[HN Gopher] The Wendelstein 7-X concept proves its efficiency
___________________________________________________________________
The Wendelstein 7-X concept proves its efficiency
Author : Tomte
Score : 110 points
Date : 2021-08-17 16:07 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ipp.mpg.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ipp.mpg.de)
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| As I've said before I love this project. The engineering is top
| notch and they are just knocking down the unknowns one after
| another.
|
| It is for me a wonderful example of how a large engineering
| project to build a new thing should be approached. Lay out all of
| the questions that are currently unanswered for which the answer
| will affect the next step. Then start building with the goal of
| answering the questions in dependency order so that the next
| question/build can incorporate your new understanding given the
| answer to the previous question. Iterate until you've answered
| all the engineering questions and you're sitting there looking at
| a fully functional device that does this new thing.
| sp332 wrote:
| How is energy extracted from the reaction? Once you get a bunch
| of energetic particles flying around, how to do you get from
| there to electricity?
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| Same way it is pretty much everywhere, including in nuclear
| power plants. Heat water and use the steam to run a turbine.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I think it basically heats up the walls of the chamber, from
| which you can use the heat to make electricity in the usual
| way.
| willis936 wrote:
| Stellarator theory has been booming for the past 20-40 years, but
| very few machines have been made to push it forward. I'd love to
| see a mid-scale (sub 1 BnUSD) HTS machine be built as a platform
| to develop coil winding techniques and test turbulent transport
| models.
| _Microft wrote:
| If I remember correctly, you replied to one of my comments on
| fusion power in the past and that you are actually working in
| research yourself.
|
| Most fusion projects seem to take years between major steps. Do
| you think a rapid-iteration approach (like what SpaceX is doing
| to develop Starship) could work for fusion research?
| willis936 wrote:
| I'm stepping out to appease the two-body problem.
|
| My impression is that a Manhattan Project for fusion would be
| successful. We already have all the technology needed to make
| a successful reactor. The reason things like HTS coil winding
| are moving so slowly to scale up is because there is no
| market for it. How could anyone invest in something with no
| return?
|
| If a lot of money did suddenly become available then
| innovative and radical platforms could be seriously
| considered. Things like stellarator platforms designed with
| adjustable geometry coils to explore many different
| optimizations without needing to build a new machine every
| time would be on the table.
|
| Issues related to first-wall and divertors require large
| machines to develop. They are not unsolvable problems, but
| those are the ones that need a serious amount of money to
| test and develop. Theory is way ahead of experiment here. I
| think it would be easier to find the money for these big
| machines if the performance metrics of smaller machines
| continued to increase. The problem is there isn't enough
| money to keep these new small-to-medium machines coming. Look
| at the history of FES spending in the DoE budget.
|
| SPARC might be the community's best chance at convincing the
| public that fusion is worth investing in.
| drmacak wrote:
| As I see it the problem is also in approach to big new
| projects. Usually you have long careful preparation to
| build something about what you have no clear idea how to do
| it, since it was not build before. But investors, in this
| case usually government, wants to see some classical
| project, with schedule / waterfall but in reality it should
| be more, as what mentioned SpaceX is doing. Which as I
| understand is fast iteration on unclear solution with clear
| goal. But I can understand that investors prefer to have
| ordinary projects as it is more classic approach. The issue
| is the way it works every time is the same. Project starts
| everything is fine. Some small delays on milestones but OK,
| then someone finds out that state of project is actually
| much worse than expected. Director is fired and the cycle
| starts again. On the end there is somehow working somehow
| done project.
| matmatmatmat wrote:
| What do you think about ITER?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-17 23:00 UTC)