# UK's latest nuclear fusion reactor could supply the grid with clean power by 2030



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 28, 2017)

Britain's newest fusion reactor has been fired up and taken the world one step further towards generating electricity from the power of the stars.

The heart of the Tokamak ST40 reactor - a super-hot cloud of electrically charged gas, or plasma - is expected to reach a temperature of 100 million centigrade next year.

That is how hot it needs to be to trigger fusion, the joining together of atomic nuclei accompanied by an enormous release of energy.

And by 2030, the reactor will provide clean energy to the UK's national grid, according to its creators Tokamak Energy.








The new reactor was built at Milton Park, Oxfordshire, by Tokamak Energy, a private company pioneering fusion power in the UK.

It is Tokamak Energy's third upgraded reactor and represents the latest step in a five-stage plan to bring fusion power to the national grid by 2030.

Speaking after the ST40 reactor was officially turned on and achieved 'first plasma', Tokamak Energy chief executive Dr David Kingham said: 'Today is an important day for fusion energy development in the UK, and the world.

'We are unveiling the first world-class controlled fusion device to have been designed, built and operated by a private venture.

'The ST40 is a machine that will show fusion temperatures - 100 million degrees - are possible in compact, cost-effective reactors.

'This will allow fusion power to be achieved in years, not decades.'


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 28, 2017)

Fusing of 2 protons to make a neutron. Our greatest example is our closest star, the Sun.

Hopefully they can contain critical mass or prevent it, aka to not have something worse happen than Chernobyl or the Japanese Nuclear plant disaster from an Earthquake.


----------



## 111frodon (Apr 28, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Fusing of 2 protons to make a neutron. Our greatest example is our closest star, the Sun.
> 
> Hopefully they can contain critical mass or prevent it, aka to not have something worse happen than Chernobyl or the Japanese Nuclear plant disaster from an Earthquake.



More like fusing two deuterium/tritium/lithium nucleus into an helium nucleus + a tremendous amount of energy and a few neutrons depending on the type of fuel. And there is no such thing as critical mass in thermonuclear reaction, this is fusion and not fission. As soon as it gets below a certain temperature, the fusion just stop. There is no chain reaction to contain and control, only a lot of energy to use and almost no waste.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2017)

That's pretty damn small.  Not as small as Lockheed is working towards but still, if that size is viable, it would definitely work in aircraft carriers and other large ships.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 28, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Fusing of 2 protons to make a neutron. Our greatest example is our closest star, the Sun.



Fusing two FUD into more ridiculous FUD, the Sun (newspaper?)


----------



## Nuckles56 (Apr 28, 2017)

I honestly don't see it, to produce energy viably with current technology, the reactors have to be very large and that certainly isn't.


----------



## techtard (Apr 29, 2017)

I remember back 10+ years ago there was talk about fusion R&D in France, or somewhere else in the UK that was supposed to have culminated in mass fusion power by 2020. I wonder how close they've ever gotten and if the viable projects get shut down by big oil.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2017)

I think the oil industry has realized they're running out of product for prices people are willing to pay.  Their money is mostly going towards natural gas.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

This would be a great thing for the world, solving a lot of problems at once. Environmental, energy, waste like radioactive.


----------



## 64K (Apr 29, 2017)

techtard said:


> I remember back 10+ years ago there was talk about fusion R&D in France, or somewhere else in the UK that was supposed to have culminated in mass fusion power by 2020. I wonder how close they've ever gotten and if the viable projects get shut down by big oil.



Well, Lockheed Martin is working on it too. They claimed several years ago that they would deliver an economically viable Fusion Reactor Power Plant the size of a truck within 10 years.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html?

They seem to think that a smaller design will be easier to develop.
I think they can pull it off but honestly I don't know enough about Fusion Reactors to know what obstacles stand in the way.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Apr 29, 2017)

What sort of crazy doomsday device is this and where can i get one?


----------



## P4-630 (Apr 29, 2017)

Reminds me to this one:


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 29, 2017)

Retarded question, but what kind of man made materials are capable of containing 100 million degrees without melting or spontaneously combusting?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2017)

Nothing, which is why fusion usually involves some form of energetic containment, usually magnetic.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

Fancy video taken from the same website 64k provided:








Scientist explaining the reactor and why it's so small.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2017)

Didn't realize they planned on replacing natural gas turbines with fusion reactors.  I'd need to see more details on that though because it doesn't make much sense.  Natural gas turbines rotate generators directly where fusion reactors are just heat sources.  Do they already have plans to make that heat rotate translating it directly into rotational force?  Seems unlikely.  I wonder if they mean that it can be powered by natural gas or at least initially.

It makes far more sense to replace fission reactors with fusion reactors.  Except the heat source, virtually everything else should be reusable.  Thing is, nuclear power plants need 100s if not 1000s of megawatts of thermal energy to operate.  Lockheed has stated previously they're aiming for 100 MW.  The 100 MW figure more closely matches with natural gas turbines than nuclear power.  That's the only correlation I can think of.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 29, 2017)

So how many steps towards nuclear powered cars is this?


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 29, 2017)

64K said:


> Well, Lockheed Martin is working on it too. They claimed several years ago that they would deliver an economically viable Fusion Reactor Power Plant the size of a truck within 10 years.





cdawall said:


> So how many steps towards nuclear powered cars is this?



DARPA would like one the size of a Truck  or Smaller as Soon as possible to power Ronnie Regan's Battlefield Deployable Anti missile lasers ect
later on It may Trickle down to Arkham City Car Dealerships


----------



## 64K (Apr 29, 2017)

cdawall said:


> So how many steps towards nuclear powered cars is this?



Possibly not too far in the future. If fusion power delivers dirt-cheap electricity and battery technology leaps forward immensely from what we have right now. But something will have to happen in the not too distant future because as FordGT90Concept pointed out in #8 oil is finite and eventually we are going to reach a point where it is no longer viable for use as a sensible economical solution for transportation and shipping.

Necessity is the mother of invention.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2017)

cdawall said:


> So how many steps towards nuclear powered cars is this?


Never.  You're literally talking about containing a star in a bottle.  Stars give off all kinds of nasty radiation which requires shielding.  The smallest package we're reasonably going to see it in in the foreseeable future is a semitrailer (with a lot of axels to make it road legal).

Likely deployment path:
-Stationary power stations
-Military ships (DDG-1000 was literally designed for a compact fusion engine)
-Military trucks (used to power laser defense systems in regional hotspots)
-Civilian trains (Union Pacific is going to be all over this as soon as it looks viable).
-Civilian ships (freighters and cruise ships)
-Civilian trucks (as portable generators)


----------



## cdawall (Apr 29, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Never.  You're literally talking about containing a star in a bottle.  Stars give off all kinds of nasty radiation which requires shielding.  The smallest package we're reasonably going to see it in in the foreseeable future is a semitrailer (with a lot of axels to make it road legal).
> 
> Likely deployment path:
> -Stationary power stations
> ...



To be fair the output required for a car is substantially lower. So size to shield such a small reactor it should be a lot more feasible. I just want a 50 year refill time on my car why would you ruin that. The Tesla model S has a 310kW motor and zips, no reason we could have a small reactor to power that and imagine how cool car accidents would be!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2017)

That's the other problem, when a fusion reaction is going, you have to pull the heat off of it or it will destroy itself.  Starting a fusion reaction requires a huge amount of energy as well (only electromagnets are strong enough to contain it) so start/stop operation isn't exactly viable.

It may happen eventually but I'm positive it won't be in my lifetime.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (May 2, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It may happen eventually but I'm positive it won't be in my lifetime.


 "pessimist"?
Reading it as being an UK project I wouldn't be surprised they say it's they'r invention, then after saying they imported it before they'r own and then after saying it was invented by someone else(non UK citizen)[periodic table of videos-aspirin] man was I drunk or how did I get it that way?.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2017)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> "pessimist"?
> Reading it as being an UK project I wouldn't be surprised they say it's they'r invention, then after saying they imported it before they'r own and then after saying it was invented by someone else(non UK citizen)[periodic table of videos-aspirin] man was I drunk or how did I get it that way?.




after reading your post i wish a Brit hadnt invented the WWW.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 2, 2017)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> man was I drunk or how did I get it


Drunks should post in the lounge and not the main Section
here for your Drunk posting
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/forums/the-lounge.10/


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> To be fair the output required for a car is substantially lower. So size to shield such a small reactor it should be a lot more feasible. I just want a 50 year refill time on my car why would you ruin that. The Tesla model S has a 310kW motor and zips, no reason we could have a small reactor to power that and imagine how cool car accidents would be!


Im pretty sure Lockheed Martin are co operating with NASA to build a version little enough to use for space craft and are confident of making a suitcase size version within 10 years.


----------



## rruff (May 2, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Im pretty sure Lockheed Martin are co operating with NASA to build a version little enough to use for space craft and are confident of making a suitcase size version within 10 years.



But we don't put turbine engines on cars for good reason. At best these will produce electricity that will run battery or hydrogen cars. 

I've seen these sorts of presentations many times. A company can make up whatever they like, but I don't believe it unless they have a comprehensive explanation (with analysis and empirical data) showing how they will overcome the issues that resulted in failure for every other developer. Even then you'd have to be highly optimistic to believe in it until you see a working prototype.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 2, 2017)

rruff said:


> But we don't put turbine engines on cars for good reason. At best these will produce electricity that will run battery or hydrogen cars.
> 
> I've seen these sorts of presentations many times. A company can make up whatever they like, but I don't believe it unless they have a comprehensive explanation (with analysis and empirical data) showing how they will overcome the issues that resulted in failure for every other developer. Even then you'd have to be highly optimistic to believe in it until you see a working prototype.


I'm not expecting one this year myself but next 20 years away in a car is a maybe.


----------



## rruff (May 2, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I'm not expecting one this year myself but next 20 years away in a car is a maybe.



The need for highly variable output is the reason it won't happen. 

If you are being realistic you shouldn't expect to see fusion at all in 20 years. In the Lockheed video the scientist states flat out that it's a high risk endeavor. That means it will most likely fail. That's fusion in general. The buzz about fusion is just companies looking for $$$ to fund research.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 2, 2017)

rruff said:


> The need for highly variable output is the reason it won't happen.
> 
> If you are being realistic you shouldn't expect to see fusion at all in 20 years. In the Lockheed video the scientist states flat out that it's a high risk endeavor. That means it will most likely fail. That's fusion in general. The buzz about fusion is just companies looking for $$$ to fund research.


The need for highly variable out put could be addressed within 20 years ,but i get you , however its men and women who do this research and build upon it to develop it to consumer levels and they have egos too ,they do Want to make it happen , im no scientist and they do have faults but they get the job done.
Being realistic we should not colonise mars in the next 20 years but plans are underway none the less.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 2, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Being realistic we should not colonise mars in the next 20 years but plans are underway none the less.


Being utterly realistic we should Build a colony/weystation on the Moon 1st
That is A realistic and Achievable Target in the next 5 years ( political will and finance permitting )


----------



## rruff (May 3, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> im no scientist and they do have faults but they get the job done.



The scientist himself said it was high risk. He does not expect success. No scientist has "gotten the job done" in 60 years of fusion research. 
I don't know of any major tech issues involved with colonizing mars (or at least giving it an honest try) but the amount of money it would take to do that would not be worth the payoff. That ain't happening either.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 3, 2017)

It takes but one moment to come up with a revolution in science.
But im super fine you don't think it will happen, get off my ass already you aint changing my opinion.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 3, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Im pretty sure Lockheed Martin are co operating with NASA to build a version little enough to use for space craft and are confident of making a suitcase size version within 10 years.


They're aiming for a working prototype of a truck-sized reactor within 10 years.  No one said anything about "suitcase" sized reactor.

Also, as far as I know, Lockheed was looking for private investors, not NASA.  Fusion reactors aren't going to help much in space unless you're talking deep space probes.  Even then, the weight of them is prohibitive and nothing beats the simplicity/reliability of plutonium decay reactors they've used thus far.




theoneandonlymrk said:


> It takes but one moment to come up with a revolution in science.
> But im super fine you don't think it will happen, get off my ass already you aint changing my opinion.


The purpose of fusion is to literally create 100s of millions of Celsius worth of energy.  Nothing can contain that amount of energy in the space of a "suit case."  Size of a truck is a lofty goal.  It's not even clear yet if that's big enough.

Fusion is putting a star in a bottle.  If the bottle isn't enough, the star will simply die.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 5, 2017)

An updated technical report shows that Lockheed's fusion reactor is 100 times larger than it originally planned, weighing  2,000 tons.

Dr Matthew J Moynihan, a self-proclaimed '‎Nuclear Fusion Evangelist' from Houston has released technical specifications on Lockheed's fusion reactor project.

While Lockheed Martin claimed in 2014 that the reactor would weigh 20 tons, the new specification shows that it will weigh 2,000 tons.

In terms of size, it is seven metres in diameter, and 18 metres long – similar in size to a submarine nuclear fission reactor.

In a blog, Mr Moynihan wrote: 'Based on the newest numbers - the CFR is not as compact as we had thought.

'The core looks to be over 50 feet long and 20 feet in diameter.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 5, 2017)

Fusion or other nuclear power is definitely the way to go IMO.

For all the fun we're having right now with solar and wind, they can never cover our needs and the expense to build these is way out of line, also because of the space they need and (especially with solar) how vulnerable the stuff really is. And we can all agree that fossil fuels are going to end one day or at least rapidly move towards becoming highly unprofitable.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> While Lockheed Martin claimed in 2014 that the reactor would weigh 20 tons, the new specification shows that it will weigh 2,000 tons.
> 
> In terms of size, it is seven metres in diameter, and 18 metres long – similar in size to a submarine nuclear fission reactor.


Totally called it:


FordGT90Concept said:


> Size of a truck is a lofty goal.  It's not even clear yet if that's big enough.


Unfortunate, but expected.


Edit: That blog is pretty amazing.  Here's a picture from it of all the fusion concepts that are being pursued and how they're related:






Latest illustration:





Modelling of plasma pressure inside:


----------



## rruff (May 5, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> For all the fun we're having right now with solar and wind, they can never cover our needs and the expense to build these is way out of line, also because of the space they need and (especially with solar) how vulnerable the stuff really is.



There is lots of space for solar and wind where nothing much is happening. People can also put solar on their roofs, making it dispersed generation and much less vulnerable than large power plants. The cost of solar is very good also, but variable output and storage will always be issues.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 5, 2017)

rruff said:


> There is lots of space for solar and wind where nothing much is happening. People can also put solar on their roofs, making it dispersed generation and much less vulnerable than large power plants. The cost of solar is very good also, but variable output and storage will always be issues.



Available space differs heavily per country. In Europe there aren't that many countries that really have space in abundance. You generally see large solar farms on what was previously agriculture, for example in Germany but also here in the Netherlands. And wind turbines are the same thing: its extremely difficult to get one placed even in your own backyard (if you could) because everyone can block your procedure because of numerous reasons.

There have been plans for large solar farms in the Sahara desert, so far nobody really dares burn itself on that, the risk is way too high, because there are lots of rebel groups, tribes and the islamist threat over there that can compromise those farms.

You'd be surprised how much land is actually claimed by someone or something.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2017)

rruff said:


> There is lots of space for solar and wind where nothing much is happening. People can also put solar on their roofs, making it dispersed generation and much less vulnerable than large power plants. The cost of solar is very good also, but variable output and storage will always be issues.


Where the power is needed the most (northern hemisphere) when it is needed the most (winter), solar can't be counted on producing anything (covered in snow and ice).  Every source of power has a time and a place.  Solar is not viable for much of the world just as wind is not viable for much of the world.

Solar also doesn't decrease the need for grid power generation.  It increases it because electric usage patterns don't mirror the sun.  Power companies have successfully sued companies that install lots of solar panels because of the strain they put on the grid that power companies has to spend millions to compensate for.


If Lockheed Skunkworks' design works, it sounds like all it needs is some hydrogen and an external source of electricity to get it started.  Once it's operational, hydrogen is injected on demand.  Cut off the hydrogen supply, it flames out.  Simple, (relatively) safe, and effective.  If it works as a commercial product, wind and solar are dead technologies.  Fusion won't cost much more to install capacity, costs less to maintain, produces stable electricity near 24/7, and can respond to changing power demands.


----------



## rruff (May 5, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Available space differs heavily per country.



In the US we have tons of it, both public and private land in sparsely populated nearly useless areas. Southern CA, AZ, and NM is the best place for solar (desert). Wind is best in about a 500 mile swath going north from the Texas panhandle. 

Assuming that solar panels take up 1/3rd of the space where they are installed, power generation would typically be 250,000 kW-hr/km^2/day, or 91M kW-hr/km^2/day. US/capita consumption is ~13,000 kW-hr/yr, so 1km^2 of land would supply 7,000 people. For 325M people we'd need about 46K km^2, or about 215 km x 215 km square, or 1000 plots that are 7 km square. It would be very easy to find that much space. And I probably over estimated how much space they need around the panels.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 5, 2017)

rruff said:


> In the US we have tons of it, both public and private land in sparsely populated nearly useless areas. Southern CA, AZ, and NM is the best place for solar (desert). Wind is best in about a 500 mile swath going north from the Texas panhandle.
> 
> Assuming that solar panels take up 1/3rd of the space where they are installed, power generation would typically be 250,000 kW-hr/km^2/day, or 91M kW-hr/km^2/day. US/capita consumption is ~13,000 kW-hr/yr, so 1km^2 of land would supply 7,000 people. For 325M people we'd need about 46K km^2, or about 215 km x 215 km square, or 1000 plots that are 7 km square. It would be very easy to find that much space. And I probably over estimated how much space they need around the panels.



Absolutely, that's why I pointed it out  The differences are massive. I strongly believe that with energy there is an ideal *mix* of sources for every place in the world, and fossil fuels really don't need to be part of that mix at all. Even today, but our stance on Nuclear is way too influenced by irrational fear.


----------



## rruff (May 5, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It increases it because electric usage patterns don't mirror the sun. Power companies have successfully sued companies that install lots of solar panels because of the strain they put on the grid that power companies has to spend millions to compensate for.



Eh? They match pretty well. In the US, peak use is in summer during the day. At any time of the year peak use is during the day and evening. The lawsuits were about subsidies and the requirement for utilities to buy back the power at retail rates. 

If anyone is interested, Stanford researchers have been looking at how to supply all our energy needs with renewables. They did it for each state in the US, and now for the world: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf


----------



## rruff (May 5, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> our stance on Nuclear is way too influenced by irrational fear.



I agree, but nuclear isn't good at ramping up and down, so isn't a good load leveler to use with renewables.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2017)

rruff said:


> In the US we have tons of it, both public and private land in sparsely populated nearly useless areas. Southern CA, AZ, and NM is the best place for solar (desert). Wind is best in about a 500 mile swath going north from the Texas panhandle.
> 
> Assuming that solar panels take up 1/3rd of the space where they are installed, power generation would typically be 250,000 kW-hr/km^2/day, or 91M kW-hr/km^2/day. US/capita consumption is ~13,000 kW-hr/yr, so 1km^2 of land would supply 7,000 people. For 325M people we'd need about 46K km^2, or about 215 km x 215 km square, or 1000 plots that are 7 km square. It would be very easy to find that much space. And I probably over estimated how much space they need around the panels.


Except that solar produces nothing most of the day and storing electricity is more expensive than producing it.




rruff said:


> Eh? They match pretty well. In the US, peak use is in summer during the day. At any time of the year peak use is during the day and evening. The lawsuits were about subsidies and the requirement for utilities to buy back the power at retail rates.


http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Energy-grid-duck-chart-used-to-wade-into-timing-4762718.php




They have to produce an enormous amount of power, quickly, then stop producing it or they'll damage the grid.  Only natural gas or batteries can tackle that problem.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 5, 2017)

rruff said:


> I agree, but nuclear isn't good at ramping up and down, so isn't a good load leveler to use with renewables.



True but if used in conjunction with Hydro electric power its perfect
you use Nuclear power 24/7 and any Surpluss power is used to pump water to a suitable Resovior. ( build them as needed )
That water can then be used for Backup power generation/load leveling with the side effect that the Resovior can be Tapped for water for needed areas such as Agricultural /domestic use
Even the Environmental green nuts cannot reasonably object to this as it benefits both people and the Environment


----------



## 64K (May 5, 2017)

rruff said:


> I agree, but nuclear isn't good at ramping up and down, so isn't a good load leveler to use with renewables.



I was reading this today

https://arstechnica.com/business/20...d-by-utility-will-cool-california-businesses/

Apparently to meet peak daytime demand in California they have to resort to natural gas peaker plants which can be brought online quickly and if I understand correctly the US has a lot of natural gas reserves. Anyway, the main article is about saving people a considerable amount of money by using electricity at night during off-peak hours and when it's cheaper which also takes the load off of the grid during peak daytime hours and likely do away with the need for backup power plants.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 5, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> True but if used in conjunction with Hydro electric power its perfect
> you use Nuclear power 24/7 and any Surpluss power is used to pump water to a suitable Resovior. ( build them as needed )
> That water can then be used for Backup power generation/load leveling with the side effect that the Resovior can be Tapped for water for needed areas such as Agricultural /domestic use
> Even the Environmental green nuts cannot reasonably object to this as it benefits both people and the Environment




We have had one of those in Wales for 30 odd years. Its called "Electric Mountain"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station


----------

