After making fusion there are two ways to recover part of the electricity: one is magnetics, other electrostatics and the third is using a similar system that fission reactors but perhaps at higher efficiency.
I remembered that electrostatics recover 40% but generates too damage too much the chamber.
Thank you Hamit.
I where asking about the technical problem, not the economic issue.
About the documents there are 3 lacks:
1. D+T fusion generates a tons of radiactive waste and the two proposed methods does not work with aneutronic fuel in 100 years
2. It is needed at short term (3 years) battery chargers for cars. If not hundreds of atomic or coal plants should be built
3. There are too much obsolete nuclear plants threatening rivers and large residential areas
I think there is a lack of a part in the project, I think I could help a little to solve the problem, could somebody help me to join the group? I do not want to be separated from them. A good starting point could be joining to the stellarators group.
About the technical issues the problem is that I should need a starting point to decide between the three technologies in order to design some components.
There is NO WAY you will get any sort of fusion reactor working with positive energy yield in 3 years. 300 might be nearer, unless you spend as much money on it as are presently being spent on armaments. Look at the types of fusion reactors being studied at the moment. None of them look like working commercially for a VERY LONG TIME (commercial fusion has been 50 years away for the last 60 years). But it may well be possible to come up with a "game changer" in the technology - e.g. cold fusion if it works - and if you can do this, then all bets are off. Best wishes with your research!
As far as I know ITER uses fuel all participating countries have access to. But there might be fuels that work better.
Here is a suggestion for quark fusion:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/fusion-of-quark-doubly-heavy-baryons-would-generate-eight-times-more-power-than-regular-fusion.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24289
Other improvements:
http://www.sciencealert.com/hydrogen-boron-nuclear-sphere-revolutionise-fusion-energy
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/laser-and-particle-beams/article/road-map-to-clean-energy-using-laser-beam-ignition-of-boronhydrogen-fusion/8BE057DC1BC9E0A588FB3ABAA993078C
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-physicists-explore-recipe-plasma.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-fusion-energy.html
Regards, Joachim
Fusion budget cuts are due not giving results in the short term. Investors and governments should be interested if some result is achieved.
I am sudiyng the method to use one of our our plasma accelerator to try ignition not only in our devices but also in stellarator and small tokamaks.
Perhaps it is possible to reduce the 30 years to less than 10 for a commercial grade reactor but not in the standard way.
Actually battery cost cuts to a half every 3 years, also solar PV and wind reduces costs, we should run, all together.
Only losers fight between them
I have read the document:
https://www.euro-fusion.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/JG12.356-web.pdf
Accordingly a responsable from a large electric company said me that the only interesting thin is the price per kwh
Also this other:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/were-still-underestimating-cost-improvements-for-batteries#gs.giuGYyw
Sun + batteries = 0.11$/kwh by 2020
- Badges
- Science topic