UK's Newest Tokamak Fusion Reactor Has Created Its First Plasma (futurism.com)

After being switched on for the first time last Friday, the UK's newest fusion reactor has successfully generated a molten mass of electrically-charged gas, or plasma, inside its core. Futurism reports: Called the ST40, the reactor was constructed by Tokamak Energy, one of the leading private fusion energy companies in the world. The company was founded in 2009 with the express purpose of designing and developing small fusion reactors to introduce fusion power into the grid by 2030. Now that the ST40 is running, the company will commission and install the complete set of magnetic coils needed to reach fusion temperatures. The ST40 should be creating a plasma temperature as hot as the center of the Sun -- 15 million degrees Celsius (27 million degrees Fahrenheit) -- by Autumn 2017. By 2018, the ST40 will produce plasma temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius (180 million degrees Fahrenheit), another record-breaker for a privately owned and funded fusion reactor. That temperature threshold is important, as it is the minimum temperature for inducing the controlled fusion reaction. Assuming the ST40 succeeds, it will prove that its novel design can produce commercially viable fusion power.

Comments

hot hOT HOT!

[NaughtyNimitz]

100 million degrees celsius? I hope the containment system will hold... I know the dangers of extreme heat: I burned my tongue on a microwaved chocolate milk once.

Re:hot hOT HOT!

[Harold Halloway]

It doesn't matter if the containment field doesn't hold - the company is based in Milton Keynes.

Re:hot hOT HOT!

[91degrees]

It's made from the stuff they make pop-tarts out of. It can handle the ridiculous temperatures that the filling gets to, so a mere 100 million degrees is nothing.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[Computershack]

Still waiting for solar to pass its commercial viability test and I suspect wind power is a similar story. So far it only succeeds here in the UK because of government subsidies. If I pay for and install my own 5kWh solar system the returns over 20 years don't cover the cost of the initial installation, let alone a replacement inverter after 10 years or any other maintenance.

Wind cheaper than coal, solar than nuke/oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Both already have a ROI in less than a decade and are profitable almost immediately, having zero fuel cost.

You're waiting because you refuse to stop waiting and complaining.

ALL power "only succeeds" here in the UK because of government subsidies. If you pay for or install your own coal fired power station it will never pay back. Don't even try nuke.

Re:Wind cheaper than coal, solar than nuke/oil

[thegarbz]

Both already have a ROI in less than a decade

Except solar definitely does not in the wonderful cloudy parts of the world near the north sea.

Re:Dyson sphere ?

[sheramil]

A Dyson ring is a good compromise to building a Dyson sphere - uses less material, lower construction costs. Even easier is the Dyson lump. Also known as a planet.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[Rei]

The cost is no longer the panels; it's the installation. Panels are dirt cheap in bulk.

When talking about solar prices, it's important to make a distinction between home installs and grid-scale installs. The latter in the US is now averaging around $1,50 per kW, and some installs are coming in around $1 per kW. Which is crazy-cheap, even taking into account the capacity factor.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[jblues]

Wind turbines reached grid parity in some areas of Europe in the mid-2000s, and in the US around the same time. Falling prices continue to drive the levelized cost down and it has been suggested that it has reached general grid parity in Europe in 2010, and will reach the same point in the US around 2016 due to an expected reduction in capital costs of about 12%.[25] Nevertheless, a significant amount of the wind power resource in North America remains above grid parity due to the long transmission distances involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity#Wind_power

Re:A molten mass of dumbing down

[aberglas]

Science Journalists are often journalists that write about science. TV producers even more so. So they write what they understand. At least this talks a bit about the science and not just about the scientists -- human interest, journos understand that.

Make a fair comparison

[sjbe]

Still waiting for solar to pass its commercial viability test and I suspect wind power is a similar story.

Either you are willfully ignoring facts or you don't understand them. Solar has been economically viable in a wide variety of circumstances for quite a few years now. It's not the cheapest option everywhere (nothing is) but it's easily competitive in a great many places. Even better it's cost per unit of power generated has been dropping very rapidly with no evidence of an end in sight.

So far it only succeeds here in the UK because of government subsidies.

I could say the same thing about oil and gas in the UK. The UK subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of billions per year directly, not to mention the indirect subsidy of not requiring coal and oil to pay the full cost of their emissions. Solar is already competitive with coal and oil in many situations and it is easily competitive if you compare the full cost of each which folks like yourself arguing against solar tend not to do.

If I pay for and install my own 5kWh solar system the returns over 20 years don't cover the cost of the initial installation, let alone a replacement inverter after 10 years or any other maintenance.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Even if we take your statement at face value (and we shouldn't), it doesn't follow that there are no solar installations anywhere (UK or elsewhere) that do not recoup their costs. It is a trivial exercise to find examples of solar installations that pay for themselves within their operational lifespan.

So use what you have

[sjbe]

Except solar definitely does not in the wonderful cloudy parts of the world near the north sea.

You mean those locations with cloudy skies and lots of wind? So use wind power if your specific location isn't ideal for solar. Last I checked there was no lack of wind in the North Sea.

I don't get why some people keep arguing that solar isn't good in general because it doesn't work for every circumstance everywhere. Solar works fine and it's now economic in a huge number of cases. Better yet it's going to continue to get cheaper and more efficient with time. Yes if you live somewhere where it is foggy 300+ days a year solar is probably not for you. That doesn't describe most places where people live.

Re:So use what you have

[jonnyj]

Solar works fine and it's now economic in a huge number of cases...

So here's the problem for the UK. As I write, renewables are doing well at 18.5% of power generation: a rare sunny day means that 15.1% is from solar with a gentle breeze producing a further 2.9%.

But the sun doesn't shine at night. Britain is a cold, dark country so we need lots of energy at night. At 6.30 this morning, only 4% of our energy came from renewables and, as a result, we had to import more than 10% of our energy requirements from France's largely nuclear power stations. Thanks, France - without you, my morning would have been a bleak one.

Data from here: http://nationalgrid.stephenmor...

Re:So use what you have

[Barsteward]

We still have to wait until they get their act together and invest in a suitable storage solution to store all the power produced by things like wind (which does work at night) then there will be less reliance on power from abroad

Re:So use what you have

[conquistadorst]

It's almost as if people want a single answer to any problem instead of understanding the complexities of multiple answers in most situations. There are after all over 20 different types of hammers, they all do something better than the other. Not every hammer is ideally suited for every situation.

Re:So use what you have

[hackertourist]

The UK has 2 large pumped-storage stations, Dinorwig and Ffestiniog are good for 4 GW combined.

Re:So use what you have

[jonnyj]

> Britain is a cold, dark country so we need lots of energy at night

No you don't. The night time load is about 1/2 the daytime, and that's why it's cheaper if you're on Economy 7 and 10.

You're missing the point.

Our peak electricity demand usually falls between 5.00pm and 6.00pm in winter when people get home and switch on their electric kettles, electric cookers, electric lights, electric TVs, electric showers, electric water heating and, in many cases, supplementary electric heating. In winter it's dark at that time of day; hence my use of the term 'night'. In the winter months, it's exceptionally rare for solar power to produce any of our power needs at the time of peak demand. Typically the only exception is Christmas Day when millions of turkeys and roast potatoes are simultaneously roasted whilst the weak winter sun feebly attempts to spark a photo-voltaic reaction through dense blankets of winter cloud.

Of course energy consumption falls dramatically later in the day when people do to bed, but it also rises again when they get up before dawn. The problem comes when it's cold and dark outside but we're all wide awake inside.

Re:So use what you have

[Albanach]

Cruachan can run for over 20 hours at peak
Dinorwig can run for 6 hours
Ffestiniog can run for four hours

No one suggested they can meet the UK electric consumption alone, but the idea that any of these stations is only good for minutes of generation is demonstrably false.

Re:So use what you have

[Maury Markowitz]

> You're missing the point.

I responded directly to your point. Don't blame me if you choose to redefine the terms "night" and "lots". And for that matter "cold", which no one in the UK should dare to define to someone who lives in Toronto!

In any event, its besides the issue anyway. As one can see on the National Grid's website:

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/Industry-information/Electricity-transmission-operational-data/Data-Explorer/

There is plenty of demand during the day that PV can take. Every watt that comes from that is one that didn't come from something else, which is generally a good thing. Sure, if you keep moving the goalposts and coming up with new reasons why "it will never work" you could probably keep us going forever. But if you want to solve actual problems, PV is certainly part of that solution, as those very same CSV files demonstrate (they even have a separate column for it). Also surprising is the amount of pumped storage.

Re:So use what you have

[Maury Markowitz]

> Britain is a country with a huge number of poorly insulated homes.

I lived in Ireland for a year. One night I was getting cold on a windy night and noticed the drapes on the main window in the living room were blowing around. Ah ha, I just need to close the window!

The window was closed.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[TheRaven64]

Are you sure it's $1/kW, not $1/W? The former would mean that it would pay for itself in about two days, the latter in a year or two. If the RoI is under a week, then I'd expect a lot more construction than exists currently.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[Chas]

Actually there is such a thing as a nuclear battery.

Essentially it's a chunk of pure plutonium which generate power as the element decays.

It's useful for low power operations over a VERY extended period (like space probes).

Elsewhere, it's not so useful.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[drinkypoo]

Are you sure it's $1/kW, not $1/W?

It's $/W. Interestingly, though, it's under 2 now and almost to 1, and when I started looking seriously at buying panels ten years ago it was over 4.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[KeensMustard]

It's cheaper or at least competitive here in Australia to go off grid with your own solar install comparative to a new grid connection - especially if you live in rural and semi-rural areas. Utilities charge exorbitant prices to maintain the grid connection because they upgraded the networks anticipating another 40 years of coal, only to have coal fade from the scene and the new grid underutilized (costing them money, which is passed on to consumers). You'd be a moron to connect to the grid these days, unless you are in the suburbs.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

Nowhere is Europe is wind producing 50% of the annual power on the grid. Not even close. Wind power cannot exist on the grid today without conventional sources to back up its intermittency.

Denmark, 49.2% of supply in 2015 (no figures for 2016 on wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Curiously the winds are a lot stronger in the winter, so thats when they have a lot of excess power to export.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[zwarte piet]

Power grids are linked across countries in Europe. It isn't unusual to borrow power from a neighbouring country only to return the favour later. So if the wind is still in Denmark for a while, it might not be in Germany. Germany uses massive amounts of solar btw, even though it is not a super sunny place.

Circumstance dependant

[sjbe]

And I'm not against green energy, just against stupid catch all remarks that say something is better than something else or has some specific ROI without taking into account any specifics.

We are in accord on that point.

Residential wind hasn't taken off for a simple reason, it is incredibly inefficient.

Again, whether residential wind power is useful is circumstance dependent. Sometimes it makes perfect sense as a supplement even on a home installation. I know a few local hobby farms that have smallish wind turbines which were economically sensible for their location. And who said it had to be residential? Communities can install large wind turbines and share the power. If rooftop solar doesn't work and the geography doesn't work for residential wind, then get the neighbors together for a large wind turbine. Battery systems for both home and grid scale are starting to become a real thing too.

Where my house is located (near the upper Great Lakes) wind doesn't make much sense but both grid and residential turbines make a ton of sense just 80 miles from my house and in fact are used. Conversely our local power company and a fair number of houses have solar installations which work great. Just our local geography. No one power source fits every circumstance and location.

No one here said anything like that, read through the thread again.

The claim was "Except solar definitely does not in the wonderful cloudy parts of the world near the north sea." which has nothing specifically to do with residential. Furthermore my statement was something of a more general statement aimed towards the people who invariably and unhelpfully point out that the sun doesn't shine 24/7.

Re:That won't prove commercially viable power

[Anonymous Coward]

But Denmark is a net importer of electricity and they don't include that in the statistic.