
MIT and newly formed company launch effort to build compact tokamak pilot plant - sien
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-formed-company-launch-novel-approach-fusion-power-0309
======
tim333
Also discussed yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16550252](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16550252)

------
ScipioAfricanus
It's hard to fully comprehend the impact of new energy sources on
civilization. So much of what we do is only possible because we have the
necessary energy at our disposal.

When civilization finds new energy sources, most other technologies level up
as well.

Consider one of the biggest problems with desalinization systems: pumping
water inland. The actual separation of salt from seawater isn't the most
energy intensive part of the process. Desalinization works great for wealthy
coastal communities.

But a large nation like the US or China would never be able to fulfill the
water demand of its people through desalinization alone because the cost of
transporting coastal water inland would be prohibitive.

Enter something like fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient on a
per pound of fuel basis than fossil fuels and something like distributing
water to everyone in the US from the coasts becomes possible.

~~~
demxzy
Maybe we can reforest the Sahara which cheap transportation of water powered
by fusion. Better climate control will also be probably possible

~~~
codesnik
I wonder if extra dissipated heat while doing this would contribute to global
warming. But probably scale of adding heat directly to atmosphere isn't
comparable to insulation effect of CO2

------
MayeulC
This is yet another area where high temperature superconductors revolutionizes
its engineering. I can't wait for more insights to be made in this domain: the
way superconductors behave is actually becoming clearer and clearer from one
year to another.

Ambient temperature superconductors are the holy grail of the field, of
course, but this project shows that even ~80 K superconductors can
substantially reduce the size of magnets (cooling apparatus included), which
can open doors to new applications.

Exciting times... Oh, and I can't wait for ITER either. While the project was
never meant to be commercially viable, it should offer some great insights
into commercial fusion energy.

~~~
mannykannot
I cannot help but think that ITER has been a harmful mistake. With at least 17
years to go before it is operational, it already seems obsolescent in some key
technological areas, such as magnets, yet it keeps on going, sucking up funds
that might be better applied elsewhere (though whether they would be is an
open question.) The project reminds me of Britain's attempt to build the
airliner of the future in the Bristol Brabazon [1], but which was obsolete by
the time it flew. The biggest cost was probably in lost time.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Brabazon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Brabazon)

~~~
jmiserez
Your 17 years are off, experiment begin is in 2027:
[https://www.iter.org/construction/timeline](https://www.iter.org/construction/timeline)

And even then, the time until “operational” is not spent idling, the project
has sparked and funded lots of research in various domains. It’s like the
space race, at some point you just have to start building something for there
to be any actual progress.

~~~
mannykannot
Indeed, but I wonder if ITER has had a chilling effect on other such projects
that could take advantage of newer technology to leapfrog it. In fact, some of
the recent projects are looking more like the space race, which is an
encouraging sign, and perhaps especially if it lights a fire under ITER -
let's have a fusion race!

The article cited 2035 as the date when ITER is expected to begin producing
fusion energy. While preliminary R&D is necessary, it is all for (nearly)
nothing unless and until it results in fusion at a scale that advances the
state of the art.

------
Veedrac
Tokamak Energy[1] seems to have taken a similar path with smaller, HTS-based
reactors. I don't have the expertise to evaluate these projects but, judging
from the statements of the people working with these new superconductors,
fusion power might _actually_ be 10 years away this time.

[1] [https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/](https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/)

------
kaplun
Go ENI! It's amazing how an Italian Oil and Gas company is working hard to
collaborate with research with the aim of revolutionizing energy extraction.
This is inspiring and giving hope on the future.

~~~
riffraff
The key is diversifying, ENI also just started the largest non-institutional
supercomputer [0] to improve oil exploration, it's not like they are giving up
on fossil, just hedging their position.

[0] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/eni-
takes...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/eni-takes-on-
total-and-bp-as-oil-majors-crank-up-computing-power)

------
everyone
Heres a big presentation about it from 2016.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=KkpqA8yG9T4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=KkpqA8yG9T4)

I'm stoked that it is happening!

------
markvdb
Cheap nuclear fusion energy would be a great human achievement. I do wonder
about its effects on society though. Any reading containing well reasoned
speculation on that? Here's what I can think of myself.

* A cheaper, cleaner energy source might outcompete fossil fuel. Less air polution, yay!

* Cheaper energy would significantly increase energy consumption. Think Jevons paradox[0]. The effect of that increased heat production on global warming can't be good...

* Globally stabilising geopolitical effect. Less dependence on geographically confined scarce energy resources like Middle Eastern/Siberian/Venezuelan oil, Sahara sun, ... thanks to a globally available basic resource.

Any other obvious effects I'm missing?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

~~~
monort
Global warming will be solved, when we have a source of cheap electricity, it
will be possible to just pull CO2 from the air.

~~~
epistasis
I truly hope this is true, but when I think about the creation of some
technology that lets us do this, I'm left with a roadblock I can't get around:
Who is going to pay for this, when we can't even get the US to agree to cost-
saving commitments to reduce CO2 output?

If we get to a grid that's ~100% renewable, we'll likely have oversized it a
massive amount, like 50%-200% more energy could be produced than is needed at
the time of productions, to deal with seasonal and weather variability. Let's
call all that energy free, because it has zero marginal cost and would be
curtailed otherwise. Who pays for the capital on the equipment to pull out CO2
from the atmosphere, and the disposal of the resulting tons of carbon?

~~~
monort
There are at least several possibilities

1) People, who don't want to be affected by global warming. Right now nobody
is affected enough to pay and it is too costly (estimates are $500/metric ton,
while emission per capita is around 20 tonnes/year).

2) Captured carbon can be sold commercially for use in plastics industry, at
some point it will be cheaper, than oil/gas extraction.

3) Carbon emission trading already exists, some companies even doing it
voluntary, like Google. Direct air capture can piggy-back that system.

------
vosper
Fusion is still exciting, but with normal renewable (solar, wind) costs
plummeting the way they are is there still such a compelling case for pouring
money into fusion? This one aims to produce a working plant within 15 years.
I'm not sure that any of the other efforts are closer to being viable (if they
work at all). That's the kind of time frame in which we may master offshore
wind and grid-attached storage like the Tesla batteries. Might not even need
fusion at the point.

(Except maybe for spacecraft, in the much more distant future)

~~~
tinco
Solar and wind will never be enough to cover all energy demand. It is a common
misconception, it is not even possible to reduce energy consumption to low
enough that solar and wind would be sufficient.

If we want to stop burning fuel, we must research nuclear. Of course it is
unlikely that we would stop burning fuel any time soon, and that's why 15
years is unfortunately not an inconvenient timeline.

If you're interested in the numbers behind this argument I highly recommend
the book "Sustainable energy without the hot air".

~~~
jfaucett
Came here to say the same thing. Anytime an energy discussion comes up, I try
to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our problems,
especially in the global context of rising energy needs. If you care about the
enviroment and our future on this planet, it behooves you to look into nuclear
research and get uptodate. I would love to see us solve the clean energy
problem fully this century, and the key factor is going to be nuclear.

~~~
Jedd
> ... I try to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our
> problems, especially in the global context of rising energy needs.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16473729](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16473729)

I can't see any comment from you on this story from 10 days ago that was
titled:

"After rising for 100 years, electricity demand is flat (vox.com)"

Not everyone agrees that rising energy needs are a given, or even just a myth
that we should be politely accommodating.

It would behoove <sic> you to separate fusion and fission from any call to
action to investigation 'nuclear' as they are substantially different in terms
of waste and safety.

~~~
jfaucett
Yes, I didn't mention fission for 2 reasons #1 anyone who looks into nuclear
already knows this and #2 anyone else is usually just confused by it.

I don't spend every day on HN so I just missed that story and dont have time
to look into it now, but almost every article I've ever read till now had ways
the energy was displaced and not actually reduced or at a plateau. Also why
would you not want more energy? You can do more things, better, faster, etc.
The only reason not to want energy is because of externalities, which is
reasonable but needs to be weighed in the context of what your giving up i.e.
convience, efficiency, productivity, etc.

~~~
Jedd
Fair enough.

I always draw the distinction between fission and fusion when talking to
people who do, or don't, know the difference - as the former benefits from the
clarity, and the latter from the (new) understanding.

It's like using solar now to describe only photo-voltaic cells - solar thermal
is likely to be a much more interesting technology for grid-supply, but few
people that aren't interested in the area know about it (at least here in
Australia, where we haven't dabbled much, and have an administration that's
very pro-coal).

As to your question - you answered it yourself, I see. You wouldn't want more
energy if it's going to ultimately cost you your civilisation -- that's the
easy answer.

But also if you have any concept of restraint, moderation, efficiency
improvements, etc. (Though mostly if it's going to cost you your
civilisation.)

~~~
jfaucett
so... we pretty much completely agree :)

------
pfdietz
According to the 2014 arxiv.org paper on the ARC reactor
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3540.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3540.pdf)

the concept (which would produce 190MW(e)) uses 90 tonnes of beryllium.

According to the USGS, the current total world annual production of Be is 220
tonnes, and total global resource is estimated at 100,000 tonnes.

The world uses ~20 TW of primary energy, so roughly 100,000 ARC reactors would
be needed to supply the world, using about 100x as much Be as the estimated
amount available for mining.

Unless Be supplies can be drastically increased, this concept is at best a
niche player.

------
jdblair
It's said that practical fusion energy is always 10 years in the future. I see
this project innovates and projects instead 15 years in the future!

In all seriousness, I'm happy to see new projects using current
superconducting technology, I just wish we could build these things faster and
iterate more quickly.

