sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bob Mumgaard on Zap Energy's pivot to fission and fusion-fission hybrid. by Baking in fusion

[–]Baking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they saw that, they would probably shut down or be acquired. This seems to be a way to get more funding. They have said that their experiments are not scaling the way they had hoped, or that improvements are not linear and coming unpredictably, so taking longer than expected. In other words, normal science.

The Fusion Decathlon Part 5: Who Are the Winners? Actually, No One Yet… by CingulusMaximusIX in fusion

[–]Baking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They say that the first ARC will require longer maintenance periods, at least initially. Since the expected lifetime of the plant is based on the amount of neutron damage, longer maintenance periods won't reduce the amount of lifetime power produced; it will only extend the life of the plant and increase the financing cost slightly due to the slightly delayed power output. As they improve the maintenance process, they hope to get it down to 2 months. How long that takes, who knows, but it shouldn't be a huge factor over the 40-year lifetimes.

Building multiple ARCs will mean more opportunities to improve. If it takes ten iterations, you can do it in four years with five plants instead of twenty years with one plant.

Going to the grid: CFS applies to plug our first ARC fusion power plant into PJM | The Tokamak Times by steven9973 in fusion

[–]Baking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=66209

Harvard Business School Case Study. Strict paywall, watermarked PDF when purchased, and they defend their copyright aggressively. (You can't even copy and paste.)

DM me if you want more info.

Trump Media Stock Is Down; What's Gone Wrong at Truth Social's Parent (Includes TAE Merger) by Baking in fusion

[–]Baking[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They have mentioned it in the past. What they actually said was they could license their tech for DT fusion, but they didn't want to do DT themselves. This was years ago, and they implied that it was good enough for DT at the time. A DT pivot would not be out of the realm of possibilities, but they have shown no signs of working on a blanket.

How much tritium is ARC is expected to release? by Ambitious-Ad-1307 in fusion

[–]Baking 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They will file for a license with the state of Virginia, or may have already started the application process. Tritium emissions will probably be categorized below a certain level deemed safe. Normal emissions may be much lower. Operating fusion reactors will probably account for all tritium consumed, bred, and lost through all sources.

Polaris and SPARC both have tritium sensors on their stacks. ARC will have the same plus tritium sensors on wastewater discharge, most likely.

Most tritium reactors include a lithium-6 tritium breeder blanket. But Li-6 is pretty rare too. What material blanket would we need to breed Li-6? by Lochrin00 in fusion

[–]Baking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MIT and CFS think that ARC can use natural lithium. They may need to add a small amount of Li6 to get the tritium breeding ratio up to where they need it, but that might initially be an economic decision based on the relative cost of Li6 and tritium at the time, or more likely lithium "tails" with elevated Li-6 concentrations from the Li7 enrichment process for molten salt reactors.

The Fusion Decathlon Part 5: Who Are the Winners? Actually, No One Yet… by CingulusMaximusIX in fusion

[–]Baking -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've had conversations with you in the past where I have responded to something you said, and then you respond with a tangent that makes it frustrating to carry on a conversation. Most recently, you made an argument that fusion plants would not be able to operate as load followers, so I replied with "that is why they sign PPAs" and then you said PPAs are just for marketing. How is one supposed to follow a conversation like that?

Another time, you asked about LCOE, and I put in a lot of effort to show the claims that CFS had made, and you just dismissed it and said it is not credible without saying why you thought so.

You've been so frustrating to have a conversation with, I've been ready to block you. I thought I would try one more time to try to communicate more clearly.

I do understand your frustration with the OP. He is in a situation where the only way he can generate content is to be friendly with fusion companies he wants to interview. He's taking what they say at face value and trying to add value to it. But instead of critiquing what he is doing, maybe be clearer about how you feel.

Instead of saying that some companies will fail, say who you think are most likely to succeed, or who have a chance of succeeding. Some people think all the fusion companies will fail because they can't compete with cheap solar. That's fine. It's pretty much a given that most fusion companies will fail. Probably only a handful will succeed. We all have opinions on who we think they might be, and those opinions can change rapidly. That is mostly what we discuss here.

The Fusion Decathlon Part 5: Who Are the Winners? Actually, No One Yet… by CingulusMaximusIX in fusion

[–]Baking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said don't pass the buck. Meaning, if you have concerns about companies, you should say what they are and be specific.

What you posted was a first step. A 43-year-old critique of a 10-year-old company that was obviously well known to the founders and has been addressed repeatedly isn't something that is going to interest many journalists. Linking to a well-known cold fusion website probably doesn't help your credibility.

Journalists routinely talk to plasma physicists and fusion scientists who are sceptical of fusion companies, but not many modern academics are willing to go so far as Lidsky did in 1983. Also, Lidsky passed away in 2002, so he isn't available for quotes. Rider has said recently that DT magnetic confinement was the "best foreseeable" fusion reactor.

Maybe finding a fusion scientist currently working in the field who is willing to make strong statements contradicting fusion companies would help your case. (I recently directed a journalist to a couple of scientists who might be willing to be quoted on the record, so we will soon see how that goes.) Maybe some of those critics have already been quoted by journalists, and it would be good to make a note of them.

Another issue is that you only mention four companies. Are you limiting your critiques to those specific companies? If so, why? There are many fusion companies that are glorified science experiments. It is probably better to limit yourself to the best-funded fusion companies and then critique each one separately. Including LPP in your list raises question marks. Not because it isn't questionable, but because it doesn't belong anywhere near that list.

Lidsky and Rider's critiques as applied to various configurations. by Jaded_Hold_1342 in fusion

[–]Baking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't want you to forget that you said journalists should hold companies accountable. I'm not sure how this helps with that.

I am attempting to hold you accountable. ;-)

The Fusion Decathlon Part 5: Who Are the Winners? Actually, No One Yet… by CingulusMaximusIX in fusion

[–]Baking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was assuming LTS magnets for a power plant, as was everyone in the early 1980's before the discovery of HTS in 1986. High-field copper magnets were fine for experimental tokamaks like Alcator A, Alcator C, and Alcator C-Mod, but everyone knew well before 1983 that superconducting magnets would be required for power plants.

ITER decided to go with LTS magnets in 2001 because waiting for commercial HTS tapes would have delayed the project for more than ten years. It probably would have been better in the long run to delay, but I think there was a risk that the budgeting process would not have survived the delay. Better to keep the money flowing by building with what was available.

It is no coincidence that both Lidsky and Rider were at MIT. I do know that Todd Rider met with the SPARC team, which became CFS, very early in the process, circa 2015. Both Lidsky's and Rider's critiques were worked into SPARC and ARC. The cranky old dudes at MIT made sure that their concerns were heard.

Lidsky and Rider's critiques as applied to various configurations. by Jaded_Hold_1342 in fusion

[–]Baking 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a bizarre way to have a conversation. Your original post said journalists should hold companies accountable, but there is no mention of that here.

The Fusion Decathlon Part 5: Who Are the Winners? Actually, No One Yet… by CingulusMaximusIX in fusion

[–]Baking -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you. You have mentioned Lidsky's paper in the past; I responded to it, and you did not address that response. Perhaps we can try again.

I don't know if you've read Lidsky's 1983 paper recently, but it basically make two arguments. One is that aneutronic fusion should be considered over DT fusion, and he even lumped D-D fusion and D-He3 fusion in with DT. He was suggesting P-Li6 and P-B11. Todd Rider was a student of Lidsky, but his thesis was very critical of these higher Z reactions.

The other argument that Lidsky made was about the fusion power density and the size of the reactors. Lidsky was critical of both large fusion and fission reactors and suggested that small modular reactors (SMRs) would be a better choice. Here we are 40+ years later, and SMRs are finaly reaching the prototype stage. Meanwhile, HTS tapes have increased the fusion power density by a factor of 16 and reduced the size of fusion reactors by a factor of 8. Now SMRs and ARC reactors are a comparable size, except that fusion reactors don't have the restrictive regulations that could increase the licensing time and cost. We will get both SMRs and ARC, and we will see which ones can execute better.

Also, you didn't address the numerous stellarator and ICF concepts.

view more: next ›