Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday November 27 2015, @04:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the we'll-have-it-in-10-years dept.

A team of physicists led by Stephen Jardin of the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) has discovered a mechanism that prevents the electrical current flowing through fusion plasma from repeatedly peaking and crashing. This behavior is known as a "sawtooth cycle" and can cause instabilities within the plasma's core. The results have been published online in Physical Review Letters. The research was supported by the DOE Office of Science.

The team, which included scientists from General Atomics and the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, performed calculations on the Edison computer at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a division of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Using M3D-C1, a program they developed that creates three-dimensional simulations of fusion plasmas, the team found that under certain conditions a helix-shaped whirlpool of plasma forms around the center of the tokamak. The swirling plasma acts like a dynamo -- a moving fluid that creates electric and magnetic fields. Together these fields prevent the current flowing through plasma from peaking and crashing.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Knowledge Troll on Friday November 27 2015, @04:54PM

    by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Friday November 27 2015, @04:54PM (#268712) Homepage Journal

    do you think cold fusion power is going to be free or something

    I'm not even sure of what that means. I guess I can explain why I think fusion power will be a great human achievement but the total economics of the fusion power change I'm not qualified to comment on. The economic impact of solar power systems I purchase I can wrap my head around. The economics of fusion though are probably going to get crazy.

    First off the investment into fusion power technology over its history has got to be enormous and probably unfathomable. I'm sure it dwarfs the amount of money invested in solar panel research and solar power benefits greatly with the fact that it can iterate technology into the hands of consumers and fusion still has to make the break through to even become an energy positive process. Solar has its benefits but so does fusion if the problems can be solved.

    Now - what do you mean 'cold' fusion? Where is anyone talking about 'cold' (ie room temp) fusion? All the fusion processes I know about are pretty hot. Scientists have to do some pretty fancy dancing to keep the hot part away from the machine part so it doesn't melt into a puddle. That was a huge problem... for a while. They fixed it though. In fact from the Skunk Works website I linked to regarding their fusion power device:

    To mimic the energy created by the sun and control it here on earth, we’re creating a concept that can be contained using a magnetic bottle. The bottle is able to handle extremely hot temperatures, reaching hundreds of millions of degrees. By containing this reaction, we can release it in a controlled fashion to create energy we can use.

    The heat energy created using this compact fusion reactor will drive turbine generators by replacing the combustion chambers with simple heat exchangers. In turn, the turbines will then generate electricity or the propulsive power for a number of applications.

    Just because the machine doesn't melt doesn't mean it works though. The fusion reaction is causing death-particles to rip the walls of the machine apart at the molecular level. It is sort of a small problem a little bit. They are working on it.

    Is the Lockheed device the solution to human kind's problems? No, but it'll probably make the military really happy. Probably oil companies too. Probably a ton of giant generally unpopular entities will love this thing because of the power output and safety it is capable of. Another very happy customer would be highly isolated research outposts, like the Artic. In the case of disasters it could be brought in to power relief and recovery efforts as well. It's actually going to be a really cool machine. Unless it doesn't work and they look like a moron.

    The other fusion devices are continuing as well at huge scale. It is expected that fusion power will cause electric power generation rates to decrease. Fusion is no doubt better than fision power generation especially in terms of safety. At this time I still believe that consensus is that the power output levels that exist with nuclear power are important (I didn't say nuclear power was important, the scale of output is important, and especially in what is called base-load instead of peaking). Personally I dislike nuclear fision reactors but you can't argue with watt-hours, they don't have feelings.

    Fision reactors have stupid levels of hidden costs associated with them and they create dangerous waste we are handling wholy irresonsibly as a species. The failures are extreme even if they haven't been as catastrophic as we imagined that would be they are plenty catastrophic. We can do better than this. From everything the scientists believe fusion is better.

    The species will gain access to much more safer power. Since we are trying to move to electric vehicles our access to electrical energy is going to be a critical problem to solve well and be able to scale. Right now we can only scale with fision and that is a big problem since we suck at it. There are tons of other places having more electrical power will benefit us immediately such as desalinization and heating/cooling with cleaner power is a good thing as well. In the future when we can do stuff like energy to mater conversion we'll want all the power we can get our hands on. Harnesing power is directly correlated to what humans are going to be capable of over our existance.

    But yeah solar panels are cool.

  • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday November 27 2015, @05:26PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Friday November 27 2015, @05:26PM (#268722)

    The economics of fusion though are probably going to get crazy.

    not really. they will have a machine produces power, they are keeping it and you still have to pay regularly for the power you use. so basically, it will be the same as it is now but more technical and more environmentally friendly. what won't change is the fact that you will still be eternally indebted to them. solar and battery at least gives you the option to break that cycle. at some point machinery to produce solar panels and batteries will be easily accessible, so when your panels become to inefficient, you can melt them down and recut them. the salt water batteries are dead simple and you can build them now if you are committed to doing so. so in my scheme, i get power for free but in yours, you are still paying someone every month.

    • (Score: 1) by Knowledge Troll on Friday November 27 2015, @05:54PM

      by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Friday November 27 2015, @05:54PM (#268726) Homepage Journal

      so in my scheme, i get power for free but in yours, you are still paying someone every month.

      That is true but it is an economic argument. Independence is good; consider that I am not saying these are mutually exclusive or fuck solar panels. Evaluate this from a technical perspective: watts per square meter of power generating capacity. This maters because it is impossible to generate more electrical power from solar energy than is falling on the collection device.

      From University of Oregon [uoregon.edu]:

      Average over the entire earth = 164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day

      So a much more true statement is this: In your scheme you are limited to 5.8 kilowatt hours per day in the same space that a standard off the shelf 2 megawatt trailer petroleum fueled portable generator can. There is not any power output specs for the Lockheed Device but I expect it would be with in an order of magnitude of the existing solution for the same size space.

      On the next major iteration of technology typical scale fusion power plants will come online and power output per square meter will still be high. To get the solar power levels to the same degree would take satellites beaming power down from space and quite possibly even a Dyson sphere. Maybe you don't personally understand why a megawatt on a trailer is really good but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure in sim city the fusion power came before the photo-voltaic lasers as well. Do you remember?

      Also, have you done the calculations on the amount of power you can harvest with your land you own right now and an investment in solar power? I'm curious because I'm wondering if you would need to change your habits to maintain the energy budget for your generated power. And I'm curious about the case of 100% conversion efficiency and delivered efficiency of current technology.

      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday November 27 2015, @06:32PM

        by Gravis (4596) on Friday November 27 2015, @06:32PM (#268739)

        That is true but it is an economic argument.

        yes it is because you started with the economic argument bullshit several posts ago. well trolled.

        if you can't win an argument, change the goals!

        • (Score: 1) by Knowledge Troll on Friday November 27 2015, @07:08PM

          by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Friday November 27 2015, @07:08PM (#268753) Homepage Journal

          yes it is because you started with the economic argument bullshit several posts ago.

          Yep I'll gladly help you out with understanding your energy production capability. So you have a typical house in Eastern Oregon and fully invested in a roof top solar system. You are 100% off the grid which is a very admirable accomplishment I must say. And you recycle your own panels and cast them at home which is pretty damn cool. You have access to super sexy battery technology so you don't need to worry about integration with the grid because you have 100% independence from everyone else. Also you bought the best possible efficiency solar panels on the market at around 18% just no one else has heard of them yet and you don't remember the brand name. That's ok I'll take your word for it.

          It is certainly handy that you are a perfectly average use case in power consumption but have access to all that cutting edge high performance gear. I bet it was expensive. Lets see if I can estimate what a winter day is like for you and your 2.2 kids. It is also very handy that you reviewed the Oregon State University web page I linked and agree that their model fits you perfectly. That makes stuff a lot easier.

          Amount of captured solar energy depends critically on orientation of collector with respect to the angle of the Sun.

          Under optimum conditions, one can achieve fluxes as high as 2000 Watts per sq. meter In the Winter, for a location at 40 degrees latitude, the sun is lower in the sky and the average flux received is about 300 Watts per sq. meter A typical household Winter energy use is around 2000-3000 KWHs per month or roughly 70-100 KWH per day. Assume our roof top area is 100 square meters (about 1100 square feet).

          In the winter on a sunny day at this latitude (40o) the roof will receive about 6 hours of illumination.

          So energy generated over this 6 hour period is:

          300 watts per square meter x 100 square meters x 6 hours

          = 180 KWH (per day) more than you need.

          But remember the efficiency problem:

          5% efficiency 9 KWH per day
          10% efficiency 18 KWH per day
          20% efficiency 36 KWH per day

          At best, this represents 1/3 of the typical daily Winter energy usage and it assumes the sun shines on the rooftop for 6 hours that day.

          With sensible energy conservation and insulation and south facing windows, its possible to lower your daily use of energy by about a factor of 2. In this case, if solar shingles become 20% efficient, then they can provide 50-75 % of your energy needs

          Another example calculation for Solar Energy which shows that relative inefficiency can be compensated for with collecting area.

          A site in Eastern Oregon receives 600 watts per square meter of solar radiation in July. Asuume that the solar panels are 10% efficient and that the are illuminated for 8 hours.

          How many square meters would be required to generate 5000 KWH of electricity?

              each square meter gives you 600 x.1 = 60 watts

              in 8 hours you would gt 8x60 = 480 watt-hours or about .5 KWH per square meter

              you want 5000 KWH

              you therefore need 5000/.5 = 10,000 square meters of collecting area

          So either you cover the roof and give up something like heating a few rooms and use only low power computing devices or you spill over into your yard. That's not so bad.

          if you can't win an argument, change the goals!

          That is true, changing the argument around as well as not doing research or bothering to contribute in any useful way is a problem. I'll make sure I stop doing that.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @09:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @09:45PM (#268817)

    Here's an idea: you buy me the solar panels. That'd be extremely cost effective for me.

    what, do you think cold fusion power is going to be free or something?

    I'm not even sure of what that means.

    Username checks out!