Talk-Polywell.org

*

http://www.agorafinancial.com/5min/thre ... -and-more/

My comments here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ywell.html

*

1% electricity cost? As has been mentioned by many before, even if production costs were zero, the distribution costs would remain, allowing at most a 50% saving for grid electricity ( or so I've heard). For locally produced off grid use (like a giant desalination plant) I could see the costs being closer to the more reasonable 10% estimate.

Dan Tibbets

Would be nice if they could post a correction... something a little more level headed.

But here's a question: could we eventually, because of an abundance of 100MW polywell reactors, redesign the power grid in such a way that distribution becomes more economical, too?

JohnP wrote:Would be nice if they could post a correction... something a little more level headed.

But here's a question: could we eventually, because of an abundance of 100MW polywell reactors, redesign the power grid in such a way that distribution becomes more economical, too?

Doubtful. The key is more likely to be high strength, high conductivity, low cost carbon nanotube conductors. Think of doubling the conductivity of the distribution system while cutting its weight in half and increasing the strength of the conductors by a factor of 10X.

But here's a question: could we eventually, because of an abundance of 100MW polywell reactors, redesign the power grid in such a way that distribution becomes more economical, too?

If we have 100MW Polywell reactors, why even have a grid? We'd all be a lot better off with a node based system with extensive local (rural) distribution where, in a pinch, one node could establish a quick interconnect and needed support to neighboring nodes, also whom supports local distribution.

We know what a 100 year snowstorm looks like, we know what a 100 year flood looks like, but we don't know what a 100 year Coronal Mass ejection looks like. Simon points out: no sunspots. What is Sol going to do when it peaks? Is this the calm before the storm?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

A side benefit of Polywell will be .... no grid. Windmils, Solar and geothermal mean we have a massive vulnerable grid.

Again, a compromise solution is most likely ( assuming the system works at all). A combination of lieing new higher efficiency wires like M. Simon mentioned, along with shorter average distances between the generaters and end users will improve yield, and have cost advantages in the long run. But, the cost of completely replacing the grid system at a rate much shorter than the anticipated lifetime of the current grid would cost alot of money. At least in the short term, with a D-D Polywell reactor, the easiest way is to build the reacters at current coal plants and use the in place steam/ turbine facilities. Allows current plants to continue operating without needing to completely throw away the capital investments (as mentioned in Dr. Bussard's Google talk).


Dan Tibbets

D Tibbets wrote:... At least in the short term, with a D-D Polywell reactor, the easiest way is to build the reacters at current coal plants and use the in place steam/ turbine facilities.

Didn't someone show that, assuming this thing works as advertised, to get to the power output of a typical coal plant using a thermal cycle, the Polywells would have to be derated and built much bigger?

I would think that the numberous CH4 powered peaking units would be more easily converted to high temperature Brayton cycle plants using the MUCH higher temperatures available from the Polywell.

The Polywell could be run in the 800C range without much trouble while getting those heights in a steam plant is difficult. And, IIRC, the peaking plants tend to be much more widely spread. These would be dandy for Polywells.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T convert the coal plants, I'm all for that. Just don't get too myopic about it.

KitemanSA wrote:

D Tibbets wrote:... At least in the short term, with a D-D Polywell reactor, the easiest way is to build the reacters at current coal plants and use the in place steam/ turbine facilities.

Didn't someone show that, assuming this thing works as advertised, to get to the power output of a typical coal plant using a thermal cycle, the Polywells would have to be derated and built much bigger?

I would think that the numberous CH4 powered peaking units would be more easily converted to high temperature Brayton cycle plants using the MUCH higher temperatures available from the Polywell.

The Polywell could be run in the 800C range without much trouble while getting those height in a steam plant is difficult. And, IIRC, the peaking plants tend to be much more widely spread. These would be dandy for Polywells.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T convert the coal plants, I'm all for that. Just don't get too myopic about it.

To match the steam capacity of a coal fired plant probably several Polywells would need to be rigged in parellel, or as you said, a larger, less efficient version would need to be employed- or if the system turns out to be less effecient (lower Q) the end result may be the larger, less efficient plant as the only viable option.

It sounds from what you said, plus my very limited understanding, that a Polywell, in addition to being an alternet heat source for a coal fired plant, might also be an option for the modification of natural gas/ gas turbine type plants.
Though how the heat from the fusion reaction- steam in this case- is different from the heat from a coal incinerater is not clear to me. From comments I have read from M. Simon a steam temperature of ~ 550 degrees C is used, not because that is the mazimum delta T that can be derived from coal, but that this temperature is the highest the stainless steel pipes can handle.

Do any fission power plants run with a gas turbine (Brayton cycle)?


Dan Tibbets

D Tibbets wrote:Do any fission power plants run with a gas turbine (Brayton cycle)?

I think that all the experimental High Temperature Gas Cooled reators do and many plans for Gen IV reactors use them.

The main problem with steam is that to get those kinds of temperature, the pressures are HIDeously high! Trying to get that temperature in a PWR would be a monumental task. The pressure vessels on those puppies are ridiculously massive even at the 300- C now used.

When going with HT reactors, you need a different coolant, and if you are going with a different coolant, might as well use a more appropriate cycle too. For instance, the MSR (molten salt reactor (aka LFTR (Liquid Fluoride of Thorium Reactor)) the working temperature back in the 60s was ~650C while the ARE (a MSR for aircraft) in the 50s ran at 860C. At these temperatures, you can pyrolytically generate H2.

http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articl ... more/15347

These guys are also picking up the story.