We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the railway and other forms of transport. Most
of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable fusion feeding power into the Grid was
ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:

From
http://m5.emails.telegraph.co.uk/nl/jsp/m.jsp?c=%40nM6iau3FWQxJNXNMesaNvsLJ1WkwajtAo4XC8ovscnYs5xcSz9rpmB3uBCy%2FhucpCi26lNheNR0h9CgQpqqXfA%3D%3D&WT.mc_id=e_DM292013&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_EIn_New&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_EIn_New20240312&utm_campaign=DM292013

Tuesday March 12 2024
Nuclear fusion for the grid is coming much sooner than you think

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
World Economy Editor
Commercial nuclear fusion has gone from science fiction to science fact in less than a decade.

Even well-informed members of the West’s political class are mostly unaware of the quantum leap in superconductors,
lasers, and advanced materials suddenly changing the economics of fusion power.

Britain’s First Light Fusion announced last week that it had broken the world record for pressure at the Sandia National
Laboratories in the US, pushing the boundary to 1.85 terapascal, five times the pressure at the core of the earth.

Days earlier, a clutch of peer-reviewed papers confirmed that Commonwealth Fusion Systems near Boston had broken the
world record for large-scale magnets with a field strength of 20 tesla using the latest high-temperature superconducting
technology.

This exceeds the threshold necessary for producing net energy, or a ‘Q factor’, above 1.0.

“Overnight, it basically changed the cost per watt of a fusion reactor by a factor of almost 40,” said Professor Dennis
Whyte, plasma doyen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The March edition of the IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity published six papers ratifying different aspects
of the technology.

The magnets are used to fuse hydrogen isotopes by squeezing super hot plasma inside a tokamak device.

The temperature must be 10 times hotter than the surface of the Sun in order to replicate solar fusion because the
Earth’s magnetic field is that much weaker.

The ‘old’ low-temperature magnets are made of niobium alloys operating near absolute zero at -270C. The new magnets lift
the temperature from four kelvins to 20 kelvins using rare earth barium copper oxide (ReBCO) with a radical new design.

They combine superconductivity with extreme magnetic power. This leverages a “multiple-order-of-magnitude increase” in
fusion capability.

Commonwealth’s chief executive, Bob Mumgaard, told me the game-changing technology scarcely existed 10 years ago, and
was still in its infancy five years ago.

“The breakthrough is in superconductors. Much stronger magnets mean that we can build a plant that is 40 times smaller,”
he said.

It is time to drop the old joke that fusion is 30 years away, and always will be. A poll at the International Atomic
Energy Agency’s forum in London found that 65pc of insiders think fusion will generate electricity for the grid at
viable cost by 2035, and 90pc by 2040.

If the industry is anywhere close to being right, we need to rethink all our energy assumptions. Britain’s planned gas
plants are rendered obsolescent almost before they are built.

In late December, China launched its own fusion consortium, combining its top universities and state industries in an
Apollo-style national endeavour.

“Controlled nuclear fusion is the only direction for future energy,” said the State Council. This is the new front in
the technology arms race.

The world’s long-running $20bn ITER research project, a consortium of the US, Japan, Europe, China and Russia, looks
ever more like a beached whale in this contest.

It has collected valuable science over the decades but has been dogged by geopolitics and delays, and has never produced
more energy than it put in, unlike the Lawrence Livermore lab in the US using the rival technology of inertial fusion.

The baton has passed to tech tycoons in a hurry. Commonwealth Fusion, a spin-off from MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion
Centre, is backed by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Sir Richard Branson.

It aims to produce its first plasma next year and reach a steady Q factor of 10 by the late 2020s, the energy target for
commercial take-off.

Dr Mumgaard said Commonwealth is eyeing costs of $60-$80 megawatt hours with scale, undercutting the 24/7 cost of
intermittent renewables-paired with gas peaker plants or with energy storage, in most places.

“It might be even lower. We don’t use uranium. There is no risk of meltdowns,” he said.

Regulators in the UK and the US plan to treat fusion plants like hospitals, since they use tiny amounts of
deuterium-tritium. Radioactive release is nothing like a uranium fission reactor. This means they can be built almost
anywhere and rolled out fast.

Britain is going gangbusters on all fronts, a legacy of ITER’s Joint European Torus project at Culham, but also a feat
of leadership.

“Of all the countries in the world, the UK is most aggressively pursuing fusion power,” said American scientists Matthew
Moynihan and Alfred Bortz, co-authors of Fusion’s Promise.

They said the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) under Sir Ian Chapman had done a masterful job in creating the Fusion
Cluster and the £650m Fusion Futures Programme, accelerating the move from pure research to megawatts for the grid.

“All this work has made the UK the technical leader in the race to fusion power,” they said.

Tokomak Energy near Oxford is a pioneer of the new ReBCO magnet technology, and may be sitting on priceless intellectual
property.

The UKAEA is building its own tokamak on the site of an old coal-fired plant in Nottinghamshire, with a spherical design
that has never been tried before but promises to slash costs.

England hosts three world-class fusion start-ups spanning the two key rival technologies. First Light leads in inertial
fusion.

Two others are developing magnetic fusion: Tokamak Energy and Canada’s General Fusion, which is locating its
demonstration plant at the Culham Campus, quite a coup for the Fusion Cluster. Any one of them has a chance of striking
gold.

The allure of fusion is by now well understood. It generates four million times more energy than fossil power, without
emitting CO2 or methane. It creates almost no long-term waste. Its main by-product is inert helium.

It uses almost no land, and little water, and can be made practically invisible. Unlike today’s fission, it produces
industrial high-grade heat to help decarbonise glass, cement, steel, ammonia, hydrogen, etc. It runs continuously if you
need it, or is dispatchable if you don’t.

The fuel is effectively limitless for thousands of years and can be obtained anywhere: deuterium from seawater, and
tritium by breeding with small amounts of lithium.

There is no risk of a runaway chain reaction. It does not use fissile materials and is useless for weapons.

Lev Artsimovich, the Polish-Russian father of the tokomak, was one asked when fusion would come of age. “When humanity
really needs it,” he replied. So it is proving to be.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>railway and other forms of transport. Most
>of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:

I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
then. Would have been an interesting visit except all the interesting stuff
was off limits - had to look through windows at the control room etc. Waste of
time.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>
> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
> then

Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
smart businessmen, and making startling progress.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>
>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>> then
>
> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>

Coincidently the missus got told this Morning that one of her Great Nieces
who is a bit of a smart cookie has been offered a position at CERN though
I have no idea what she will be doing,
We both somewhat cynically said it was a good achievement but have those
scientists actually
come up something useful to justify the huge expenditure over the years.
OK there was Tim Bernard Lees WWW contribution but I don’t think making
easy access for the worlds population to information was a primary aim an
expensive international project.

GH

On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>
>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>> then
>
> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.

It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
"outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
strains over a wide range of temperatures.

There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
learning curve.
(Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
as impracticable & expensive.)

Sooner than who thinks??? And after all it is the Telegraph, so you can
hardly believe anything in it these days! Especially any article by
Ambrose Double-Barrel-whatever/

But if you really want to know how close a demo reactor might be look at:

https://youtu.be/S_XZ-nh_Be4?t=2370

The first part of the lecture is also good, but the Dennis Whyte bit in
the middle isn't up to his usual standard - suspect he was given a short
time-slot and maybe wasn't feeling at his best? He has other lectures on
YT that are excellent.

On 12/03/2024 19:52, JohnD wrote:
> Sooner than who thinks??? And after all it is the Telegraph, so you can
> hardly believe anything in it these days! Especially any article by
> Ambrose Double-Barrel-whatever/
>
> But if you really want to know how close a demo reactor might be look at:
>
> https://youtu.be/S_XZ-nh_Be4?t=2370
>
> The first part of the lecture is also good, but the Dennis Whyte bit in
> the middle isn't up to his usual standard - suspect he was given a short
> time-slot and maybe wasn't feeling at his best? He has other lectures on
> YT that are excellent.
>

A slightly unlikely presenter perhaps, but she really seems to know her
stuff.

Ian Chapman is also a good presenter of course: eg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz92EMRp6WU

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:30:37 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>
>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable,
>deployable
>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>
>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road
>back
>> then
>
>Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>smart businessmen, and making startling progress.

So what? Plenty of smart people and companies have been burnt on things which
look promising but which turned out to be nothing of the sort or the payoff is
so far down the line that they'll all be dead before there's any kind of profit.
eg rolls royce and electric aircraft.

I have no doubt usable fusion power is possible, but I don't think we yet have
the technology to achieve it and won't in the near future.

On 12 Mar 2024 18:55:56 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>
>
>Coincidently the missus got told this Morning that one of her Great Nieces
>who is a bit of a smart cookie has been offered a position at CERN though
>I have no idea what she will be doing,
>We both somewhat cynically said it was a good achievement but have those
>scientists actually
>come up something useful to justify the huge expenditure over the years.
>OK there was Tim Bernard Lees WWW contribution but I don’t think making
>easy access for the worlds population to information was a primary aim an
>expensive international project.

The point of fundamental physics research isn't to have some kind of magic
product pop out of the end but to provide the scientific basis for others to
go and create stuff with it.

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>>
>>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>>> then
>>
>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>
> It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
> also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
> "outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
> strains over a wide range of temperatures.
>
> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
> learning curve.
> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
> as impracticable & expensive.)
>

These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
viable power stations.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:13 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>> learning curve.
>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>
>
>These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>viable power stations.

Because commercial companies never get it wrong, go on a hunch or just go
bust.

Unless they're prepaired to wait for another few decades for payday then
they're in trouble because a working fusion reactor is a long way off yet.
Nothing thats been done recently looks to me like anything other than slow
evolution of whats gone before.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:13 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>> learning curve.
>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>
>>
>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>> viable power stations.
>
> Because commercial companies never get it wrong, go on a hunch or just go
> bust.
>
> Unless they're prepaired to wait for another few decades for payday then
> they're in trouble because a working fusion reactor is a long way off yet.
> Nothing thats been done recently looks to me like anything other than slow
> evolution of whats gone before.

So you've not read the article.

On 13/03/2024 11:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:13 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>> learning curve.
>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>
>>
>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>> viable power stations.
>
> Because commercial companies never get it wrong, go on a hunch or just go
> bust.
>
> Unless they're prepaired to wait for another few decades for payday then
> they're in trouble because a working fusion reactor is a long way off yet.
> Nothing thats been done recently looks to me like anything other than slow
> evolution of whats gone before.
>
>

Really depends on what timescale you're thinking of. STEP (the UK's
prototype 100MW electricity-generating fusion reactor at West Burton in
Notts IIRC) is planned to be constructed and commissioned in the period
2032-2040. It's due to move into the detailed engineering design phase
this year.

So not imminent, but 'only' 10-15 years or so away. But 2045-2050 is
probably a more realistic time frame for multiple commercial follow-on
reactors.

So commercial fusion is not just around the corner, but is far better
understood now and - especially with the advent of 'high temperature'
superconducting magnets - far more credible now. Barring any major new
problems with the technology - still possible but with steadily
decreasing likelihood as each year passes - there seems to be an
excellent chance that commercial fusion will be a major contributor to
electricity generation from 2050 onwards.

--
Order alone is boring; complexity alone is chaos

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:45:45 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:13 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>>> learning curve.
>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>> viable power stations.
>>
>> Because commercial companies never get it wrong, go on a hunch or just go
>> bust.
>>
>> Unless they're prepaired to wait for another few decades for payday then
>> they're in trouble because a working fusion reactor is a long way off yet.
>> Nothing thats been done recently looks to me like anything other than slow
>> evolution of whats gone before.
>
>So you've not read the article.

IIRC they created more energy than they put in. Given what they put in and
the excess that came out I won't be holding my breath.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:51:20 +0000
JohnD <general@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>On 13/03/2024 11:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:13 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>>> learning curve.
>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>> viable power stations.
>>
>> Because commercial companies never get it wrong, go on a hunch or just go
>> bust.
>>
>> Unless they're prepaired to wait for another few decades for payday then
>> they're in trouble because a working fusion reactor is a long way off yet.
>> Nothing thats been done recently looks to me like anything other than slow
>> evolution of whats gone before.
>>
>>
>
>Really depends on what timescale you're thinking of. STEP (the UK's
>prototype 100MW electricity-generating fusion reactor at West Burton in
>Notts IIRC) is planned to be constructed and commissioned in the period
>2032-2040. It's due to move into the detailed engineering design phase
>this year.
>
>So not imminent, but 'only' 10-15 years or so away. But 2045-2050 is

Yeah, we'll see.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:45:45 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:13 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>>>> learning curve.
>>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>>> viable power stations.
>>>
>>> Because commercial companies never get it wrong, go on a hunch or just go
>>> bust.
>>>
>>> Unless they're prepaired to wait for another few decades for payday then
>>> they're in trouble because a working fusion reactor is a long way off yet.
>>> Nothing thats been done recently looks to me like anything other than slow
>>> evolution of whats gone before.
>>
>> So you've not read the article.
>
> IIRC they created more energy than they put in.

Thanks for confirming you haven't read the article.

> Given what they put in and
> the excess that came out I won't be holding my breath.

It's your eyes that don't function.

JohnD <general@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/03/2024 11:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:13 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>>> learning curve.
>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>> viable power stations.
>>
>> Because commercial companies never get it wrong, go on a hunch or just go
>> bust.
>>
>> Unless they're prepaired to wait for another few decades for payday then
>> they're in trouble because a working fusion reactor is a long way off yet.
>> Nothing thats been done recently looks to me like anything other than slow
>> evolution of whats gone before.
>>
>>
>
> Really depends on what timescale you're thinking of. STEP (the UK's
> prototype 100MW electricity-generating fusion reactor at West Burton in
> Notts IIRC) is planned to be constructed and commissioned in the period
> 2032-2040. It's due to move into the detailed engineering design phase
> this year.
>
> So not imminent, but 'only' 10-15 years or so away. But 2045-2050 is
> probably a more realistic time frame for multiple commercial follow-on
> reactors.
>
> So commercial fusion is not just around the corner, but is far better
> understood now and - especially with the advent of 'high temperature'
> superconducting magnets - far more credible now. Barring any major new
> problems with the technology - still possible but with steadily
> decreasing likelihood as each year passes - there seems to be an
> excellent chance that commercial fusion will be a major contributor to
> electricity generation from 2050 onwards.
>

Quote from the article:

"A poll at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s forum in London found
that 65pc of insiders think fusion will generate electricity for the grid
at viable cost by 2035, and 90pc by 2040."

As the article points out, that affects the viability of other power
generation investments today, that might only be viable if they have a 25
year profitable payback period.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2024 18:55:56 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>>
>>
>> Coincidently the missus got told this Morning that one of her Great Nieces
>> who is a bit of a smart cookie has been offered a position at CERN though
>> I have no idea what she will be doing,
>> We both somewhat cynically said it was a good achievement but have those
>> scientists actually
>> come up something useful to justify the huge expenditure over the years.
>> OK there was Tim Bernard Lees WWW contribution but I don’t think making
>> easy access for the worlds population to information was a primary aim an
>> expensive international project.
>
> The point of fundamental physics research isn't to have some kind of magic
> product pop out of the end but to provide the scientific basis for others to
> go and create stuff with it.
>
>

Indeed ,but what has come out of it so far. No doubt here has been
something but in the 70 or so years has there been anything that the man in
the street would have got a good return on his taxes that his government
handed over to help run the place about 150 million pounds a year isn’t
from the the UK .Or is just a lucrative career for boffins just working
with other boffins, bit like someone who gets a degree in say ancient South
American languages can only really use it to become a lecturer to a future
intake who want to study ancient South American languages.

GH

On 13/03/2024 12:04, Recliner wrote:

> "A poll at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s forum in London found
> that 65pc of insiders think fusion will generate electricity for the grid
> at viable cost by 2035, and 90pc by 2040."
>

That's a pretty loosely-worded question though.

STEP could be operating by then and generating grid-connected
electricity and demonstrating likely commercial viability. (And indeed
comparable prototype reactors elsewhere in the world.) But it would
still be a small prototype reactor. It's a vital and promising next
stage to succeed with, but a roll-out of full commercial-scale (say
500-1000MW) reactors would be probably a decade later.

One issue is where all the tritium will come from. Tritium is not a
natural resource in the sense of being 'mineable' (because of its 12.3
year half-life). Any tritium will probably have to be made by other
fusion reactors so there will likely be a finite rate at which new
fusion reactors can be introduced.
..

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:00:11 +0000, JohnD <general@prodata.co.uk> wrote:

>On 13/03/2024 12:04, Recliner wrote:
>
>> "A poll at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s forum in London found
>> that 65pc of insiders think fusion will generate electricity for the grid
>> at viable cost by 2035, and 90pc by 2040."
>>
>
>That's a pretty loosely-worded question though.
>
>STEP could be operating by then and generating grid-connected
>electricity and demonstrating likely commercial viability. (And indeed
>comparable prototype reactors elsewhere in the world.) But it would
>still be a small prototype reactor. It's a vital and promising next
>stage to succeed with, but a roll-out of full commercial-scale (say
>500-1000MW) reactors would be probably a decade later.

Yes, that makes sense. It's probably quicker than a big new EPR station could come on-line. If it also costs less to
build, and can run more efficiently, it's going to be hard to find investors in large new fission plants.

>
>One issue is where all the tritium will come from. Tritium is not a
>natural resource in the sense of being 'mineable' (because of its 12.3
>year half-life). Any tritium will probably have to be made by other
>fusion reactors so there will likely be a finite rate at which new
>fusion reactors can be introduced.
>

I don't suppose there will be early plans to mass produce them anyway.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>>>
>>>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>>>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>>>> then
>>>
>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>
>> It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
>> also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
>> "outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
>> strains over a wide range of temperatures.
>>
>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>> learning curve.
>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>
>
> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
> viable power stations.
>
>

Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
fingers burnt.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:57:32 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:45:45 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:13 GMT
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>
>>>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>
>>>>>> learning curve.
>>>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>
>>>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>
>>>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>>>> viable power stations.
>>>>
>>>> Because commercial companies never get it wrong, go on a hunch or just go
>>>> bust.
>>>>
>>>> Unless they're prepaired to wait for another few decades for payday then
>>>> they're in trouble because a working fusion reactor is a long way off yet.
>>>> Nothing thats been done recently looks to me like anything other than slow
>>>> evolution of whats gone before.
>>>
>>> So you've not read the article.
>>
>> IIRC they created more energy than they put in.
>
>Thanks for confirming you haven't read the article.

So they didn't create more? Well that really helps your position.

I was probably thinking of this false dawn a few years back:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/242258/breakthrough-fusion-experiment-generates-
excess-energy/

But wait - it happened again! *gasp*

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-04045-8

Let me know when anything approaching a usable system turns up.

>> Given what they put in and
>> the excess that came out I won't be holding my breath.
>
>It's your eyes that don't function.

Better than my brain not functioning which seems to be your afflicition.
But if you want to invest in fusion power you go right ahead. Perhaps they
can even give you an NFT to go with it!

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 12:04:24 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>JohnD <general@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>> decreasing likelihood as each year passes - there seems to be an
>> excellent chance that commercial fusion will be a major contributor to
>> electricity generation from 2050 onwards.
>>
>
>Quote from the article:
>
>"A poll at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s forum in London found
>that 65pc of insiders think fusion will generate electricity for the grid
>at viable cost by 2035, and 90pc by 2040."

IOW pretty much the same as "insiders" were saying 40 years ago when we'd all
apparently have virtually limitless energy before the new century arrived.

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2024 18:55:56 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Coincidently the missus got told this Morning that one of her Great Nieces
>>> who is a bit of a smart cookie has been offered a position at CERN though
>>> I have no idea what she will be doing,
>>> We both somewhat cynically said it was a good achievement but have those
>>> scientists actually
>>> come up something useful to justify the huge expenditure over the years.
>>> OK there was Tim Bernard Lees WWW contribution but I don’t think making
>>> easy access for the worlds population to information was a primary aim an
>>> expensive international project.
>>
>> The point of fundamental physics research isn't to have some kind of magic
>> product pop out of the end but to provide the scientific basis for others to
>> go and create stuff with it.
>>
>>
>
> Indeed ,but what has come out of it so far. No doubt here has been
> something but in the 70 or so years has there been anything that the man in
> the street would have got a good return on his taxes that his government
> handed over to help run the place about 150 million pounds a year isn’t
> from the the UK .Or is just a lucrative career for boffins just working
> with other boffins, bit like someone who gets a degree in say ancient South
> American languages can only really use it to become a lecturer to a future
> intake who want to study ancient South American languages.
>
> GH
>

Understanding the fundamentals of matter, which is still poorly understood,
has profound implications for future technology. The basic research done in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries laid the groundwork for things such
as semiconductors and nuclear power/weapons.

On 13 Mar 2024 12:24:41 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> The point of fundamental physics research isn't to have some kind of magic
>> product pop out of the end but to provide the scientific basis for others to
>> go and create stuff with it.
>>
>>
>
>Indeed ,but what has come out of it so far. No doubt here has been
>something but in the 70 or so years has there been anything that the man in
>the street would have got a good return on his taxes that his government
>handed over to help run the place about 150 million pounds a year isn’t
>from the the UK .Or is just a lucrative career for boffins just working
>with other boffins, bit like someone who gets a degree in say ancient South
>American languages can only really use it to become a lecturer to a future
>intake who want to study ancient South American languages.

I guess its always tricky balancing the costs of blue sky research when at the
end of the day its a gamble whether anything comes of it. But if you don't
do it then we don't advance as a species. I do think however that perhaps a
bit too much cash gets splashed at particle physics when there are many other
areas of raw science it could go to as well.