Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on February 2, 2017

Bookmark and Share

An unconventional approach to fusion

An unconventional approach to fusion thumbnail
There’s no easy road to fusion. Whether one travels the large route forged by six decades of research on hundreds of machines, or whether one tries to open a way through uncharted and exotic territory, difficulties abound and challenges loom large.

 

General Fusion's approach is quite exotic: no vacuum vessel in their planned fusion machine but a spherical tank filled with a liquid lead-lithium mixture spun into a vortex; no giant superconducting magnet system to confine the plasma but an array of pistons to compress it by way of a powerful shock wave... (Click to view larger version...)

General Fusion’s approach is quite exotic: no vacuum vessel in their planned fusion machine but a spherical tank filled with a liquid lead-lithium mixture spun into a vortex; no giant superconducting magnet system to confine the plasma but an array of pistons to compress it by way of a powerful shock wave…

Over the past few years, several private sector startups have raised enough capital to launch their scientists and engineers into the race to harness fusion power. Tri Alpha Energy and Helion Energy in the US; Tokamak Energy and First Light Fusion in the UK; General Fusion in Canada and scores of others … all claim they can deliver within the coming decade.

 

How they can succeed with a few tens or hundreds of million dollars in investment and a workforce that rarely exceeds a few dozen specialists is an open question—one that everyone present in the ITER amphitheatre on Monday 23 January had in mind.

 

The guest that day was physicist Michel Laberge, founder and chief scientist of General Fusion, the company that boasts it is ─ in the present tense ─ “transforming the world’s energy supply with clean, safe and abundant fusion energy”.

 

There is a world, of course, between the claim inscribed on the opening page of General Fusion’s website and the present status of the company’s research and experimentation. Facing a receptive and curious audience of fusion specialists, Laberge didn’t seek to minimize the technical challenges his company is facing.

 

For anybody familiar with magnetic fusion and tokamaks, General Fusion’s approach is quite exotic: no vacuum vessel in their planned fusion machine but a spherical tank filled with a liquid lead-lithium mixture spun into a vortex; no giant superconducting magnet system to confine the plasma but an array of pistons to compress it by way of a powerful shock wave…

 

Physicist Michel Laberge, founder and chief scientist of General Fusion, didn't seek to minimize the technical challenges his company is facing. (Click to view larger version...)

Physicist Michel Laberge, founder and chief scientist of General Fusion, didn’t seek to minimize the technical challenges his company is facing.

The concept, called “magnetized target fusion” originated in the mid-1970s. It combines features of magnetic confinement fusion (like in ITER and other tokamaks) and inertial confinement fusion (like in the US National Ignition Facility or the French Laser Mégajoule).

 

“We aim to do fusion somewhere in the middle ground,” said Laberge in his introduction. Supported by detailed graphs, high-speed videos and precise figures, his presentation and the ensuing exchanges were highly technical and at no moment was there any hint of condescendence or irony—from either side of the podium.

 

The encounter between the largest science project on the planet and a small, determined startup in western Canada, demonstrated that, at the end of the day, the fusion community—dreamers, explorers, experimenters—is really just one.

 

ITER



11 Comments on "An unconventional approach to fusion"

  1. twocats on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 9:40 am 

    by “no easy road” I think they mean to say “no road” to fusion.

  2. Go Speed Racer on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 10:23 am 

    It ain’t gonna work.
    If you have a steam engine,
    and burn old tires and couches,
    that will work.

  3. Sissyfuss on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 11:51 am 

    I look at that pictured machine and think maybe the moon landings were staged after all.

  4. steam_cannon on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 1:31 pm 

    It’s a plausible design, though not a winner. I’ve reviewed their progress before. I think they will probably get some reaction. The negatives is it will produce waste and this design will be overshadowed by the work of other quieter companies in the field. So ultimately I think so they are wasting peoples time. That said, it’s a reasonable concept and not terrible research, focusing pressure waves is fundamental to several different experimental concepts in fusion.

  5. David Rockenberg on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 2:30 pm 

    Unlike doomers who are stuck in their perpetual infancy, hands-on researchers are learning something. Not as rapidly as they’d like, of course. But better than nothing!

  6. dissident on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 6:44 pm 

    This is a great project. All serious possibilities should be tested. People love to bitch about how fusion is never going to happen. How do they know, their gut feelings? And any carping about costs is BS since billions are spent on the “entertainment industry”. People should get their priorities straight.

  7. Go Speed Racer on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 7:28 pm 

    People should burn couches in their backyards.
    To stay warm.

  8. jjhman on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 10:37 pm 

    OK so the liquid metal vortex may solve one of my biggest concerns of all the other fusion machines I’ve see: radiation damage to the chamber wall. They absorb the damage in the liquid metal which also carries away the heat. I have no idea what the radiation chemistry of that is, however, so to me I guess its just like magic.

  9. antaris on Thu, 2nd Feb 2017 10:46 pm 

    I had a tour a couple of years ago. Don’t know if it will ever work but at least they have a means of harnessing excess energy if produced. IITER not.

  10. GregT on Fri, 3rd Feb 2017 12:19 am 

    “hands-on researchers are learning something. Not as rapidly as they’d like, of course. But better than nothing!”

    Those hands-on researchers would be better served by paying attention to the damage being inflicted on our planet’s natural biosphere. If they did, they might actually learn something of importance, rather than ‘better than nothing’.

  11. Davy on Fri, 3rd Feb 2017 4:58 am 

    Amen Greg, Amen! Techno’s eat shit. Sorry got carried away. Is this a comedy show?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *