Nuclear Fusion — Coming Soon To An Electrical Grid Near You?

[RV_]

Investment advice I see as very good advice. Here is what is on my radar now. And it ties in with my interests in Tesla, both owning a Model Y, and getting back into owning their stock this past September 2020. It has doubled. But Tesla is not rumor.

We've all heard about fusion power being the heat if we could do it. (Pardon the intentional pun) MIT has produced startling proof of concept in making a real one. And they are doing just that. This would be a green solution for electric power generation on large and small scales.

Excerpt:

Nuclear Fusion — Coming Soon To An Electrical Grid Near You?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology — say they have studied all the available literature on fusion energy and have found a way to create a fusion reactor that is compact and more or less affordable. That is, it will cost less than a fleet of aircraft carriers. Their work has been published recently in the Journal of Plasma Physics.

They have formed a company called Commonwealth Fusion Systems to build the first fusion reactor based on their new research. It will be called SPARC (who says scientists have no sense of humor?) and the company claims it will be completed and providing electricity to the grid by the end of this decade.

The thing about fusion is, the process doesn’t work until isotopes of hydrogen are heated to hundreds of millions of degrees, according to The Guardian. As you can imagine, something that hot can’t be contained in a normal vessel made of stainless steel, concrete, or even kryptonite. In fact, the only way to contain it is inside a tokamak, a device with an ultra-powerful magnetic field. That’s the part that has stymied nuclear physicists until now. The people at SPARC claim to have invented new magnet technology that will allow them to build a compact tokamak that is relatively affordable.

We are all familiar with fusion reactors, as it turns out. That bright light in the sky that we call the sun is in fact a really big fusion reactor. It has been doing its thing for billions of years and hopefully will continue to do so for a while longer, assuming humans don’t find a way to destroy it the way they have destroyed almost everything here on Earth. Fusion power is it, the Holy Grail, the sine qua non of energy. In theory, it is capable of producing emissions- free electricity forever, at least to the limited extent homo sapiens can understand that term.

Bob Mumgaard, CEO of “These are concrete public predictions that when we build SPARC, the machine will produce net energy and even high gain fusion from the plasma. That is a necessary condition to build a fusion power plant for which the world has been waiting decades. The combination of established plasma physics, new innovative magnets, and reduced scale opens new possibilities for commercial fusion energy in time to make a difference for climate change. This is a major milestone for the company and for the global clean tech effort as we work to get commercial fusion energy on the grid as fast as possible.”

The company says, “CFS and MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center are also now constructing the advanced magnets that will allow CFS to build significantly smaller and lower cost fusion power plants. This collaboration is on track to demonstrate a successful 20 Tesla, large-bore magnet in 2021. This magnet test, the first of its kind in the world, opens a widely identified transformational opportunity for commercial fusion energy. These magnets will then be used in SPARC, which is on track to begin construction in 2021 and demonstrate net energy gain from fusion for the first time in history by 2025. SPARC will pave the way for the first commercially viable fusion power plant called ARC.

At a time when wind and solar power are growing by leaps and bounds, why do we need fusion power? According to Bob Mumgaard, the goal is not to use fusion to replace solar and wind, but to supplement them. “There are things that will be hard to do with only renewables, industrial scale things, like powering large cities or manufacturing,” he tells The Guardian. “This is where fusion can come in.”

Martin Greenwald, one of the senior scientists on the SPARC project, adds that a key motivation for the ambitious timeline is meeting energy requirements in a warming world. “Fusion seems like one of the possible solutions to get ourselves out of our impending climate disaster. What we’ve really done is combine an existing science with new material to open up vast new possibilities,” he says.”

Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/29/nuclear-fusion-coming-soon-to-an-electrical-grid-near-you/

 

[RV_]

New Scientific Papers Predict Historic Results for Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ Approach to Commercial Fusion Energy:

"Cambridge, MA – September 29, 2020 – Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), a company commercializing fusion energy, today announced a groundbreaking series of seven papers published and peer reviewed in a special edition of the Journal of Plasma Physics validating CFS’ approach to commercial fusion energy. The papers, written in collaboration with MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC) and available to public at no cost, are the first peer reviewed publications from any private commercial fusion company that verifies a compact fusion device will achieve net energy where the plasma generates more fusion power than used to start and sustain the process, the requirement for a fusion power plant.

CFS is collaborating with MIT’s PSFC to design and build SPARC, the world’s first net energy (Q>1) fusion system. SPARC is being designed with the collective and proven knowledge of the world’s fusion programs, using well established plasma physics as well as cutting-edge tools that include advanced simulations, data analysis, and science from existing machines. These papers are the result of more than two years of work by the team to refine the SPARC design, which is now entering its final stages.

The papers apply the same physics rules and simulations used to design ITER and interpret results from existing experiments to predict SPARC’s performance based on the anticipated engineering design. The results show that SPARC will achieve its goal (Q>2) with considerable margin. The joint team of world-leading experts include those who worked on the design for ITER, as well as groups from national labs, centers, and universities around the world. Both ITER and SPARC are tokamaks, a device that uses a magnetic field to confine the fusion process. However, SPARC will use new high temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets to enable a similar performance as ITER but built more than 10 times smaller and on a significantly faster timeline.  

The papers also predict that SPARC will very likely achieve a burning plasma for the first time on earth, meaning the fusion process will be dominantly self-heating. This is a major multi-decade goal of the world’s scientific community.

“These are concrete public predictions that when we build SPARC, the machine will produce net energy and even high gain fusion from the plasma. That is a necessary condition to build a fusion power plant for which the world has been waiting decades,” said CFS CEO Bob Mumgaard, PhD. “The combination of established plasma physics, new innovative magnets, and reduced scale opens new possibilities for commercial fusion energy in time to make a difference for climate change. This is a major milestone for the company and for the global clean tech effort as we work to get commercial CFS and MIT’s PSFC are also now constructing the advanced magnets that will allow CFS to build significantly smaller and lower-cost fusion power plants. This collaboration is on track to demonstrate a successful 20 Tesla, large-bore magnet in 2021. This magnet test, the first of its kind in the world, opens a widely identified transformational opportunity for commercial fusion energy. These magnets will then be used in SPARC, which is on track to begin construction in 2021 and demonstrate net energy gain from fusion for the first time in history by 2025. SPARC will pave the way for the first commercially viable fusion power plant called ARC."

Source:  https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/new-scientific-papers-predict-historic-results-for

[RV_]

This is scheduled to happen in 2025! This answers the question of how to power all the new EVs, and how to reduce greenhouse gases, AND supply all the electricity needed.

06.27.2019

Commonwealth Fusion Systems Raises $115 Million and Closes Series A Round to Commercialize Fusion Energy

"CFS in collaboration with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center will use these magnets to build SPARC by 2025 and demonstrate net energy gain from fusion for the first time in history.

ommonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), a startup commercializing fusion energy, today announced it has raised $115 million and closed its Series A round. New participants in the round include Future Ventures, Khosla Ventures, Lowercase Capital, Moore Strategic Ventures, Safar Partners, Schooner Capital, and Starlight Ventures who join Eni, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, The Engine and other investors committed to supporting the commercialization of fusion energy. CFS is collaborating with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center to develop the world's first net energy gain fusion system, called SPARC.

"This visionary group of investors share our mission of revolutionizing the energy landscape with a fundamentally new power source to meet our global demands and combat climate change," said Bob Mumgaard, CEO of CFS. "CFS is on track to commercialize fusion and deliver an inherently safe, globally scalable, carbon-free, and limitless energy source."

Leveraging decades of MIT-led research, CFS will produce first-of-its-kind high temperature superconductor magnets to build smaller and lower-cost fusion power plants. This funding will allow CFS to demonstrate its magnet technology at full scale. CFS in collaboration with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center will use these magnets to build SPARC by 2025 and demonstrate net energy gain from fusion for the first time in history. SPARC will pave the way for the first commercially viable fusion power plant called ARC, which will produce fusion power onto the grid.

"We need drastic changes and advances in the way we generate the world's energy supply," said Vinod Khosla, Founder of Khosla Ventures. "After looking closely at the fusion landscape, it's clear that the CFS approach is the world's best bet for getting commercial fusion power in time to make a difference."

"We have been looking for the right clean energy investment opportunity in fusion for the past 20 years," said Steve Jurvetson, CEO of Future Ventures. "We wanted a company that was ready to make a business of fusion and we have finally found it with Commonwealth Fusion Systems. The hard science from which their approach is based has been proven by this team as well as leaders in the field around the world. With some clever engineering, CFS is ready to harness the power of the solar cycle to change the world and usher in the era of clean baseload energy generation for the betterment of all."

Source: https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/close-series-a-round

[docj]

With all due respect, I invested a chunk of my professional career helping to manage the DOE fusion energy program.  Suffice it to say that even if the experiment being described produces net energy gain there are monumental problems to be solved before a reliable fusion power plant could go into operation. 

For example, the fusion community has for decades avoided discussion of maintenance of the reactor once it has gone "live."  Despite the claim that there is little actual radiation produced by fusion, compared to nuclear fission, the entire device will be "bathed" in 14 MeV neutrons and gamma rays which result from the fusion process.  When the neutrons bombard the metals in the structure they will become radioactive.  Sure, the radioactivity is much less than what you get from used fuel rods, but it isn't trivial.  Figuring out how you would replace a several ton radioactive magnet is something that simply hasn't been focused on. 

I'm not saying that the problems are unsolvable, but they aren't simple, either.  People haven't focused on how you make a power reactor out of a tokamak because it isn't worthwhile until you demonstrate breakeven power.

IMHO the greatest mistake in the introduction of nuclear energy for power generation was rushing to commercialize reactors before they had been run through an engineering life cycle.  Many of the technology problems that were encountered would have become evident if a decade or more of operational testing was conducted.  Instead, the Atomic Energy Commission, which both the developer and the marketing entity for atomic power rushed utilities into constructing power plants when the first demonstration power reactor at Shippingport PA had barely become operational.  It was not at all surprising that problems such as hydrogen embrittlement showed up after multiple years of operation, problems that could have been anticipated and dealt with if proper prototype testing had occured.

IMHO if we rush fusion into commercial use we will encounter the same sorts of issues as bedeviled fission power plants.  Those plants developed reputations for poor reliability because their operators were learning as they were going without knowing what would happen as the reactors aged.  Hopefully, we will learn from our past mistakes, but when I read press releases such as have been posted here, I see potential for the same mistakes to be repeated.

RV, before you get gung ho about this company, I suggest you start by reading up on KMS Fusion of Ann Arbor MI which predicted it would have a commercial fusion power plant in the 1970's!  KMS had scientists and powerful politicians as backers and it's CEO  (Kip Siegal) had the misfortune of having died while testifying to Congress (literally).  For a number of years his death secured KMS a steady stream of federal funding, until it became evident that it's dreams weren't going to come true.  Next you might want to read about the University of Rochester's fusion program under the direction of a charismatic leader, Moshe Lubin, which also claimed it could achieve breakeven if only it had enough federal funding.  Lastly, you might want to read about the Lawrence Livermore Lab laser fusion program of which each successively larger machine was going to be the one needed for breakeven.  Eventually, because breakeven was never achieved even with the huge Nova laser system, the program regrouped and declared itself a nuclear weapons simulation program which meant it was classified and hidden from public view.

Don't get me wrong, I am a strong proponent of fusion as an future energy source, but I have personally experienced multiple "hucksters" whose promises have been far larger than their capability to deliver.  I fear that his could easily be another one of them.

Joel

Edited January 2, 2021 by docj

[RV_]

Joel,

Did you miss all the peer reviews and who did them on this possible solution? I am not a peer and you aren't a current one I would surmise, so I look for peer reviews when it involves new technology in plasma and theoretical physics. This is just  one to watch. I also saw GM try leasing the EV1s. I also saw miracle fuel additives that the FTC proved worthless some even causing damage that was not there before. Google Internet balloons, and lots more. A past failure/s do not mean this isn't the one. This is first mention I've seen of MIT saying they've done the basics for a solution, and a commercial company is funded for a first round. Somebody must think there is something to it.. and the folks interested can follow to see if it. These are not a bunch of amateur investors who developed, proved the math, and are now making the path to a working design to market. 

I'm sure you don't consider MIT hucksters? But time will tell and within five years we should know.

Edited January 4, 2021 by RV_

[docj]

Back in ~1980 a good friend of mine on Capitol Hill called me one day to ask "how many quads of energy (quadrillions of BTUs) would fusion power provide to the power grid in 2025?" because his boss (a Congressman) was being lobbied by folks who were convinced they could have a power plant operational by 2000.  These folks didn't consider themselves hucksters; they too were associated with major universities.  I told my friend that he could confidently tell his boss that the answer was unequivocally "zero."  Turns out I was right.

I'm not saying that this new approach to fusion power won't be better than all the previous ones that have been tried, but I can say unequivocally that I won't live to see a fusion power plant on the grid and you probably won't either.   In fact, if we don't take the time to thoroughly test such a device through at least most of a life cycle we run the risk of repeating all the mistakes we made with nuclear energy. 

The issue I raised of induced radioactivity is not in any way affected by the use of "high temperature superconductors" and that's just one of many engineering challenges that would have to be overcome.  Furthermore, given the public's general mistrust of anything that smacks of nuclear energy I think the licensing and permitting hurdles will be monumental.  

I'm not in any way saying that the folks at MIT are hucksters but they are technologists enamored with their new creation and the investment dollars they see coming in.  The fact that they're from MIT doesn't impress me all that much; my PhD (in physics) is from Harvard and my thesis advisor won the 1981 Nobel Prize.  None of that will pay for a single cup of coffee at Starbucks, but it's my way of saying that I'm not real impressed by these kind of claims until they're a lot more advanced than these are at present.  Heck, they're  saying they'll achieve breakeven in 2025; the hucksters I dealt with said they, too, would have breakeven in 5 years, only that would have been somewhere before 1980 and I'm still waiting.

Edited January 4, 2021 by docj

[bigjim]

Joel I wonder how much of the reporting of how soon and effective has anything to do with some reporter wanting to have the scoop and pay for his/her living. I  respect the press and folk with somewhat of their own agenda even if meant to present information honestly. I probably know almost nothing like what you and Derek know but if I were to vote today it would be your interpetation. With the hope that it might be somewhat wrong for the good of my kids and grandkids and the planet.  Based on your explaination of your experience I think we or someone should put you back to work.

Edited January 4, 2021 by bigjim

[Zulu]

The standard joke is that fusion is always 30 years away.

One of the first PBS NOVA episodes I watched was called "Fusion: The Energy Promise". The episode really sparked my interest and raised my hopes. That was in 1974.

I've been following fusion developments since then from SHIVA to ITER with cold fusion somewhere in between, and I've also tried to keep up with fusion issues as well.

However, I used to think I would see workable fusion power in my lifetime, but I don't think that's going to happen . . . but then again, if we can get quantum computers going, who knows?

 

[docj]

8 hours ago, Zulu said:

The standard joke is that fusion is always 30 years away.

I had totally forgotten about that joke!  But it has been consistently true for >6 decades at least.

I'm not sure that many people understand that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the predecessor of the Department of Energy, was the developer of nuclear energy, its marketing agent and its regulatory authority.  From that it's not hard to see that there were some inherent conflicts. 😃

The AEC was focused with getting nuclear power onto the power grid so there would be "power too cheap to meter!"  Yes, that really was an AEC slogan in the 1950's.  Nuclear energy was marketed as a salvation for civilization.

In 1958 the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States, Shippingport, was opened by President Eisenhower as part of his Atoms for Peace program. As nuclear power continued to grow throughout the 1960s, the AEC anticipated that more than 1,000 reactors would be operating in the United States by 2000!  

Believe me, the number of power reactors drove AEC (and then DOE) policy through the 1970's (until Three Mile Island and Chernobyl).  When I was in DOE in the mid-70's those of us in "technology planning" had to constantly "negotiate" with the nuclear policy team to get them to agree to the number of power reactors expected to be online in the year 2000.

That's right, US energy policy was being driven by AEC's marketing forecasts!!  It was obvious by then that there would never be 1,000 reactors online in 2000 but we were forced to accept numbers like ~250-500 because policy was still be driven by the investment in nuclear power.

One result of this "mania" to build new reactors was that the technical issues being encountered in the operating reactors were downplayed and kept out of the press--at least until Three Mile Island occurred.   Nuclear reactors are extremely complex systems and it's not surprising that new technological challenges were being discovered as the operational systems aged.  But the drive to have hundreds of reactors online by 2000 was the imperative so there was no time to rethink the underlying design.   Despite the fact that both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by human errors, not technological failures, they were inevitable IMO because development was being driven by marketing!

What I've been harping on here is that I would hate for fusion to be captured by another market-driven program rather than being developed in accordance with good engineering practice.  Fusion is even more complex and difficult than is fission and fusion power plants will be very expensive and technologically challenging.   IMHO anyone who claims otherwise is a huckster! I want fusion to succeed, but I don't think there are any shortcuts!

 

[RV_]

18 hours ago, docj said:

. . . . but I can say unequivocally that I won't live to see a fusion power plant on the grid and you probably won't either.

 

So you can predict the future? Unequivocally?

Right.

I can say unequivocally that anyone who reads the entire set of links and papers will get excited too.

Joel if you have specific gripes about this new line of Plasma Physics work with a probable tokamak containment field to allow Sparc to work, don't hold back.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by RV_

[bigjim]

Would a well educated guess be a better way to put it?☺️ I really hope he is wrong about the part of us being alive to see it whenever it happens.  I just renewed my drivers license until 2029 so now I have to hold out that long and to vote against certain politicians in Texas.

[RV_]

For those interested:

From the "Journal of Plasma Physics" here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-plasma-physics/collections/status-of-the-sparc-physics-basis#

"Status of the SPARC Physics Basis

This special issue’s seven peer-reviewed articles provide a comprehensive summary of the physics basis for SPARC: a compact, high-field, DT burning tokamak, currently under design by a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Commonwealth Fusion Systems. The SPARC project builds on a remarkable period of progress in the understanding of magnetically confined plasmas achieved collectively by the world’s fusion programs. 

 

Read these blogs from JPP and SPARC

 

More JPP blog posts

 

Physics models predict ample margin to net fusion energy in the SPARC tokamak

by Pablo Rodriguez-Fernandez

 

The SPARC tokamak: A critical next step on the path to commercial fusion energy

by Alex Creely

 

Scientists present a comprehensive physics basis for a new fusion reactor design

JPP Press Release 

 

Validating the physics behind the new MIT- designed fusion experiment

by David L. Chandler"

 

"JPP: In which areas of plasma physics research do you expect to see growth in the next ten to twenty years?

TF: Expect a growth in the magnetic-fusion and plasma-based accelerator area. Several large-scale magnetic fusion facilities and plasma-based accelerators are currently under construction in Europe (e.g. ITER, ELI, AWAKE), so I am convinced that the coming 10 years will be very interesting for plasma physics.

JPP: What drew you to the Journal of Plasma Physics, or how will your experience and expertise impact the journal?

TF: Journal of Plasma Physics has an excellent review system, with a very active and competent editorial board. The quality of papers appearing in the journal is very high. I strongly believe in the slogan “run by active researchers for active researchers”, and I hope to use my experience and scientific network to widen the scope and make the journal more visible.:

That page: https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2018/06/13/qa-with-tunde-fulop/

Joel, which specific parts do you disagree with? In ten years I'll be 78. So I'll see their results which.

[RV_]

Jim I said it would be an answer to our ever increasing demand for energy. Not that it would be on the grid in five years. Read the links, I did.

This excerpt shows what I mean, it is readable.

"SPARC is planned to be the first experimental device ever to achieve a “burning plasma” — that is, a self-sustaining fusion reaction in which different isotopes of the element hydrogen fuse together to form helium, without the need for any further input of energy. Studying the behavior of this burning plasma — something never before seen on Earth in a controlled fashion — is seen as crucial information for developing the next step, a working prototype of a practical, power-generating power plant.

Such fusion power plants might significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power-generation sector, one of the major sources of these emissions globally. The MIT and CFS project is one of the largest privately funded research and development projects ever undertaken in the fusion field.

“The MIT group is pursuing a very compelling approach to fusion energy.” says Chris Hegna, a professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who was not connected to this work. “They realized the emergence of high-temperature superconducting technology enables a high magnetic field approach to producing net energy gain from a magnetic confinement system. This work is a potential game-changer for the international fusion program.”

The SPARC design, though about the twice the size as MIT’s now-retired Alcator C-Mod experiment and similar to several other research fusion machines currently in operation, would be far more powerful, achieving fusion performance comparable to that expected in the much larger ITER tokamak being built in France by an international consortium. The high power in a small size is made possible by advances in superconducting magnets that allow for a much stronger magnetic field to confine the hot plasma.

The SPARC project was launched in early 2018, and work on its first stage, the development of the superconducting magnets that would allow smaller fusion systems to be built, has been proceeding apace. The new set of papers represents the first time that the underlying physics basis for the SPARC machine has been outlined in detail in peer-reviewed publications. The seven papers explore the specific areas of the physics that had to be further refined, and that still require ongoing research to pin down the final elements of the machine design and the operating procedures and tests that will be involved as work progresses toward the power plant."

Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2020/10/01/validating-the-physics-behind-the-new-mit-designed-fusion-experiment/

[RV_]

Jim,

SPARC is a demonstration of the new tokamak containment system and to actually build and demonstrate the SPARC tojamak fusion system  working. Meaning a self contained fusion reaction with a net gain in energy, producing more than it uses thus able to sustain the reaction. Then the refining and building of on grid power generation if it works happens. But this post puts the new info about fusion power out there for you to peruse or not. 

I find it fascinating. I asked Joel to show me why he thinks it is more of the same specifically. NO one, not the Sparc team or me said it would be online in five years. They, and I have to take them at their word, say it will be built and ready to show the world a safely controlled fusion reaction, that makes more energy than it uses to sustain the reaction, in five years.

I'm enjoying it.

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by RV_

[docj]

1 hour ago, RV_ said:

So you can predict the future? Unequivocally?

With all due respect, if you had a full understanding of the enormous task required to take a "breakeven demonstration" to an operational power plant then you wouldn't question why I predict that neither of us will live to see an operational fusion power plant.

If you reread what I posted, I didn't say anything about a power reactor in 5 years.  The SPARC
 folks claim breakeven in ~5 years.  Even if I accept that as possible, a realistic date for an operational power reactor on the grid (not a government-owned prototype) would realistically be at least a decade later.  That would be >15 years from now.   If I was naïve enough to believe everything stayed on schedule, I agree I might still be alive to see that.  But Murphy's Law says that the changes of that happening in 15 years is nil IMO.

At this point I am taking myself out of this discussion now because you there is little point to further dialog.

Edited January 5, 2021 by docj

[RV_]

Joel I don't doubt your credentials for 40 years ago. I do not do the math for this anymore than I determine the physics involved in heating up a TV dinner in the microwave. This was a fun set of articles and in layman's terms to boot.

You have associated SPARC with hucksters.

Joel, poor me, o woe o woe,  you have declared me incapable of understanding it and all the ramifications of putting one online because you understand it all and aren't even reading the links. Judgy much? How dare I question you?

YOU just don't understand. The topic is only about a demonstration unit by 2025. Not on the grid. Not a gazillion quads of power. Just a self-sustaining SPARC fusion reaction with a net positive result in energy. Now you are backing up and changing the topic to online operation on a grid. If they get a sustainable fusion reaction up and sustainable with our new materials and technology they did not have decades ago, that are now being built I'll be sure to post again. If they don't feel free.

Remember Space X and my posts about it here? Tesla early on? Sorry were you online with us in 2003?

This thread topic was started by me and while I said if it works it could be the answer for our ever increasing energy needs,  2025 is when they expect to have the first demonstration SPARC unit up and running. Was it you Joel who said you spent the better part of a career working with Lockheed then or investing in them or something? I honestly forget.

I am waiting to see this SPARC in action, in four or five years, and I have no issue with a give or take a year or two at most. If it is a scam involving all of the people involved then so be it. I have been wrong before.

Building it out to the grid is a whole other topic.

This whole time I have posted about, given you links to the SPARC effort of MIT with  and all one has to do is read the links which does not require rocket science as it is layman's terms.been talking about a first operational unit with net gain that just may be operational in 2015. This thread was started by me and while I said this if it works could be the answer for our ever increasing energy needs,  2025 is when they expect to have the first demonstration SPARC unit up and running.

Remember tail landings and recovery of Space X first stages and my posts about the ULA crap?

I love tech and 80% of the time the good stuff pans out.

You can always write to the scientists involved and tell them what you said here and that it won't work because it didn't work for decades and you are experienced so they should know you right?

Their credentials are also in the articles.

Yeah get in touch with them.

Edited January 5, 2021 by RV_

[RV_]

I find the higher you go the nicer they are. And scientists rarely hear from fans not out to get something. I am a fan of these wonderful hard working scientists.

Hey Joel keep checking here in case you get answered. Just sent this:

To: tunde@chalmers.se Cc: bdorland@umd.edu

I am just an old retired US Air Force guy but your Q&A Professor Fülöp really hit home, especially during  the run up to the SPARC reactor prototype scheduled so far for 2025.

If you wonder how the public views your stuff here is a link to a thread on our Recreational vehicle forums. I will likely be investing if you folks really have a running prototype in 2025.

Like my interest in Musk and his endeavors it looks like there’s a team for this as energetic and hard working to make it happen. If you want to see us non scientists discussing it with the inevitable know it all jumping in who obviously doesn’t read what he denigrates. No time I am sure but if you want a good laugh here is us Recreational Vehicle types talking about SPARC: https://www.rvnetwork.com/topic/140887-nuclear-fusion-%E2%80%94-coming-soon-to-an-electrical-grid-near-you/?tab=comments#comment-1040096

I am the OP of the thread, "RV " here.

I drive a Tesla Model Y and need cheap safe power.

Thanks so much for all your work that may make this world a safer and cleaner place to live.

 My actual sig block sent here.

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by RV_

[packnrat]

i am not a huckster, and know nothing about all this. i just wish the people who have such grate clams would do it on THERE dime.

not on my back via higher taxes.

[RV_]

packnrat,

It is the result of research at MIT and now is the R&D project for a commercial project of Commonwealth Fusion systems is a private company that just got their first round of venture capital. From their about us page:

"Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) was spun out of MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center to leverage the decades of fusion research combined with the innovation and speed of the private sector. Supported by the world’s leading investors in breakthrough energy technologies, the CFS team is uniquely positioned to deliver the fastest path to commercial fusion energy. CFS has assembled a world-class team to design and build fusion machines. This team includes experts in magnets, manufacturing, and plasma physics dedicated to the mission of delivering clean, limitless fusion power to the world."

Source: https://cfs.energy/company/our-mission

So not tax payer dollars AFAIK.

[RV_]

 Oil Subsidies
Oil Subsidies
(Photo: David McNew / Getty Images).

In March 2012, President Obama called for an end to the $4 billion in oil industry subsidies. Some estimates indicated that the real level of oil industry subsidies is higher, between $10 and $40 billion.9 At the same time, oil company profits benefited when oil prices reached a record of $145 a barrel in 2008.

The oil industry subsidies have a long history in the United States. As early as World War I, the government stimulated oil and gas production in order to ensure a domestic supply.

In 1995, Congress established the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act.10 It allowed oil companies to drill on federal property without paying royalties. This encouraged the expensive form of extraction since oil was only $18 a barrel. The Treasury Department reported that the federal government has missed $50 billion in foregone revenue over the program's lifetime. It argued that this may no longer be needed now that deepwater extraction has become profitable.

Here is a summary of the 2011 oil industry subsidies compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense in its report, "Subsidy Gusher."11

    Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit - $31 billion.
    Intangible Drilling Costs - $8.9 billion.
    Oil and Gas Royalty Relief - $6.9 billion.
    Percentage Depletion Allowance - $4.327 billion.
    Refinery Equipment Deductions - $2.3 billion.
    Geological and Geophysical Costs Tax Credit - $698 million.
    Natural Gas Distribution Lines - $500 million.
    Ultradeepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and other Petroleum Resources R&D - $230 million.
    Passive Loss Exemption - $105 million.
    Unconventional Fossil Technology Program - $100 million.
    Other subsidies - $161 million.

Greenpeace argues that the oil industry subsidies should also include the following activities:

    The Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    Defense spending that involves military action in oil-rich countries in the Persian Gulf.
    The construction of the U.S. federal highway system which encourages reliance on gas-driven cars.

The BEA argues that these federal government activities were primarily done to protect national security and not promote specific activities within the oil industry. Even though the intent was not to directly subsidize it, they may have benefited the industry indirectly.
Ethanol Subsidies
Customers reacting to high gas prices
Costco members fill up on gas at the wholesale company's gas pumps. Photo by Orjan F. Ellingvag/Dagens Naringsliv/Corbis via Getty Images

Between 1979 and 2010, the corn industry received $20 billion in federal subsidies. Congress wanted to divert production into ethanol, a component of gasoline. The subsidies were meant to help producers meet a 2005 federal law that required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be produced by 2012. In 2007, a revision increased the goal to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Only 6.25 billion gallons were produced in 2011.

The corn subsidy, a tax credit of $0.46 a gallon, ended in January 2012.12 Ethanol producers would have liked to see a larger credit of $1.10 per gallon remain. The credit was to research cost-effective ways to convert other bio-fuels, like switchgrass, wood chips, and nonfood corn byproducts.

When the corn subsidy ended in 2012, ethanol producers were left in a bit of a glut. But that was because gasoline refiners stocked up on subsidized ethanol before prices went up. The glut was absorbed over time. Demand increased during the U.S. summer driving season. Growing markets, such as Brazil, couldn’t keep up with their own need for ethanol. They began importing it from the United States.

Converting corn for fuel became controversial when it helped drive food prices higher in 2008. That created food riots throughout the world. That was just one reason for the high price for corn and other commodities. Also, investors fled to the commodities markets in response to the global financial crisis of 2008.

Many experts argue that using corn for fuel is a poor allocation of natural resources when 60% of the world's population is malnourished. Furthermore, corn is not an efficient fuel source. Even if all the corn in the United States were converted to ethanol, it would only meet 4% of America's fuel consumption needs.

(Source: “Ethanol Subsidy Dies But Wait There's More,” MSNBC.com, December 29, 2011.)

https://www.thebalance.com/government-subsidies-definition-farm-oil-export-etc-3305788#:~:text= Government Subsidies (Farm%2C Oil%2C Export%2C Etc) ,at the wholesale company's gas pumps. More

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by RV_

[Darryl&Rita]

The Canadian government is pushing micro reactors, along with Hydrogen, for future plans. Link

[RV_]

Darryl, the Canadians are getting it right. And using electrolysis instead of making it from petroleum products.