combined.The maintenance and retirement costs, etc. Wind farms can occupy large areas of land, but the land is useful for other purposes below the windmills. The maintenance and operating costs are probably miner per KWH compared to a large Tokamak or large FRC.

Also, keep in mind the scale of the plant. Power companies like power plants in the several hundred MW capacities for management , distribution and down time considerations. This is a major criticism of large Tokamaks and presumably large FRC systems. For large facilities to be economical, they have to produce large amounts of power with the resultant above criticism.

Dan Tibbets

I take a slightly different view of this conceptual machine. Yes, there are several other FRC concepts under active study but as far as I know. none of them have actually generated power beyond, or even at "Break-Even." If this huge machine were to be constructed and shown to easily achieve break even-power levels then wouldn't that be wonderful?

Yes, maybe the first steps beyond break-even include size reduction and maybe other, smaller concepts would benefit from lessons learned by the first successful FRC machine. My point being that based on the state of success at this time we really should look on the positive side of any promising concept until we learn that it doesn't provide what humanity needs.

Tempering a little - I agree that another Tokamac level, 30-year research machine is not what humanity needs!

Aero wrote:I take a slightly different view of this conceptual machine. Yes, there are several other FRC concepts under active study but as far as I know. none of them have actually generated power beyond, or even at "Break-Even." If this huge machine were to be constructed and shown to easily achieve break even-power levels then wouldn't that be wonderful?

Yes, maybe the first steps beyond break-even include size reduction and maybe other, smaller concepts would benefit from lessons learned by the first successful FRC machine. My point being that based on the state of success at this time we really should look on the positive side of any promising concept until we learn that it doesn't provide what humanity needs.

Tempering a little - I agree that another Tokamac level, 30-year research machine is not what humanity needs!

Achieving break even is not the problem. We could have done that even with Toks years ago. The problem is making it a viable, economic (future) reactor. Solving those problems is a big part of ITER and why it has been taking so long.

With larger dimensions comes less demanding physics. Perhabs they have opted for some kind of ideal compromise.

The coil arrangement and the burn chamber in an FRC is vastly simpler than in a tokamak so one should not conclude that it will cost as much as a tokamak of the same size.

The full article might give an insight.

Skipjack wrote:

Aero wrote:I take a slightly different view of this conceptual machine. Yes, there are several other FRC concepts under active study but as far as I know. none of them have actually generated power beyond, or even at "Break-Even." If this huge machine were to be constructed and shown to easily achieve break even-power levels then wouldn't that be wonderful?

Yes, maybe the first steps beyond break-even include size reduction and maybe other, smaller concepts would benefit from lessons learned by the first successful FRC machine. My point being that based on the state of success at this time we really should look on the positive side of any promising concept until we learn that it doesn't provide what humanity needs.

Tempering a little - I agree that another Tokamac level, 30-year research machine is not what humanity needs!

Achieving break even is not the problem. We could have done that even with Toks years ago. The problem is making it a viable, economic (future) reactor. Solving those problems is a big part of ITER and why it has been taking so long.

Ok, if you say so. Please list the fusion projects that have achieved break even - in the order of net-gain. Thank you.

Aero wrote: Ok, if you say so. Please list the fusion projects that have achieved break even - in the order of net-gain. Thank you.

JT-60 would have if they had used D+T instead of D+D. JET could also have done so, if that had been a research goal, which is has not. Again, right now most of the bigger projects are focusing on solving engineering problems for ITER and on experiments with technology that will allow future reactors to be economic. These are physics, science and engineering projects and they are not focusing on some race to who is the first to achieve break even.

Break even is worthless, if its not time 6 or better it will never be commercially viable for major powerproduction.
Each ton of coal consumed at an electric power plant produces about 2000 Kilowatt hours of electricity
average delivered coal price to the electric power sector was $42.58 per ton,
electricity cost at retail 240 dollars ish
so to compete with coal fired plants you need six times break even, not including operation, logistics, maintenance,management,...
Back of napkin estimates

paperburn1 wrote:Break even is worthless, if its not time 6 or better it will never be commercially viable for major powerproduction.
Each ton of coal consumed at an electric power plant produces about 2000 Kilowatt hours of electricity
average delivered coal price to the electric power sector was $42.58 per ton,
electricity cost at retail 240 dollars ish
so to compete with coal fired plants you need six times break even, not including operation, logistics, maintenance,management,...
Back of napkin estimates

I would not say that it is worthless, but to most players, it is only one step on the road map. From my POV, achieving break even will:
1. Make fusion seem more viable in the public eye and thus get more support from the general public.
2. Confirm viability of the concept from a physics POV.
3. Open up more funding to this confinement concept and other fusion projects.
Those are important things, but achieving break even on it's own is not important if the concept is not economically viable as a power plant (or propulsion system or whatever the fusion device is meant to do).