Energy thread

lesfirth

kingstongraham said:

Flood more valleys and pump the water up when there's more energy available than required, and let it go down when you need the electric.

We have that idea in practice at Dinorwig power station in Wales. It was built when we had coal fired power stations because it is very hard to shut down such a station that is why overnight electricity was cheap and why it was built. That is not the case anymore. We never have enough generation capacity to stop burning gas.
It by far the biggest such facility we have i.e. a lake at the top of a mountain. Most lakes/ reservoirs tend to towards the bottom of valleys. It has a capacity of 9.1gwh that would power the UK for the next 12.3 minuets!

briantrumpet

lesfirth said:

kingstongraham said:

Flood more valleys and pump the water up when there's more energy available than required, and let it go down when you need the electric.

We have that idea in practice at Dinorwig power station in Wales. It was built when we had coal fired power stations because it is very hard to shut down such a station that is why overnight electricity was cheap and why it was built. That is not the case anymore. We never have enough generation capacity to stop burning gas.
It by far the biggest such facility we have i.e. a lake at the top of a mountain. Most lakes/ reservoirs tend to towards the bottom of valleys. It has a capacity of 9.1gwh that would power the UK for the next 12.3 minuets!

Here are 7 minuets to keep you going on the way to the 12.3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkh-KgVFw

Anyway, that facility at Dinorwig is ridiculously efficient, IIRC... something crazy like over 90%.

kingstongraham

lesfirth said:

kingstongraham said:

Flood more valleys and pump the water up when there's more energy available than required, and let it go down when you need the electric.

We have that idea in practice at Dinorwig power station in Wales. It was built when we had coal fired power stations because it is very hard to shut down such a station that is why overnight electricity was cheap and why it was built. That is not the case anymore. We never have enough generation capacity to stop burning gas.
It by far the biggest such facility we have i.e. a lake at the top of a mountain. Most lakes/ reservoirs tend to towards the bottom of valleys. It has a capacity of 9.1gwh that would power the UK for the next 12.3 minuets!

Loads more of them when we have nuclear.

lesfirth

briantrumpet said:

lesfirth said:

kingstongraham said:

Flood more valleys and pump the water up when there's more energy available than required, and let it go down when you need the electric.

We have that idea in practice at Dinorwig power station in Wales. It was built when we had coal fired power stations because it is very hard to shut down such a station that is why overnight electricity was cheap and why it was built. That is not the case anymore. We never have enough generation capacity to stop burning gas.
It by far the biggest such facility we have i.e. a lake at the top of a mountain. Most lakes/ reservoirs tend to towards the bottom of valleys. It has a capacity of 9.1gwh that would power the UK for the next 12.3 minuets!

Here are 7 minuets to keep you going on the way to the 12.3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkh-KgVFw

Anyway, that facility at Dinorwig is ridiculously efficient, IIRC... something crazy like over 90%.

rick_chasey

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

shirley_basso

Well its still extremely early days in the grand scheme of things. These breakthroughs are often given huge airtime to get more funding for the next breakthrough.

Plenty of time to switch horse if needed - plus the winning approach today may well not be the winner in the future.

Pross

I'm amazed it has taken them so long to generate more energy out than you have to put in. They should chuck a load on mince pies in 800w microwaves for 30 seconds, it generates megawatts of heat as my mouth can verify.

pblakeney

Pross said:

I'm amazed it has taken them so long to generate more energy out than you have to put in. They should chuck a load on mince pies in 800w microwaves for 30 seconds, it generates megawatts of heat as my mouth can verify.

You get what you deserve for microwaving mince pies, see the other thread. 😉

Pross

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

I'm amazed it has taken them so long to generate more energy out than you have to put in. They should chuck a load on mince pies in 800w microwaves for 30 seconds, it generates megawatts of heat as my mouth can verify.

You get what you deserve for microwaving mince pies, see the other thread. 😉

I don't, I eat them cold or straight from the oven but occasionally the wife brings me one warmed up in the microwave. All these so called scientists need to do is work out what it is that creates that superheating and replicate it on an industrial scale and the energy crisis is over (if they don't have any building materials that can cope with the heat the mince pies give off they could use cheese instead).

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

We can plausibly look forward to commercial fusion plants producing the first baseload power for electricity grids by the early to mid 2030s, and possibly slightly sooner.

That sounds like nonsense, where is he getting that estimate from?

ugo.santalucia

my guess is that fusion will only replace fission.
In 30 years time I don't think we will still be burning gas to produce electricity, not to a meaningful extent at least and certainly not the countries that will be able to afford fusion.
The infrastructure cost will be colossal.

Random questions for Brian Cox... do we have enough deuterium to support a mass scale up of fusion? The by product is helium, which is useful if captured, but if not captured, then it will be lost in space... is the loss of mass a gravitational problem in the long run? Has Mars change its orbit as a result of a loss of its atmosphere?

pangolin

The article lists some companies claiming to have plants running in the 30s but then goes on to admit:

Filtering these claims is not easy, even for fusion experts.

Also as Rick was aluding to, they are not using the same method that just got demonstrated in the US.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we'd all be thrilled if there are some up and running in the 30s.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

We can plausibly look forward to commercial fusion plants producing the first baseload power for electricity grids by the early to mid 2030s, and possibly slightly sooner.

That sounds like nonsense, where is he getting that estimate from?

That's hilarious.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

We can plausibly look forward to commercial fusion plants producing the first baseload power for electricity grids by the early to mid 2030s, and possibly slightly sooner.

That sounds like nonsense, where is he getting that estimate from?

That's hilarious.

I mean, it shouldn't take much critical thinking to establish that an estimate that is not far off the timeline for building a nuclear power plant (which we know how to build) is probably very wrong.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

kingstongraham

Seems to be these guys that are very bullish about it, saying to the Commons select committee in September "CFS is now considering a variety of locations around the world for our first commercial-scale fusion power plant, which we plan to begin operating in the early 2030s. "

Just got to finish building a demo and actually generate any energy now.

https://cfs.energy/technology#sparc-fusion-energy-demonstration

pangolin

These 2 are saying 2030s as well. But come on..

https://firstlightfusion.com/
https://generalfusion.com/about/

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Read the link.

pangolin

Rather than an opinion column from their economics editor, here is an actual article from their science editor:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/13/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-us-power-plant-decades-away-british/

A power plant based on the nuclear fusion breakthrough by US researchers is still several decades away, and British technology is likely to be commercialised far sooner, scientists admitted on Tuesday.

Jennifer Granholm, the US secretary of energy, announced that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had achieved fusion ignition - in which they obtained more energy out of an experiment than they put in.

Their experiment at the National Ignition Facility, in California, yielded 3.15 megajoules (MJ) from 2.05 laser power - the first energy gain ever achieved in fusion technology.

But Dr Kim Budil, the director of the LLNL, said the breakthrough would bring no imminent benefits and acknowledged the British technology was further ahead.

"There are very significant hurdles to commercialising this technology," she said after being asked how long it would take to be operational.

"This is one igniting capsule, one time and to realise commercial fusion, you have to do many many fusion events per minute and have a robust system, so probably decades.

"We’re not going to plug the National Ignition Facility into the grid, this is not how this works but this is the fundamental building block."

Instead, the first fusion power plant is likely to come from magnetic confinement fusion power reactors, such as the Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire.

While the US system requires lasers the size of three football fields, and precision-engineered diamond balls to encase the deuterium and tritium, the JET technology uses magnets to heat the fuel, achieving greater outputs.

In February, JET broke the world record for the amount of energy produced from the process in one go, a total of 59 megajoules (MJ) - more than twice the 22 MJ record set at the same facility in 1997.

Dr Budil said: "The foundational technology to scale up toward a power plant is further along in the magnetic fusion community, and it’s building directly off the work at facilities like Jet in the UK and the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab at MIT."

Although none of the magnetic fusion plants have achieved fusion ignition yet, Senator Granholm said the White House was hoping to have a power station based on the technology within the next decade.

"The president has a decadal vision to get to a commercial fusion reactor within 10 years, so we’ve got to get work and this shows that it can be done," she said.

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory mimics conditions at the centre of the Sun by using the largest laser in the world to fuse together heavy hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium, into helium.

Lasers enter the ends of a cylinder, hitting its inner walls, making them glow x-ray hot, and those x-rays then heat a central sphere containing nuclear fuel.

As the sphere vapourises in the heat, plasma rushes off at incredible speeds, creating an implosion that fuses the deuterium and tritium into helium, releasing a huge amount of extra energy at the same time.

Dr Aneeqa Khan, a research fellow in nuclear dusion at The University of Manchester, said: "This is a great scientific result, but we are still a way off commercial fusion.

"We need an engineering net energy gain of the whole device that takes into account all plant inefficiencies.

"Building a fusion power plant also has many engineering and materials challenges. However, investment in fusion is growing and we are making real progress.

"We need to be training up a huge number of people with the skills to work in the field and I hope the technology will be used in the latter half of the century."

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Read the link.

pangolin said:

Rather than an opinion column from their economics editor, here is an actual article from their science editor:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/13/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-us-power-plant-decades-away-british/

I'm not disputing that commercial fusion is still a long way off. Although your article does rather handily explain that "US scientists admit that British technology is likely to be commercialised far sooner" which backs up my point to Rick above.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Read the link.

pangolin said:

Rather than an opinion column from their economics editor, here is an actual article from their science editor:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/13/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-us-power-plant-decades-away-british/

I'm not disputing that commercial fusion is still a long way off. Although your article does rather handily explain that "US scientists admit that British technology is likely to be commercialised far sooner" which backs up my point to Rick above.

Then why post a column, sorry, "evidence" saying we could expect it in a decade?

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Read the link.

pangolin said:

Rather than an opinion column from their economics editor, here is an actual article from their science editor:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/13/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-us-power-plant-decades-away-british/

I'm not disputing that commercial fusion is still a long way off. Although your article does rather handily explain that "US scientists admit that British technology is likely to be commercialised far sooner" which backs up my point to Rick above.

Then why post a column, sorry, "evidence" saying we could expect it in a decade?

Ricks claim was that the UK has 'backed the wrong horse' - I posted an article that contradicted that, as did you. I was not looking at the timeline, which appeared to be your main point. So as I say, I don't think we are disagreeing overall.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Read the link.

pangolin said:

Rather than an opinion column from their economics editor, here is an actual article from their science editor:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/13/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-us-power-plant-decades-away-british/

I'm not disputing that commercial fusion is still a long way off. Although your article does rather handily explain that "US scientists admit that British technology is likely to be commercialised far sooner" which backs up my point to Rick above.

Then why post a column, sorry, "evidence" saying we could expect it in a decade?

Ricks claim was that the UK has 'backed the wrong horse' - I posted an article that contradicted that, as did you. I was not looking at the timeline, which appeared to be your main point. So as I say, I don't think we are disagreeing overall.

What I actually wrote is "there is some soul searching as they may have backed the wrong horse"

Which is appropriately caveated.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Read the link.

pangolin said:

Rather than an opinion column from their economics editor, here is an actual article from their science editor:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/13/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-us-power-plant-decades-away-british/

I'm not disputing that commercial fusion is still a long way off. Although your article does rather handily explain that "US scientists admit that British technology is likely to be commercialised far sooner" which backs up my point to Rick above.

Then why post a column, sorry, "evidence" saying we could expect it in a decade?

Ricks claim was that the UK has 'backed the wrong horse' - I posted an article that contradicted that, as did you. I was not looking at the timeline, which appeared to be your main point. So as I say, I don't think we are disagreeing overall.

What I actually wrote is "there is some soul searching as they may have backed the wrong horse"

Which is appropriately caveated.

Cleverly caveated so you can try to deny another UK bashing post when challenged. What are your thoughts on the article that Pangolin linked above?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Read the link.

pangolin said:

Rather than an opinion column from their economics editor, here is an actual article from their science editor:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/13/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-us-power-plant-decades-away-british/

I'm not disputing that commercial fusion is still a long way off. Although your article does rather handily explain that "US scientists admit that British technology is likely to be commercialised far sooner" which backs up my point to Rick above.

Then why post a column, sorry, "evidence" saying we could expect it in a decade?

Ricks claim was that the UK has 'backed the wrong horse' - I posted an article that contradicted that, as did you. I was not looking at the timeline, which appeared to be your main point. So as I say, I don't think we are disagreeing overall.

What I actually wrote is "there is some soul searching as they may have backed the wrong horse"

Which is appropriately caveated.

Cleverly caveated so you can try to deny another UK bashing post when challenged. What are your thoughts on the article that Pangolin linked above?

Well yes, I'd already read similar earlier in the year about the UK approach vs others.

The reason I posted is the development is a caveat to that previous narrative, hence the interest.

Well done for catching up on the topic. Have a lolly.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

These 2 are saying 2030s as well. But come on..

https://firstlightfusion.com/
https://generalfusion.com/about/

This is like those emails from people promising that they will have something to you early next week, which means next Friday at 17:29.

Expect one prototype plant under construction by 2039.

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Reading about the fusion breakthrough and it's the approach that Britain *hasn't* backed.

Apparently it's causing some soul searching in the UK effort - may have backed the wrong horse.

This may disappoint you:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/fusion-energy-has-come-age-uk-rather-good/

Forgive me but the rule of opinion columns being unable to refute anything stands true here.

I think you will find that the situation is more complex than your simple statement above - I am simply providing some evidence as to why that is the case.

Have a read and see what you think, it just may not fit in with your predetermined view.

Sorry, what evidence?

Read the link.

pangolin said:

Rather than an opinion column from their economics editor, here is an actual article from their science editor:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/13/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-us-power-plant-decades-away-british/

I'm not disputing that commercial fusion is still a long way off. Although your article does rather handily explain that "US scientists admit that British technology is likely to be commercialised far sooner" which backs up my point to Rick above.

most of the reporting in the popular press is pure garbage

the results from the usa are being widely misreported/misunderstood

the usa/british comparison is nonsensical, the national ignition facility really exists for research and fusion weaponry, i.e. h-bombs, helps avoid the need for the usa to detonate weapons for testing, it's not about making power plants

the c. 1.5 gain is only counting the energy delivered to the target, c. 2 megajoules, which resulted in c. 3 megajoules out

however to create the input energy required over 320 megajoules, i.e. the output energy was actually less than 1% of the input, that's a space heater, not a power plant

it's a really great result for applied physics and weapons research, but has little relevance for commercial power generation

the old jet magnetic confinement experiment blows this away, but is not able to reach overall >1 gain

jet will be effectively superseded by iter, which is designed to achieve real gain, albeit still in a research environment, not as a practical power plant

but drawing from the decades of research and experience on these and other projects, there are start-ups working on various technologies, they are focused on making big money from developing practical commercial power plant designs, i wouldn't be surprised if this is where we get real progress, odds are still long, but the gamble is attracting serious investment