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: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.

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

[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: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

[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

[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.