Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fusion Reactor Sets New Endurance Record

Posted by michael on from the dilithium-crystals dept.

!splut writes "Fusion fans out there will be interested to know that an experimental French fusion reactor has set a new duration record of 210 seconds. Most fusion reactor research works (or tries to) by containing and compressing a quantity of plasma via an electomagnetic field in a toroidial chamber. Fusion energy could potentially provide a a clean, efficient, and virtually inexhaustible source of energy, but fusion reactoins have proven difficult to contain and control, so this is a significant achievement."

57 comments

  1. Self Powering by ThOr101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It appears as though a HUGE amount of energy is required to contain and control the system. Would the system be able to generate enough energy to control itself, and have excess power to give away?

    1. Re:Self Powering by Weird+Dave · · Score: 3, Informative
      Would the system be able to generate enough energy to control itself, and have excess power to give away?
      The easy answer is "Yes". Fusion reactions create an amazing amount of energy. Of course, part of the point of this news item is that nobody has been able to implement this in a truly stable way.
      --

      Grumble, Grumble
    2. Re:Self Powering by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 4, Informative
      Would the system be able to generate enough energy to control itself, and have excess power to give away?
      The easy answer is "Yes". Fusion reactions create an amazing amount of energy
      The real answer is "No, not so far"

      The origional poster was correct, a huge amount of energy is used to initiate/control this reaction. Fusion reactions do release (not create) an amazing amount of energy, but so far we have had to use an even more amazing amount of energy to control it. We are getting closer and closer to breaking through the efficiency barrier, and I don't doubt that we will someday. It's just going to damn slow.

      Well, we have been able to get a massive payback in terms of energy release. It's called a hydrogen bomb. A conventional fission bomb is detonated right up against a bunch of hydrogen isotopes, quickly achiving the tempuature and pressure necessary in order to fuse.

      BOOM
      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    3. Re:Self Powering by Accelerated+Joe · · Score: 2
      Would the system be able to generate enough energy to control itself, and have excess power to give away?
      The easy answer is "Yes". Fusion reactions create an amazing amount of energy

      The origional poster was correct, a huge amount of energy is used to initiate/control this reaction. Fusion reactions do release (not create) an amazing amount of energy Wow! You caught him saying that fusion reactions create energy instead of releasing energy! Good one! Then you go on to say that the real answer is "no", and the theoretical and fact based answer is "yes", and you "don't doubt" it. You really didn't have anything to add other than the create/release quote which any first year physics student would understand.

      The funny thing is that, in my estimation, although you're specifically right, so is the second poster, as we all know the famous equation relating matter and energy. Even though we understand that matter and energy are related on such a level that a fusion reaction doesn't exactly create energy, and it does release energy (just as anything which hypothetically created energy under the same circumstances would, were it possible), but the closest word of the two to the actual happenings is actually "create" and not "release". Nobody human has ever "created" something where there was nothing, so create does not have the semantic meaning you think it does. Be careful when correcting someone with a lesser word.

      "Release" is so general as to almost be meaningless in the case of energy from fission reactions. "Create", while at the very lowest level being inappropriate, in the sense of the laws of conservation, is much more specifically correct than "release", and people generally understand it to be so.

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
    4. Re:Self Powering by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1

      The point to my post was not to nitpick at technicalities. The original poster asked a question about relative energies, and I didn't think that the reply really answered it. Therefore, I elaborated. I only spent 3 words out of 125 (2.4%) in my post on the create/release issue.

      It may not have been a groundbreaking essay, but at least I didn't resort to personal attacks.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    5. Re:Self Powering by Accelerated+Joe · · Score: 2
      It simply bothers me when people "correct" others when no correction was necessary. It's like when Homer Simpson insists to the admiral that it's pronounced "Nucular". Call it a pet peave of mine.

      Anyways, the real point of my post was to show the unusual thought process you used. The quesiton was whether a system could generate enough power. You corrected the second poster's "Yes" to a qualified "No". Then, you said the real answer is yes, but only in the future, just like the second poster said. That makes two times that you corrected something to a less correct state.

      My rant at the end is just an explanation as to why one of your corrections was not perfectly correct. Umm... well, my first paragraph reflects how I was feeling at the time, but I didn't really mean it to be so personally offensive. Sorry about that.

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
    6. Re:Self Powering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now surely it's unfair to quote someone like that. He qualified his "yes" answer by saying noone has managed to do it yet and you just snipped that part out and made the same point yourself.

    7. Re:Self Powering by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 2
      sorry,
      Of course, part of the point of this news item is that nobody has been able to implement this in a truly stable way.
      I didn't intend to refute his point, I just thought he missed the point and was trying to politely elaborate. He said that nobody has been able to do it stabley, I said that nobody has gotten an energy payback.

      Weird Dave, if I've offended you or unfairly quoted you, I apologize.
      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    8. Re:Self Powering by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I am just misreading what the reply to the original post meant to say.

      A pet peave of mine is people who react way too harshly to others. While this is a minor thing, you see it on much larger scales all over the world, and it really sucks.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    9. Re:Self Powering by Izanagi · · Score: 1

      Four words:

      The Laws of thermodynamics!

      --
      SCO (noun.)- A Slimy Corporate Ogre. Often seeks free money.
    10. Re:Self Powering by Weird+Dave · · Score: 1

      *sniff* I feel so misunderstood! Just kidding. It's no big deal, really, just as long as my post didn't get modded down! I really don't deserve so much support, as my comment wasn't really that spectacular. It's weird when four people agree on some point, yet they end up arguing needlessly.

      (signs peace treaty, thereby ending the confrontation)

      --

      Grumble, Grumble
    11. Re:Self Powering by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      I just noticed this post. What do you mean?

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  2. Efficiency vs. Sustainability by SkipToMyLou · · Score: 5, Informative

    What needs to be understood is that they've managed to use a fusion generator to generate electricity. However, they've never managed to create electricity in a useful fashion.

    As it stands, they can create an efficient reactor that is not self-sustaining or a self-sustaining reactor that is not efficient. In other words, the former uses very little outside power, but isn't stable and ceases to function. The latter is more stable, but uses more fuel than conventional means.

    Fusion power is not a pipe dream. Just as conventional power reactors have been improved over time to produce electricity more efficiently, so will fusion reactors eventually be improved to the point where they're useful. Will it be in the next decade? It may well be, but regardless of when it will happen, it will happen.

    1. Re:Efficiency vs. Sustainability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bore me.

  3. US withdrew? by jacoberrol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ITER's planners hope to decide on a site in 2003; candidates are in Japan, France, Spain, and Canada. If all goes to plan, construction will begin in 2005, with operation to start around 2013. The US, which earlier withdrew from ITER, is now considering returning.

    Anyone know why the US withdrew from ITER? Returning after a succesful experiment makes us look like bandwagoners.

    1. Re:US withdrew? by U96 · · Score: 1

      If the shoe fits...

      --

      "I thought they were the dominant species..."
    2. Re:US withdrew? by frankske · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IIRC, the US withdrew because it was too costly. That's the official version. The unofficial version is that the US thinks it can figure the Secret to Fusion out themselves. If the Iter would find it, it would have to be shared among ITER members. If the US finds the secret, they can keep it to themselves... Because basicly, it's quite simpel: if we allow one nation (or 2 nations) to keep the secret to Fusion, that country will rule the world... One Tokamak to Rule Them All and in Power binds them!

    3. Re:US withdrew? by spike+hay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually fusion really isn't the miracle power source they have made it out to be. Sure, it doesn't pollute, and the fuel cost is almost peanuts. But the reactors themselves will always cost huge amounts of money and still take quite a bit of manpower to run.

      However, fusion will still eventually end up somewhat cheaper than other forms of power generation. It just isn't a miracle "too cheap to meter" type of thing.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    4. Re:US withdrew? by Fweeky · · Score: 2
      But the reactors themselves will always cost huge amounts of money and still take quite a bit of manpower to run.
      Why?

      Always is a very long time.. you better be able to qualify that statement well :)
    5. Re:US withdrew? by frankske · · Score: 1

      What powersource are you going to use 80 years from now? Oil? It will be more expensive than gold. Nuclear? In the US maybe, but here in .eu, nuclear plants are forced to shut down down between this and 25 years...

    6. Re:US withdrew? by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      I'm talking about the forseeable future anyway.

      Toriods are expensive because you need a huge vacuum chamber that is surrounded by ridiculously powerfull superconducting magnets and heats up plasma to millions of degrees.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    7. Re:US withdrew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      IIRC, the US withdrew because it was too costly. That's the official version. The unofficial version is that the US thinks it can figure the Secret to Fusion out themselves.
      What's the matter with the good old fashioned Oil Lobbyists Explanation? Doesn't anyone enjoy exploring the possibilities a good federal government coverup these days? Or has the USA PATRIOT ACT made that illegal now?
    8. Re:US withdrew? by sopuli · · Score: 1
      here in .eu, nuclear plants are forced to shut down down between this and 25 years

      I'm not so sure about that. Here in Finland the parlaiment has decided to open a new nuclear plant. This seems to have made the issue debatable in other countries too (e.g. in Holland).

    9. Re:US withdrew? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Once the efficiency is sufficient, the plants will produce more power revenue than it costs to run them. Combined with the factors you cite (it doesn't pollute, and the fuel cost is almost peanuts ) the plants will being generating enormous profits. From such profits, more plants are built.

      The whole cycle can continue until the plants replace all of the conventional plants, and then the price for power starts to drop like a rock. At that point they'll have trouble supporting themselves. Probably the government will have to take them over as they all go bankrupt.

      In the end, we wind up with cheap clean power, but without market forces, what will happen to the research at that point? I can't imagine the government having much incentive to increase the efficiency at that point. Even the home-generator market would be a tough sell, with almost-free power coming off the grid. Maybe units for boats or planes or moon bases would be potential sources of revenue.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:US withdrew? by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      nuclear plants are forced to shut down down between this and 25 years...

      I don't think they will in France. I believe in the next 20 years we will se wider use of nuclear power. What other power sources will we use? Of course coal will last another 200 years. But we can't afford to pollute like that much longer.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    11. Re:US withdrew? by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      Combined with the factors you cite (it doesn't pollute, and the fuel cost is almost peanuts ) the plants will being generating enormous profits. From such profits, more plants are built.

      I'm not saying these plants won't be profitable. It would just be a while before they got to be cheaper than sources such as coal.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    12. Re:US withdrew? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying these plants won't be profitable. It would just be a while before they got to be cheaper than sources such as coal.

      I guess I'm not seeing why they should be less profitable if the fuel costs approach zero. Are you figuring they'll be running at a loss when they start up, or are you just figuring in the capitalized costs of constructing the facility?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:US withdrew? by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      They won't be running at a loss. I just wonder whether they will provide cheaper power than coal or nuclear initially.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    14. Re:US withdrew? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      I just wonder whether they will provide cheaper power than coal or nuclear initially.

      Let's hope so. They'll have a heck of a time in the spot market if they're selling power for more than the fossil fuel plants. Excepting government incentives (tax breaks, pollution credits, etc.), of course. Not that I'd mind contributing a bit of my taxes to help get them off the ground.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    15. Re:US withdrew? by frankske · · Score: 1

      Germany is shutting down, Belgium is shutting down, even in France, the opions are turning: Greenpace made a hole in .Fr's entry for the America's Cup, simply because the main sponsor is a Nuclear firm... Don't get me wrong, I think nuclear power has it's merrits, and it is probably better than coal/gas/oil power plants, but fusion would be better!

  4. Previous record? by n-baxley · · Score: 2

    The article doesn't say. What was the previous record?

    --

    THIS SPACE FOR RENT
    1. Re:Previous record? by sl956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The article doesn't say. What was the previous record?
      The same french tokamak (Tore Supra) had set the previous record of 120 seconds in 1996.
      The figures on this page (in french) shows that the reactor produced 2MW during most of that 1996 experiment. That is 2MW of *excess* power for such a small experimental reactor!!!
  5. Whoo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    only 20 billion more seconds to go!

    1. Re:Whoo hoo! by spike+hay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know you are making a joke, but seriously folks....

      A reactor operating 220 seconds is not a huge tech leap away from one able to operate forever.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    2. Re:Whoo hoo! by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      No reactor is designed to run for ever, everything has a design life, for US fision reactors, it is 50 years or 1.5 billion more seconds to go...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    3. Re:Whoo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insert obligatory So Solid Crew/"21 Seconds" reference here.

    4. Re:Whoo hoo! by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      I should have said "indefinitely" instead of "forever." Obviously they only have a life of a few decades. I just meant one that could run continously.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  6. Say what? by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 2
    Where have they made a self-sustaining reaction? I don't think that we've even had ignition yet, and if I recall correctly, even the next-generation tokamaks, like ITER-lite and FIRE won't be able to have a sustained burn.

    I think you're vastly mistaken, and if not, please steer me to the experiment that has had a self-sustaining reaction.

    1. Re:Say what? by Rubyflame · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's called a "hydrogen bomb."

      --

      All it takes is nukes and nerves.
    2. Re:Say what? by Rubyflame · · Score: 1

      Ack, sorry, the hydrogen bomb is efficient (sorta), but not self-sustaining. I suppose the sun is self-sustaining tho, but that doesn't really count.

      --

      All it takes is nukes and nerves.
    3. Re:Say what? by PaulAurich · · Score: 1

      I'd say that a hydrogen bomb is self-sustaining. Self-sustenance is a key factor in the reaction. The problem with a hydrogen bomb is that it's not easy to harness the energy produced for anything useful (it's not a controlled self-sustaining source of energy).

    4. Re:Say what? by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 2

      Hey... I'd count the hydrogen bomb as self-sustaining in a sense (its reaction continues, in part, because of the heat from the fusion), but we're talking about reactors here. And the sun counts as soon as we can manufacture one.

    5. Re:Say what? by lommer · · Score: 1

      Um, the explosion ends sometime, right? Therefore it is NOT self-sustaining!

      Think, if it was self-sustaining, it would be one continual explosion going on forever and ever.....

    6. Re:Say what? by Nos. · · Score: 3, Informative

      Self-sustaining does not mean never-ending. What it means is that no more energy is required to continue the reaction, but if your fuel runs out, you're toast. Look at the sun (or any star for that matter). They're self sustaing, but they don't last forever. Eventually they run of fuel and collapse or explode.

    7. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look at the sun

      ARGH! My eyes!

      Damn you, Nos! Damn you and your trickery! You shall pay for this!

    8. Re:Say what? by Polo · · Score: 2

      That was the funniest thing I've ever heard a blind man say.

  7. There goes the greenhouse effect ..... :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just when we finally had everyone convinced that the world would end without "green" taxes ...

    I guess we are back to the situation when it was predicted that london would drown in horse shit due to increasing traffic, and some idiot invented the car ....

    Now we'll have to go and figure out a new way to end the world :(

    - Lomborg

    1. Re:There goes the greenhouse effect ..... :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we're not exactly at the point where fusion reactors are used to power cities.

      In the future, fusion power might be so cheap that cracking water to get hydrogen (for future hydrogen powered cars) would be economically feasible. As if that wouldn't be sweet.

  8. Self Sustaining? by marcus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that you have fallen into a semantic trap.

    "Sustaining" is too vague. The ultimate definition of a "viable", or "commercially usable" reactor is one that produces enough power so that by selling that power it can pay for itself, it's fuel, staff, etc. This is what an electrical power plant does. It costs $X to build, $Y/yr to maintain, and operate. If the power that it generates can be sold for > X + (Y * useful_lifespan), then the power plant is viable and probably will be built by somebody.

    There are designs for fusion plants that are purposefully not "sustaining". Instead, they pulse. During the pulses, they make more than enough power to fire off the next pulse. What they don't do, yet, is make enough to fire off the next pulse, AND pay for themselves.

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
    1. Re:Self Sustaining? by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 2
      Actually, what I'm saying is that there are no fusion reactors that pulse and make enough power to fire off the next pulse. I think they've only even reached theoretical breakeven within the past few years, where the amount of energy out equals the energy put in. None of the reactors in existence, JET, TFTR, etc., are capable of creating a burning plasma (where the heat from fusion significantly exceeds the heat put in) or having a sustained burn.

      An economically sustainable reactor is much, much further away than that, even.

    2. Re:Self Sustaining? by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 2

      In other words, I believe that the statement During the pulses, they make more than enough power to fire off the next pulse is false, and I ask for a counterexample.

    3. Re:Self Sustaining? by marcus · · Score: 2

      OK, it means that you DO know what you are talking about rather than simply being confused by the terminology.

      As far as a counter example, one of a true generator, even if it was a lab test I don't know. I have vague memories of the theoretical(not including conversion losses, etc) breakeven having been reached but nothing more.

      Heh, if you want to be picky ;-) I guess I could refer you to an island in the Pacific where there was one pulse that definitely produced more energy than was required to fire it off(including construction, etc.) however, capturing and converting that energy would be, uh let's say, difficult.

      Cheers for clearing sematic clouds...

      --
      Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
      - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
    4. Re:Self Sustaining? by capnjack41 · · Score: 1
      X + (Y * useful_lifespan),

      "...plus the average out-of-court settlement, Z, equals A. If A is greater than the amount of money brought in by the reactor, we don't build one. Which power plant do you work for? A major one."

      (paraphrased somewhat)

    5. Re:Self Sustaining? by Baikala · · Score: 1

      Yea yea yea mr...wait! that character didn't had a name. very funny.

      --
      16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
  9. No fusion, just plasma containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article, it appears they did nothing more than hold plasma in a magnetic field. That's cool enough, but no fusion apparently took place.

  10. Where's Christopher Lloyd!! by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1
    If Christopher Lloyd would just bring back one of those Mr. Fusions from the future, all would be okay. They even ran on garbage. The fact that he hasn't must mean that they will never be developed, which in turn means that mankind will go extinct. AAAHHH!

    Maybe I should go back in time and kill my Dad for such an annoying comment.

    --
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free