[HN Gopher] Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotte... ___________________________________________________________________ Revamped German stellarator should run longer, hotter and compete with tokamaks Author : nabla9 Score : 194 points Date : 2022-09-11 12:35 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.science.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org) | TaylorAlexander wrote: | Has anyone published research on concepts for a stellarator that | uses high field magnets like the SPARC/ARC systems? Obviously the | idea is that it would be smaller, but I am curious if there are | any interesting specifics for such a machine. You could imagine | that if W7-X and SPARC show good results in the next 5 years then | a high field stellarator design would start to look pretty | interesting. | willis936 wrote: | Both Type One and Renaissance (mentioned in the article) are | HTS stellarator startups. I'm not sure if they've published | power plant studies, but they've certainly pitched them. | jobstijl wrote: | In france they are building a next privately founded stellerator | which seems intresting. https://stellarator.energy/ | NKosmatos wrote: | Just like COVID helped the mRNA/CRISPR technology evolve and come | faster and closer to us, with the potential for many more usages | in various diseases, I hope that the ongoing/coming energy crisis | will help all nuclear fusion technologies tokamak/stellarator | become real. We're still a few years away from having them in | actual power plants and a few decades away from solving our | energy problems for every, but I hope we get there sooner than | later. | moogly wrote: | > We're still a few years away from having them in actual power | plants | | I admire your optimism. I'd say half a century, if things go | well, but I'm not convinced fusion will ever be economically | feasible. | marcosdumay wrote: | > but I'm not convinced fusion will ever be economically | feasible | | Not on Earth. But put a good enough fusion reactor on a | rocket, and you can reach neighboring stars in 3 or 4 decades | instead of the 15 one would expect for fission. (Of course, | nobody is even sure reactors can get that good, but it does | look possible.) | mjhay wrote: | Fission fragment rockets could actually compete with fusion | here. The reaction mass is the fission fragments | themselves, which could get a specific impulse of around | 10^6 s. The technology to do this is within relatively easy | reach, at least by interstellar rocket standards. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket | Retric wrote: | Designs like that quickly start using a significant | fraction of available fuel on earth if you want to do | more than send a single tiny probe on a flyby. | | The proposed fuel is even worse as AM242 has a half life | of 141 years making it hard to collect in bulk. | ethbr0 wrote: | Neat links! | | I think nuclear propulsion is going to be the biggest | beneficiary of higher mass-to-orbit-for-a-reasonable- | price advances. | | There are a huge number of propulsion technologies that | are physically possible but too heavy and/or dangerous | for near-Earth use. | | Cheaper lift (to bootstrap) + more ongoing destinations | and transit work (to drive) + outside of Earth orbit (to | alleviate safety concerns) = rapid progress | zasdffaa wrote: | That is highly tangential to the issue of economic | viability, and the energy crisis. | marcosdumay wrote: | Economic viability only exists relative to an | application. | | And there is absolutely zero chance of fusion solving our | current energy crisis, the odds for fission are already | low enough. There is no point on speculating on that. | Maken wrote: | It feels like fusion energy is perpetually 50 years away. | Retric wrote: | Minimal investment means minimal progress. ITER was | basically a Regan/Gorbachev project from 1985 that's still | not built yet. It's JET's the current largest device was | completed in 1983. Real progress has been made, but the | major projects have been extremely conservative by | necessity. | | Early designs for ITER where for a larger device that would | have actually produced electricity though not cheaply | enough to be economically viable, but it got scaled way | down. | mjhay wrote: | And ITER's design is already wildly outmoded now that | high-temp superconductors exist (which they have for | quite some time). Just a multinational pork project. | XorNot wrote: | ITER exists to prove that fusion plasma stability can be | sustained to extract useful energy. _How_ it does it is | irrelevant since the big news is having a sufficiently | large tokamak vaccum vessel with instrumentation to | study. | | HTSCs weren't usable when it was designed, and have only | _just_ become usable in the last 5 years or so but they | are a fundamentally different material. You don 't just | drop them into a large, incredibly complex machine that | depends on it's integrated magnetic containment system: | you are functionally building a new device. | | If you can ITER, then you don't get a refund on spent | dollars. You get a loss. And then you get to start | another 30 year project to maybe build a new vacuum | vessel, which you have to do because you still haven't | actually tested plasma stability. | | "But but MIT skunkworks!"...yeah. It's still going along, | and they haven't suddenly churned out a functioning | reactor based on HTSCs because oh look, whatever the | advantages they're a new material with different | properties, manufacturing and handling behaviors all of | which need to be developed, measured and inspected before | you can use them effectively in a fusion device. If they | look good then _great_ : they can be used to make DEMO, | the ITER-successor commercial powerplant prototype, | cheaper and more powerful. | mrexroad wrote: | 50 is the new 20! | stormbrew wrote: | As was predicted in the paper that spawned this joke which | presented timelines based on funding and then we funded | research into fusion even less than their most pessimistic | model. | simonebrunozzi wrote: | I think that 50 years is a reasonable timeframe to give | fusion the possibility of delivering results. But I agree | with you, it's pretty much impossible that anything will come | out of fusion in the coming 10-15 years, despite the | publicity we keep hearing lately. | pfdietz wrote: | We've already given it more than 50 years. | ForHackernews wrote: | Solving hard engineering problems is expensive. You have | to put lots of money into it. Say, 30% of the funds | invested by VCs in jitney cabs and collectable JPEGs. | 7thaccount wrote: | It is so sad how much money and talent goes into getting | people to click on more ads. | Gud wrote: | It took humans hundreds(thousands?) of years to learn how | to fly. 50 years is not really that long. | wongarsu wrote: | But apart from the part that's useful for nuclear weapons | research, we've barely given it any funding. The idea of | "we could have useful fusion reactors in 30 years" always | came with the sentence "if we get the funding to do it". | | There's this [1] famous graph comparing US research | spending into Fusion, compared to 1976 predictions how | long it would take with different budgets. According to | that, the US funded fusion below the "not enough to ever | get it done" budget. With that in mind, we have come | remarkably far. | | 1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/U. | S._his... | kingkawn wrote: | Yes, but making long predictions allows them to pretend | they are in pursuit of something | scythe wrote: | But we didn't have high-temperature superconductors that | could be made into useful ribbons for most of that time. | | (I know I still owe you a detailed response on the thermo | thing.) | FBISurveillance wrote: | Still sooner than Linux on Desktop if you'd ask me! | okasaki wrote: | The UK government plans to have a fusion power plant on the | grid by 2040 | | https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/. | .. | tsimionescu wrote: | They can also plan to bring world peace and end world | hunger by this winter. Doesn't mean it will happen. | okasaki wrote: | Well, they definitely aren't planning _that_. | lettergram wrote: | > Just like COVID helped the mRNA/CRISPR technology evolve and | come faster and closer to us, with the potential for many more | usages in various diseases, ... | | I don't think it's actually evolved all that much. They just | deployed something that wasn't really tested. I recall learning | about theoretical mRNA vaccines back in 2014-2019 (granted they | were killing the hosts and stuff). As someone who's studied | bioengineering (university, reading papers and some projects) | I'd really like to see 10-15 years of usage before we consider | anything with the tech. | | I for one home we don't do the same thing with fusion. There is | an amazing amount of risk as technology has expanded, we have | to be far more cautious. | est31 wrote: | > Just like COVID helped the mRNA/CRISPR technology evolve | | About mRNA vaccines I agree with you, because they indeed have | been a niche thing before covid, but then they were the first | available vaccines while the alternatives were still being | researched when the first mRNA vaccines got their emergency | approval. But how has CRISPR benefitted from covid? It doesn't | seem to be used anywhere in therapeutics, no? | marcosdumay wrote: | > But how has CRISPR benefitted from covid? | | I imagine it's on the comment because it was used to create | many of the non mRNA vaccines. | | But I don't think it got popularized. It was already widely | popular. | PicassoCTs wrote: | ajross wrote: | > ongoing/coming energy crisis | | This has been IMHO inappropriately hyped. We have an expected | gas shortfall in Europe due to the mess made by one rogue actor | (though Putin hasn't shut the pipes off yet, The existing price | shocks are all speculative!). Petroleum production is fine. Gas | production outside of Europe is fine. Existing interests in | those industries have been exploiting the resulting price | shocks (which are not the same thing as a crisis) to try to | drive public policy decisions in their direction. | | We've been here before in the 1970's when rogue actors tried to | exploit their production capacity for political gain. It | sucked, but we didn't get fusion out of it then either. | | Frankly it's not even the first time we've had a supply | shortfall. People tend to forget this, but we ran out of oil in | the late 90's too! Turns out, there was lots more oil available | at higher price points. | actionfromafar wrote: | Nordstream 1 is off. | xg15 wrote: | The Turkish and Ukrainian pipelines aren't (yet) though: | https://berthub.eu/gazmon/ | dabber21 wrote: | In an interview about this project with the recent changes, | they said its investment in future energy production in 2050 | cl0ckt0wer wrote: | "our need will be the real creator" - Plato | SapporoChris wrote: | "Necessity is the mother of invention" Proverb of unknown | origins. Earliest reference Aesop's fable. | | I've been quoting the proverb for a long time. Thank you for | the quote, I feel it says basically the same thing but I | appreciate the different wording and that it is attributed to | Plato. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | "Laziness is the mother of invention." | | - Forgot where I heard that. It may have been a comedian. | hammock wrote: | What are all the valves and ports and things in the metal outside | of the stellarator in the lead illustration? | willis936 wrote: | Heating and diagnostics. | | https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Port-allocation-of-the-W... | | There's a chapter on W7-X diagnostics in this DOI (check sci- | hub). It doesn't include a comprehensive list of diagnostics or | their port assignments, but it was the best I found at a | glance. | | 10.1007/978-1-4613-0369-5_76 | hammock wrote: | At first I thought they lacked symmetry. Now I see they | don't, it's just pretty convoluted | willis936 wrote: | W7-X has 5 periods and each period is a mirrored half | period, so really it's one segment repeated 10 times. This | pattern is common to symmetric stellarators. | wincy wrote: | This has to be the most opaque title I've ever seen on Hacker | News. For anyone wondering, this is about a potential development | in cold fusion reactors. | irjustin wrote: | How did you get cold anything from this?! | wincy wrote: | I dunno I thought hot fusion was a waste of time unless | you're doing it inside of a star. So I just assumed it was | about cold fusion. | stormbrew wrote: | The plasma in a fusion reactor is actually hotter than even | the core of the sun, afaik. | borissk wrote: | You have no idea what you're talking about, but felt you | need to leave a comment , waste everyone's time and | potentially mislead someone. | detritus wrote: | More opaque than every nth HN title referring to some cutely- | monikered code framework that presses all the wrong mental | buttons in those oblivious to its nature? Surely not. | EamonnMR wrote: | Splark: a new phlinto framework built in blenk. | | And the thread is just Blenk fans arguing with Fobl fans. | phist_mcgee wrote: | As a fan of Fobl and their work on Spoogum, i'm not sure | you would call it 'arguing' more sharing the obvious | downsides of the dinglepop pipeline when combined with the | grumpkin anti-pattern. | amacbride wrote: | Meh. This was all solved decades ago with the turbo | encabulator. | hotpotamus wrote: | Others are pointing out that this is (very) hot fusion. But I'd | just say that if you know the first thing about fusion, the | title is actually very simple, ie, stellarators and tokamaks | are competing designs for magnetic confinement fusion. Of | course, no one is born knowing anything about nuclear physics, | and it's not really a casual subject of conversation, so there | might be a lesson here that people could take about writing in | domain specific jargon and how inaccessible it is for | outsiders. | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: | And if you know nothing about fusion, the title seems to be | crafted of made up words. | | But if you take one glance at the comments, it becomes clear. | So I guess the title was sufficient to pique my interest, | which, after all, is the purpose of a title. | Jabbles wrote: | > cold fusion | | This isn't "cold". | trebligdivad wrote: | There's nothing cold about this. | throwawayben wrote: | Standard (hot) fusion, not cold fusion. | | Having read a few articles previous on fusion, I'm familiar | with the words tokamak and stellarator, so it was obvious to me | that it was about fusion from the title. | | I wonder how many other titles you would consider opaque if you | didn't happen to know the terms? | DennisP wrote: | Hot fusion, not cold fusion. It runs at a hundred million | degrees C. | | Hot fusion is a well-known process that powers the sun. Cold | fusion is a supposed low-temperature process that most | scientists doubt is real, and if it is real we don't understand | the physics of it. | ben_w wrote: | Sometimes I like to say that the 15 million kelvin core of | the sun is actually a cold fusion reactor, on the grounds | that fusion within it is dominated by quantum tunnelling, | rather than classical kinematics, overcoming the Columb | barrier. | | Also like to surprise people with a fusion process that works | at temperatures in the single-digit kelvin range: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion | | But yes, the linked reactor isn't that, and the thing | commonly referred to as "cold fusion" probably isn't real. | [deleted] | dleslie wrote: | Forgive my ignorance; what with all the effort made to isolate | the exceedingly hot plasma from connecting with any surface, what | are the plans to extract the heat in order to generate power? | mpweiher wrote: | From the fine article: "Over the past 3 years, W7-X's creators | stripped it down and replaced all the interior walls and | fittings with water-cooled versions, ..." | | I am guessing that the water used to cool the interior walls | will get hot in the process... | Someone wrote: | https://www.iter.org/sci/MakingitWork: | | _"The helium nucleus carries an electric charge which will be | subject to the magnetic fields of the tokamak and remain | confined within the plasma, contributing to its continued | heating. However, approximately 80 percent of the energy | produced is carried away from the plasma by the neutron which | has no electrical charge and is therefore unaffected by | magnetic fields. The neutrons will be absorbed by the | surrounding walls of the tokamak, where their kinetic energy | will be transferred to the walls as heat. | | In ITER, this heat will be captured by cooling water | circulating in the vessel walls and eventually dispersed | through cooling towers. In the type of fusion power plant | envisaged for the second half of this century, the heat will be | used to produce steam and--by way of turbines and alternators-- | electricity."_ | | That's about ITER, but the two devices do not differ in this. | dathinab wrote: | Makes me wonder if given the increasing value of water this | has to change a bit (for reactors not close to shore). | | I.e. instead of letting the steam escape into the air after | going through a turbine using some mechanism to passively | cool/condense it "somehow", reusing _all_ coolant water, only | having closed loop(s) (the "inner" cooling loop is often | closed anyway for various reasons transferring the heat to an | outer loop before its used for anything). | baking wrote: | For Deuterium-Tritium reactions, the easiest to achieve, 80% of | the energy is contained in neutrons which pass through the | first wall and must be captured in a blanket. The rest of the | energy could be carried to the first wall by photons, called | radiative cooling, but you can also use divertors that allow | the fusion products to escape the plasma carrying away some of | the heat. | | I think in a stellarator you will need divertors to remove the | fusion products because of the continuous operation. | ak217 wrote: | By capturing neutrons (which, not being charged, escape the | magnetic confinement continuously as the reaction goes on) with | a moderator blanket which is then cooled with water/steam. | | How to keep the blanket from quickly degrading and becoming | nuclear waste seems to be an open problem (not too different | from what goes on in fission reactors though) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Energy_capture | Tuna-Fish wrote: | > How to keep the blanket from quickly degrading and becoming | nuclear waste seems to be an open problem | | Not really. Most reactors plan to also use the neutrons to | breed the tritium fuel for the reactor, so the blanket would | consist of liquid metallic lithium. The only products from | neutrons reacting with lithium nucleii (either 6 or 7) are | He-4 and tritium. | | The open problem is how to safely maintain the reactor-facing | wall of the lithium blanket. It gets bombarded by a _lot_ of | neutrons, yet needs to contain the hot lithium. It helps that | the lithium can be unpressurized, but it 's still a problem, | because molten metallic lithium is not fun to have leak into | anywhere. | | The plan of the ARC guys appears to be to design the reactor | so that the lithium vessel is easy to remove and swap for a | new one, and just use steel for the vessel. The downside of | this is that it's going to result in a lot of low-activity | waste -- actually probably quite a bit more than what fission | plants produce. There are other approaches, including using a | material that doesn't really get activated by neutrons, and | which is maintained above it's annealing temperature so | embrittlement caused by dislocations is repaired as it | happens. The downside of this is that materials above their | annealing temperatures can be kind of soft. | imglorp wrote: | It looks like all the isotopes of LI are very short lived. | Is the problem some of the daughters, or perhaps the Fe and | C in the steel that are the problem? | | https://www.thoughtco.com/lithium-isotopes-radioactive- | decay... | Tuna-Fish wrote: | Yes, the problem is the steel. | ak217 wrote: | Would zircaloy work better? | marcosdumay wrote: | I imagine low-activity steel should be easy enough to | purify and recover some 99% of it... But wouldn't an | aluminum wall fare better? | warinukraine wrote: | amelius wrote: | Since the plasma runs hotter than the Sun, and the magnetic | field cannot confine photons, my guess is that the hull will | become insanely hot, and you could use it to drive a steam | engine. | dleslie wrote: | Ah interesting, so then the coolant for the shielding is also | the means to power a generator. | pfdietz wrote: | This would be for DT fusion, so most of the energy would come | out as neutrons. | | And it would face the same showstoppingly bad volumetric power | density as tokamaks, because of limits on that energy flow | through the surface of the reactor. | sidkshatriya wrote: | > And it would face the same showstoppingly bad volumetric | power density as tokamaks, because of limits on that energy | flow through the surface of the reactor. | | I do think it is worth persevering though. The future of | energy is Solar/Wind but Fusion should not be ignored. It is | one of Nature's fundamental processes. Mastering fusion could | turn out to be useful in ways we cannot possibly fathom at | the moment right now. | GordonS wrote: | I agree. If we were able to eventually miniaturise fusion | reactors, they would be incredible for space flight. Back | on Earth, if they could be made safe enough, maybe we could | even use them to run container ships? | sidkshatriya wrote: | With all the fast neutrons emanating from a fusion | reactor (and the heavy confinement that it requires) I | don't think a container ship would be a safe enough | environment (threat of disaster at sea, constantly | jostling which might affect plasma stability etc.). | | But yes, there is a potential for a lot of space | applications and other things we haven't thought of yet. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | what kindof disaster could be relevant in this context? | If the ship sinks, the minor radioctivity of a shutdown | reactor will not be relevany | | Technically, container ships are enormous and can use | ballast water for shielding. I can't judge the ecobomics | ofcourse | sidkshatriya wrote: | Well fusion reactors are likely to cost a huge amount of | money when they do become operational. No point having | them sinking in a storm. Probably just safer to charge a | huge battery and put it on a ship (if you don't want to | use fossil fuels). Avoids a lot of unfoseen commercial | risk. Even though you could use water for shielding, the | metal container and other things that hold the reactor | would be highly radioactive and brittle due to continuous | neutron bombardment. You wouldn't want that to be lost at | sea spewing radiation (even though the reactor itself | would shutdown automatically). | GordonS wrote: | > Probably just safer to charge a huge battery and put it | on a ship | | Large container ships burn through 16 tons of bunker oil | per hour, and each journey can last up to 3 weeks - any | idea what size of battery such a ship would need? I have | no clue how to calculate that), but I'm guessing it would | be completely impractical, even if we made huge strides | in battery energy density. | stormbrew wrote: | There seem to be efforts towards battery powered | container ships out there[1], independently of any | speculated use of nuclear power to charge them. Most | likely they'd be battery banks in containers that get | swapped out and charged at port using the same equipment | as is used to load and unload cargo I believe. | | I remember reading that they would have more limited | range and lower top speeds, but that this might not be as | much of a problem as it seems because the current routes | are built around large container + long haul but that's | not necessarily required (for all shipping at least). | | [1] eg. https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/could- | battery-powe... | ClumsyPilot wrote: | here fuels like hydrogen might make sence, but why not | 'normal' nuclear? | | There are hundreds of nuclear powered ships already - | submarines, Icebreakers, carriers, etc. | pfdietz wrote: | DT fusion would be just ridiculous for space flight. | Anything a DT reactor could do a fission reactor could do | much better -- much smaller, much higher power density, | much less complexity. And similarly for use in ships down | here on Earth. | | In practice, synfuels would be better than either for | ships on Earth. | GordonS wrote: | I don't understand this; if fission reactors were | "better", we wouldn't be pouring so much into fusion? | | Also, if it makes a difference, I didn't mean we'd be | bolting a first gen tokamak to a container ship; I meant, | much later down the line, if we were able to miniaturise | (similar to how we have nuclear powered subs and ice | breakers). | pfdietz wrote: | You seem to think that government decisions are rational. | | Fusion is a meme technology. People just have this | assumption that's it's valuable, without having | rationally arrived at that conclusion (which, when you | examine it in detail, is very difficult to justify.) I | suspect this was because it started back in the 1950s | when consent was easier to manufacture and nuclear was | being pushed. Fission lost that glamour with most people, | but fusion somehow has retained it. | GordonS wrote: | It's not only governments pouring cash in, but private | equity too. | | With all due respect, it seems ridiculous to me that | fusion is a "meme technology" - aside from money, are all | those many thousands of scientists _really_ working on a | technology they know can 't work? | pfdietz wrote: | Some of that private investment has been sadly lacking in | critical due diligence. | | Look at Tri-Alpha. The people involved with that | (Rostoker, Binderbauer and Monkhorst) were told 23 years | ago that their colliding beam H-11B concept didn't work, | for multiple reasons. Yet look at how much money they | raised. | | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235032059_Commen | ts_... | dmichulke wrote: | Isn't the main reason for us not having fission rockets | the fact that we don't want to have radioactive material | explode a few kms above our head aka a dirty bomb? | pfdietz wrote: | A DT fusion reactor would have a thrust/weight ratio much | less than 1, so it could not be used in a launch vehicle. | It would be purely for use up in space. So, none of this | "a few kms above our heads" nonsense. | [deleted] | Galaxeblaffer wrote: | We already have the perfect way to create heat and the | science around it has been long solved and understood. | Solar and wind won't save us and fusion certainly won't. It | amazes me how solar and wind dreamers all seem to like | fusion but fission is just super evil. | sidkshatriya wrote: | From what I've understood from previous discussions (don't know | much about plasma physics though): It is a multistep challenge. | Step 1: Figure out how to get a self-sustaining fusion | reaction. Step 2: figure out how to extract the energy in a | useful, safe, non-destructive (to the reactor) way. | | Doing Step 1 alone is very difficult so the've postponed Step 2 | to the future. I may be wrong though. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | I would imagine since, combined, we're spending tens of | billions of dollars on Fusion research - someone must have | some ideas for step 2, right?! | stormbrew wrote: | 10s of billions... Over many decades. We spend very little | on fusion research overall. | pfdietz wrote: | There are currently major unsolved problems with step 2. | | https://cpb- | us-w2.wpmucdn.com/research.seas.ucla.edu/dist/d/... | kortex wrote: | We have some ideas, of course. The rough idea is: surround | the reactor with a lithium blanket. This gets bombarded | with neutrons, breeding fuel and heating the lithium, which | transfers its heat to coolant to spin turbines. The devil | is in all the engineering details, like: how do we make | alloys to deal with neutron bombardment/hydrogen | embrittlement, what's the optimal geometry to capture flux | while being serviceable, etc. | | Much of that work can and is researched in parallel, but | there will be inevitable integration hell that has a | burning fusion reactor core as a prerequisite. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | What is done with the "spent" lithium blanket? Is it | radioactive waste? | esteth wrote: | It depends on how it's engineered. The lithium itself | wouldn't be "radioactive waste" but the vessel for the | lithium would likely be. | trebligdivad wrote: | I'm not sure, but there's a thing called the 'Divertor' in some | designs, it's said to be for removing inpurities, but some | things talk about it being used for removing heat as well: | https://www.iter.org/mach/Divertor | trebligdivad wrote: | oh, and the other thing is some of the walls they talk about | having 'blankets' that absorb the neutrons and ... somehow | get the heat out; one of them is 'flibe' which is a lithium | salt: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2 | 019.1... | willis936 wrote: | I was going to make a comment about divertors. W7-X has 10 | strike points and an island divertor. It's pretty wild | physics. | Maken wrote: | Because no known material can withstand direct contact with the | plasma. Even with the air gap the walls require a cooling | system, and therefore a continuous hot stream of fluid will be | generated like in any other thermal power plant. | | However, at the stage fusion research is, the main problem is | figuring how to create a device to keep the plasma fluid stable | for long periods of time. As far as I know, none of the | existing prototypes aims to be a functional electricity | generator. | exitheone wrote: | Is this not false? The plasma is so incredibly thin that it | would cool down immediately the moment it touches the walls. | Afaik the heat generated here is mostly due to neutron | bombardment and not because of the plasma. | homarp wrote: | https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsstellarators A | stellarator is a machine that uses magnetic fields to confine | plasma in the shape of a donut, called a torus. | | Over tokamaks, the other main technology that scientists are | exploring for fusion power, stellarators require less injected | power to sustain the plasma, have greater design flexibility, and | allow for simplification of some aspects of plasma control. | | However, these benefits come at the cost of increased complexity, | especially for the magnetic field coils. | snovv_crash wrote: | Stellerators aren't really in a torus, they are in a weird | fractally twisted torus, sort of like a many-twisted Mobius | strip. You really need to see a picture to understand. | snarfy wrote: | If a tokamak is a donut, then a stellerator is a French cruller. | davesque wrote: | What's the theoretical advantage of the German stellarator over a | tokemak? Seems like a complex design but I assume there must be a | reason for the complexity. | sac_ wrote: | The main advantage is that a Stellerator can be continuously | operated while a Tokamak only works in pulsed operation. | | The complex design of a Stellerator's magnectic coils | essentially avoid the need for a transformer as it is being | used in a Tokamak. The transformer is the reason why a Tokamak | can only be operated in pulsed mode. However, there is ongoing | research to achieve continuous operations e.g. by means of | high-frequency waves. | | Much better explanation here: | https://www.ipp.mpg.de/14869/tokamak | speeder wrote: | I am complete layman here. Still from what I read the whole | point of stellarator is to be same as tokamak except you use | CAD to make it twist in the same way plasma naturally would | twist, to make it easier to keep the plasma in the path you | want. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-11 23:00 UTC)