Ok I think I know which reactor type your talking about . America probably pulling out mite have more to do with pride ? C.E.R.N is in France now this ? and then there is the American version with Lazers (which I think is a dud) and the money poored into that ? Deos anyone know if the Yanks are going to put the money into some other project ? or general coffers of the gov

There is ALCATOR at MIT, designed by Bruno Coppi. It costs much less than ITER. ALCATOR stands for ALto CAmpu TORus.A European version called IGNITOR (Italy and Russia) should be built at the Igor Kurchatov Institute in Moscow. Cost should be about 250 million dollars.
Tullio

Alcator C-Mod can't reach fusion. It's too small and it can't use tritium safely (only JET can use tritium now). Its purpose is to study plasma physics, and it's pretty good at that (it confirmed the existence of the I-mode confinement regime).

All good, but any fusion machine produces only high energy neutrons, not electricity. Neutrons are deadly beasts which destroy any metal in matter of hours (I've used them in my youth on a project for IAEA). So you must substitute the "first wall" in a short period of time but of course it is radioactive,and you must use machinery.The engineering problems of fusion reactors are huge, much more than any plasma physics problem. Enrico Fermi was able to produce some electricity from his "atomic pile" in a matter of days. So far no fusion experiment has produces a single watt of electricity.
Tullio

---

All good, but any fusion machine produces only high energy neutrons, not electricity. Neutrons are deadly beasts which destroy any metal in matter of hours (I've used them in my youth on a project for IAEA). So you must substitute the "first wall" in a short period of time but of course it is radioactive,and you must use machinery.The engineering problems of fusion reactors are huge, much more than any plasma physics problem. Enrico Fermi was able to produce some electricity from his "atomic pile" in a matter of days. So far no fusion experiment has produces a single watt of electricity.
Tullio

Hence the shift to the present work on materials for working with plasma fusion.

The increase in fusion power has been successful. The research has shifted to now making use that.

And the biggest problem remains the vandalism from all the political shifts and twists and turns. Wouldn't surprise me if there is intense lobbying from other parts of old big industry to not be put out of business by such powerful new tech...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And for a very interesting alternative to the purely magnetic confinement fusion of ITER, there is ongoing research and development for electric field confinement of a fusion plasma, and of hybrid electric field and magnetic field systems:


Inertial electrostatic confinement

... a branch of fusion research which uses an electric field to heat a plasma to fusion conditions. Electric fields can do work on charged particles (either ions or electrons), heating them to fusion conditions. This is typically done in a sphere, with material moving radially inward, but can also be done in a cylindrical geometry. The electric field can be generated using a wire grid or a non-neutral plasma cloud...

... History ... 1930s...



Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion

... Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We are a research group affiliated with the Fusion Technology Institute in the Department of Engineering Physics...

... Electrostatic Confinement in Action...



MAGNETIC AND ELECTROSTATIC NUCLEAR FUSION REACTOR

... The Magnetic and Electrostatic Nuclear Fusion Reactor, or simply CrossFire Fusion Reactor, is a nuclear fusion reactor designed by Moacir L. Ferreira Jr. for confining and fusing light atomic nuclei at considerable rates, in order to produce enormous quantities of energy without pollution and no neutron hazards...



Bussard EMC2 Fusion Project Publishes on Arxiv With Results Confirming Central Premise of Polywell Fusion

... The current experiment validates this theoretical conjecture for the first time and represents critical progress toward the Polywell fusion concept which combines a high beta cusp configuration with an electrostatic fusion for a compact, economical, power-producing nuclear fusion reactor...



I'm not so sure about the "crossfire" writeup... That writeup leaves a few questions...


Note this type of fusion has recently been in the news from some Marketing material from the USA "ultra-secret" "Skunk Works"...

Sneaky lobbying for funds?...

Yet more politics than real science?...



Meanwhile, there is good honest research that looks good for making this work for something much less grand than the big magnetic confined fusion of ITER...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Hello Tullio you know all the cash there spending on this I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper in the end to just start building the infustucure to start collecting H3 from the moon or space we know fusion works with H3
and Hydrogen as a fuel mmmmmm . The sun does harf the job and makes the H3 for us all we gotta do is collect it

Seems a bit to much to do the suns job .

how much has bin spent so far 15-20 billion wouldn't that get us the infustucture for collecting H3.....

---

All good, but any fusion machine produces only high energy neutrons, not electricity. Neutrons are deadly beasts which destroy any metal in matter of hours (I've used them in my youth on a project for IAEA). So you must substitute the "first wall" in a short period of time but of course it is radioactive,and you must use machinery.

About first wall materials, that's the purpose of IFMIF.

About machinery for replacement, it has been tested in JET. The design for the ITER version is already completed and it's being built. For example, here is the company that will manufacture the divertor replacement machine: http://www.iter.org/newsline/-/1936 (the divertor will be replaced 3 times in ITER's lifetime, not within hours).

The engineering problems of fusion reactors are huge, much more than any plasma physics problem.

Nope. Apart from the first wall material research, that is as difficult as plasma physics, the rest of the engineering problems are easier and mostly solved. Plasma physics is also mostly solved. Some details must be cleared out for a machine of the size of ITER but, as the link I posted before says, triple product has increased 10,000 times now, and we need to increase it only 6 times to start fusion. Also, energy gain factor world record is 0,65 (obtained in JET in 1997). JT60-SA claimed a factor of 1.25, but using only deuterium instead of deuterium-tritium. ITER's goal is 10, and a commercial reactor needs around 20. Some we are almost at the finish line.

Enrico Fermi was able to produce some electricity from his "atomic pile" in a matter of days.

Yes, fision is easier than fusion, but people is fision-phobic, so we need fusion. Also, fusion is more energetic than fision and can't be used to make bombs (yeah, there are fusion bombs, but they are all ignited by fision bombs, so, if you don't have fision reactors, you can't make fusion bombs).

So far no fusion experiment has produces a single watt of electricity.

That doesn't mean that it can't be done in the 2040's, as planned, or that it shouldn't be attempted.

Hello Tullio you know all the cash there spending on this I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper in the end to just start building the infustucure to start collecting H3 from the moon or space we know fusion works with H3
and Hydrogen as a fuel mmmmmm . The sun does harf the job and makes the H3 for us all we gotta do is collect it

Seems a bit to much to do the suns job .

how much has bin spent so far 15-20 billion wouldn't that get us the infustucture for collecting H3.....

D-H3 fusion is more difficult than D-T fusion (needed triple product is higher). Also, mining H3 from the Moon is waaaay more costly than developing ITER. ITER's total cost is around € 15 billion. This is more or less the current NASA budget for one year.

Deos anyone know if the Yanks are going to put the money into some other project ? or general coffers of the gov

I explained the situation and what is happening with the money in the post just before your question. One more time.

This isn't a done deal. As with most Interweb news it takes some reading to get past the shock headline.
But the fate of the U.S. ITER effort is hardly sealed. Appropriators in the House of Representatives released their version of the proposed DOE budget on 18 June and not only supported continued U.S. participation in ITER, but also proposed giving the project $225 million next year. The House total is $75 million more than what the White House had requested.

---

I still think we should use a very big fusion reactor at a safe distance, the Sun. Germany and Italy are using more and more photovoltaic energy, and there are also thermal plants as sponsored by Carlo Rubbia. In my small hometown there is a new building which gets electricity and heat from renewable sources, without impacting the environment. Electrical energy production should follow the some route of computing, going from centralized to distributed structure. Of course this needs to have "smart grids" and energy storage to give electricity also at night. I know that Italy's ENEL is working in this direction, as I receive the magazine "Energia elettrica" edited by the Italian Electrotechnical Association, founded by Galileo Ferraris, of which I am a member.
Tullio

---

I still think we should use a very big fusion reactor at a safe distance, the Sun.

There are energy sources much more unsafe than fusion (or fision). And renewable sources, indeed.

Germany and Italy are using more and more photovoltaic energy, and there are also thermal reactors as sponsored by Carlo Rubbia. In my small hometown there is a new building which gets electricity and heat from renewable sources, without impacting the environment.

All energy sources impact the environment. Photovoltaic energy is no exception. You have to mine the materials for the solar panels and infraestructure (metals, silicon, etc.). You have to cover a lot of land, where no plant can grow[1].

Electrical energy production should follow the some route of computing, going from centralized to distributed structure. Of course this needs to have "smart grids" and energy storage to give energy also at night. I know that Italy's ENEL is working in this direction, as I receive the magazine "Energia elettrica" edited by the Italian Electrotechnical Association, founded by Galileo Ferraris, of which I am a member.
Tullio

Small generators can't regulate grid's frecuency (50Hz here in Spain). Only the big generators can do that (big hydroelectrical dams, nuclear power plants and fossil fuel power plants). Of these, I think nuclear energy is the most environment-friendly and health-friendly.

[1] For example, a typical modern fision reactor produces around 1 GW of electricity. That is, 24 GWh per day. In order to produce that much electricity, a solar power plant like this one, assuming an average of 8 hours of useful solar radiation per day (not at night/dawn/dusk, no clouds, etc.), would have to occupy around 40000 km2. That is, around 200 km x 200 km only occupied by the solar power plant.

Any new building should be self-sufficient by 2020, according to the European Community. No need for big power plants, and ENEL in Italy is shutting down many older thermal plants.
Tullio

---

What do you do in rainy climates or high latitudes? How do you power the industry? How do you power electric cars? Eliminating power plants is not an option.

And the pollution issue of manufacturing so many solar panels remains. A nuclear power plant is much more environment friendly.

I am not proposing to eliminate power plants, just not to build new ones when unneeded. Just to give a few figures, electricity from renewable sources in Italy has reached 29.52% in 2013, including hydroelectricity. Photovoltaic, wind and geothermic account for 13.14%, Thermoelectricity is down to 57.7%. Trends are: hydroelectricity +21%, photovoltaic +16.4%, wind +22.4%, geothermic +5%. Thermoelectricity -18.8%. Those are official figures from TERNA. It is clear that every country must provide to its needs and there is not a common solution. But Italy has a lot of Sun and is going to use it.
Tullio

---

You said "No need for big power plants" and I replied to that.

And I don't see any advantage of solar energy over nuclear energy, and I see some problems, as I stated before (they can't regulate frequency, etc.).

Also, I don't see why no new plants should be constructed.

Solar energy has not the problems of spent fuel elements to be stored safely,as demonstrated in Fukushima. There is no agreement in Italy, but also in USA, for a storage of radioactive materials. France has chosen a location and is going to drill a deep well and a horizontal tunnel, but such a decision would start a revolution here in Italy. Fusion power is still a dream.
Tullio

---

Solar energy has not the problems of spent fuel elements to be stored safely,as demonstrated in Fukushima.

Fukushima has nothing to do with spent nuclear fuel storage safety but with the biggest earhquake in Japan's registered history. And nobody died in Fukushima nor are health or environmental effects expected. Contrary to that, the renewable hydroelectrical energy, as I stated before, has in only one accident killed 171,000 people and destroyed the houses of 11 million people.

And solar energy has some problems that I stated before and you insist to ignore.

There is no agreement in Italy, but also in USA, for a storage of radioactive materials.

Of course there is an agreement. There are some places in USA and Italy that store nuclear material. If you refer to long-term storage, there is no civilian nuclear long-term storage in the USA, but there is a militar one. And there are other long-term repositories in the world, some active, some in construction, some planed, some experimental. Anyway, these long-term repositories haven't any technical problems or showstoppers, only problems with nucleophobic people and groups.

France has chosen a location and is going to drill a deep well and a horizontal tunnel, but such a decision would start a revolution here in Italy.

That doesn't mean that such an storage is unsafe or harmful. A lot of people pray to God too, and that doesn't mean that God is a real being.

Fusion power is still a dream.

That's simply false.

Meanwhile, the yearly funding for ITER from our governments looks to be rather meager compared to this funding from just one company:


The chips are DOWN. IBM spends $3bn on its FU-TURE-TURE-TURE

IBM's scientists have been given a whopping $3bn stack of cash to solve a problem that lurks not too far in our future...


That is for similarly important tech, so why is not ITER funded similarly?...

(Could it be that the dirty old power industry hasn't the same sort of 'interest'?...)


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Show me a fusion reactor producing electricity.
Tullio

---

Show me a fusion reactor producing electricity.
Tullio

Hang on while I check my back pocket.....

Nope, none there.

But then again, I don't think that I'd like to sit on a miniature sun. :-O

Cheers.

ITER will not produce any electricity. It will only consume it, and of course it is based in France with its 54 fission reactors.
Tullio

---