Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Post by Skipjack »

Good news! Looks like this bill was amended with more funding and a mile stone based private- government collaboration for fusion.
The bill extends authorizations for new and expanded fusion energy research activities
authorized in the Energy Act of 2020, including support for alternative and enabling concepts,
inertial fusion energy, a milestone-based public-private partnership program, and the support
required to maintain the schedule for the U.S. contribution to the ITER international fusion
project and minimize its total project cost. Consistent with recently released reports from the
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and the National Academies that provide
long-term guidance for U.S. fusion research, development, and commercialization activities, the
bill also provides authorization levels for fusion materials R&D, fusion system design activities,
and for the Materials Plasma Exposure Experiment. In addition, it authorizes the Matter in
Extreme Conditions Instrument Upgrade and provides guidance for collaborative high
performance computing activities for fusion research applications.

https://www.fusionindustryassociation.o ... ebObzzNR8I

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Post by Giorgio »

My eyes focused on another part of your quoted section:
and the support required to maintain the schedule for the U.S. contribution to the ITER international fusion
project and minimize its total project cost.
I hope to be wrong, but from the wording it seems like they have already clear to who and where the majority of this money is going to go.....
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Post by Skipjack »

Giorgio wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:37 pm
My eyes focused on another part of your quoted section:
and the support required to maintain the schedule for the U.S. contribution to the ITER international fusion
project and minimize its total project cost.
I hope to be wrong, but from the wording it seems like they have already clear to who and where the majority of this money is going to go.....
"a milestone-based public-private partnership program" is what makes me feel hopeful. The Fusion Industry Association also seems to interpret it my way (as in this is a good thing).

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Post by Giorgio »

Crossing fingers that you are right, this industry does really need some fresh injection of money to push research on alternatives routes.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Post by Skipjack »

I agree! Don't throw all the eggs into the ITER- basket.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Post by Giorgio »

The only good thing that come out from ITER has been the side investment into research and development of superconductors.
Every other aspect of ITER was a dead road already at the time they started to discuss it. It is just a pork barrel project.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Post by Skipjack »

Giorgio wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:32 pm
The only good thing that come out from ITER has been the side investment into research and development of superconductors.
Every other aspect of ITER was a dead road already at the time they started to discuss it. It is just a pork barrel project.
I would not say it that drastically. The many labs contributing to ITER related research have produced a lot of relevant results that benefit most of the other fusion projects. That goes from our general understanding of plasma physics to simulation tools and also material science. I don't think the super conductor development done for ITER is all that relevant anymore since the newer, high temperature super conductors do much better than the ones used in ITER.
Personally, I think that Tokamaks have become more relevant again because of the recent advances with HTSCs and Spherical Tokamaks. My guess is that spherical Tokamaks will be the future (for Tokamaks anyway) rather than a more ITER like aspect ratio. Though that is still somewhat up for debate (e.g. Commonwealth Fusion Systems is going the traditional route, while Tokamak Energy banks on Spherical Tokamaks).
The ITER based EU- DEMO is definitely too conservative of a design and I don't think that it will go anywhere as a prototype for an economic fusion reactor. The ITER reactor in France will potentially contribute valid data regarding materials for second generation fusion devices. But I think that we will see first generation fusion reactors on the grid before ITER sees Tritium for the first time.
Personally, I have high hopes for magneto- inertial fusion reactors like Helion's design. The Sheared Flow Stabilized Z- Pinch and potentially also the Staged Z- Pinch seem to be other avenues that make a lot of sense. Still skeptical about General Fusion's approach, but I wish them the best of luck.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: Fusion in HR3593, “Science for the Future Act”

Post by Giorgio »

Skipjack wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:32 pm
I would not say it that drastically. The many labs contributing to ITER related research have produced a lot of relevant results that benefit most of the other fusion projects. That goes from our general understanding of plasma physics to simulation tools and also material science. I don't think the super conductor development done for ITER is all that relevant anymore since the newer, high temperature super conductors do much better than the ones used in ITER.
Practically all the newer generation superconductors branched out from ITER financed researches. In this context I was arguing that the only good thing that come out from ITER money has been Superconductors.
I agree that there has been several other interesting pieces of knowledge (especially in material science as you mentioned), but for the amount of money that was invested we could have gotten faster and much better results and knowledge with dedicated (and directly financed) researches.
This is my personal feeling based on all the ITER-financed researches reports that I have read in these years.


Skipjack wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:32 pm
Personally, I think that Tokamaks have become more relevant again because of the recent advances with HTSCs and Spherical Tokamaks. My guess is that spherical Tokamaks will be the future (for Tokamaks anyway) rather than a more ITER like aspect ratio. Though that is still somewhat up for debate (e.g. Commonwealth Fusion Systems is going the traditional route, while Tokamak Energy banks on Spherical Tokamaks).
Yes, I agree with this point, I also believe that with actual (and coming) HTSC improvements Spherical Tokamaks will have the best power/weight and power/volume ratios.

Skipjack wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:32 pm
But I think that we will see first generation fusion reactors on the grid before ITER sees Tritium for the first time.
My personal feeling is that ITER will never be turned on with Tritium. Once we will have a commercial reactor they will probably just pull the plug as no one will care anymore.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

Post Reply