US unveils global strategy to commercialize fusion as source of clean energy during COP28

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 7:19 AM EST, December 5, 2023


The United States will work with other governments to speed up efforts to make nuclear fusion a new source of carbon-free energy, U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry said Tuesday, the latest of many U.S. announcements the last week aimed at combatting climate change.

Nuclear fusion melds two hydrogen atoms together to produce a helium atom and a lot of energy—which could be used to power cars, heat and cool homes and other things that currently are often powered by fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. That makes fusion a potentially major solution to climate change, which is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Still, fusion is a long way off, while other clean technologies like wind, solar and others are currently in use and could be increased.

“We are edging ever-closer to a fusion-powered reality. And at the same time, yes, significant scientific and engineering challenges exist,” Kerry said, in Dubai for U.N. climate talks. “Careful thought and thoughtful policy is going to be critical to navigate this.”

Researchers have been trying for decades to harness the reaction that powers the sun and other stars — an elusive goal because it requires such high temperatures and pressures that it easily fizzles out.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/fusion-nuclear-john-kerry-cop28-climate-power-energy-40ffa257eae528163f68554368cacfee

[Warpy]

1. Ususlly engineering has the problem of scaling something up

whether it's a bridge, the automated line in a bottling plant, or a power generating station. This time, the challenge is to scale something down far enough it doesn't suck in more energy than it produces and doesn't melt the equipment in the process.

Oh, and it has to be sustained long enough to flash water to steam to power steam turbines but not flash it so quickly that it blows the equipment apart.

Still, it would be nice if it came to fruition sooner rather than later. An added benefit would be to create "heavy" helium, He3, something used in touch screens and a commodity we're running out of.

Alas, Mr. Fusion is really far into the future.

[GoreWon2000]

2. Nuclear Fusion really isn't green

Thanks to my engineer father, solutions for combating human caused climate change were part of my childhood. Nuclear fusion isn't really a green solution. My engineer father taught me that nuclear power, including nuclear fusion isn't green because no one has figured out how to dispose of the toxic waste. Nuclear fusion still generates toxic nuclear waste. My engineer father's solution is green hydrogen because the only by-product from burning green hydrogen is water. The nuclear power industry is becoming the new fossil fuel industry by trying to window dress and fool people into thinking that their newest creation isn't so bad. Nuclear fusion is nothing more than the nuclear power industry's "clean diesel" or "clean coal" neither of which was ever true.

[KS Toronado]

3. Welcome to DU !

[BumRushDaShow]

4. As a retired chemist

I think you are confusing "fission" with "fusion" when it comes to nuclear reactions and their byproducts. They are not the same processes.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. With regard to waste? Fusion does produce waste

It is likely that the container vessels will have to be replaced regularly because of degradation due to generated radiation.

I think the container waste becomes relatively safe after a few years, but I'd have to look it up, and then I'd have to wait for practical demonstration power plants to get more info.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. If you are talking about what happens in a sun

that has other elements in abundance that are reacting (fusing) to form heavier compounds due to heat and pressure, then yes.

But if you are strictly talking hydrogen and/or its isotopes that get forced into fusing, hydrogen is THE most simple element and the "waste" is, in simplistic terms, the next element down the line - helium (possibly with some elemental particles added or bumped out of it) - not really "waste" in terms of what is being suggested (i.e., highly radioactive).

It is hard to force elements to fuse and it takes quite a bit of energy to do it. E.g., the "H-bomb" (which is a fusion bomb) essentially requires the detonation of a fission bomb to get it going.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Not talking sun. Please reread my post

There is tritium contamination and neutron bombardment of the containment / energy extraction equipment.

https://iopscience.iop.org › article › 10.1088 › 1741-4326 › ac62f7
Overview on the management of radioactive waste from fusion facilities ...
May 30, 2022Fusion waste is significantly different to fission NPP waste, i.e. the quantity of fusion waste is much larger. However, it mostly comprises low-level waste (LLW) and intermediate level waste (ILW). Notably, the waste does not contain many long-lived isotopes, mainly tritium and other activation isotopes but no-transuranic elements.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. And I am clarifying that whatever "waste" from fusing hydrogen isotopes

is not like the waste from fission reactions that deploy Pu²³⁹ U²³⁵, etc.

(testing new DU4 superscript tag option )

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. I was never talking about fused isotopes. I thought my post 7 was clear on that. . . . nt

[BumRushDaShow]

12. You had replied to my post to another DUer

who was claiming these were comments by their "engineer father" -

Nuclear fusion isn't really a green solution. My engineer father taught me that nuclear power, including nuclear fusion isn't green because no one has figured out how to dispose of the toxic waste. Nuclear fusion still generates toxic nuclear waste. My engineer father's solution is green hydrogen because the only by-product from burning green hydrogen is water.

This makes no sense. "Green hydrogen" is a nonsensical term to me. Hydrogen is hydrogen. And "burning" (which means mixing with O₂ in the technical sense) is not comparable to "fusion". I don't see what is "green" about H₂, let alone how hydrogen "fusion" is producing "toxic waste" on the order of "toxic waste" from "fission".

This is all I am saying.

(all these "reactors" are doing is to heat water to make steam to turn the turbine to generate electricity!)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Okay, my error as to replying to wrong post. But my subsequent assertions are true and pertinent.

1. Fusion produces waste, or at least that is what the projections are based on developing technology and known nuclear processes. The projection is that the waste will be larger than fission, but not as long lasting hence easier to deal with.

2. Regarding your questions around the greenness of hydrogen or fusion: Green energy is energy that has been basicly carbon neutral or better from the get go. Strictly green would be green generating (and not CO2 as food), but practically speaking green energy is defined as carbon neutral. All renewables that are not carbon-centric are only neutral and use non-green things like concrete for dams, photovoltaics, turbine blades, etc. So fusion which would not be "renewable" of course is still neutral and "green" in the parlance. Likewise fission.

Green is not to be confused with clean. Fission waste is not clean and fission reactors can blow up and spew long-lasting filth. This is not a problem fusion systems have. There is no fission dirty bomb equivalent in energy producing fusion.

3. Specifically the greenness of hydrogen, hydrogen is actually blue (water). It is green only to the extent of the source of the energy that produced it. Free hydrogen is rare on earth. So hydrogen is produced by electrolysis which requires electricity which must be green electricity. Hydrogen is a carrier, not a source.

4. Fusion is green like a concrete dam or a windmill because it doesn't produce carbon emissions. Fusion is cleaner than fission because the consequences of a blowup are miniscule compared to a fission blowup. Further, fusion is cleaner in the waste department since waste is much easier to deal with.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. I don't have a problem with fusion

1. Fusion produces waste, or at least that is what the projections are based on developing technology and known nuclear processes. The projection is that the waste will be larger than fission, but not as long lasting hence easier to deal with.

Well as I noted to the person I was originally replying to - fusion (using hydrogen and/or some isotope of it which is obviously the easiest way to go about it) isn't producing "toxic waste" (at least anything comparable to what gets generated from fission).

The "quantity" is something else altogether and in that case, the "waste" is not from the reaction itself but from what the reaction does to the reaction vessel.

2. Regarding your questions around the greenness of hydrogen or fusion: Green energy is energy that has been basicly carbon neutral or better from the get go. Strictly green would be green generating (and not CO2 as food), but practically speaking green energy is defined as carbon neutral. All renewables that are not carbon-centric are only neutral and use non-green things like concrete for dams, photovoltaics, turbine blades, etc. So fusion which would not be "renewable" of course is still neutral and "green" in the parlance. Likewise fission.

Green is not to be confused with clean. Fission waste is not clean and fission reactors can blow up and spew long-lasting filth. This is not a problem fusion systems have. There is no fission dirty bomb equivalent in energy producing fusion.

Okay... parlance. lol

I know pure carbon (as graphite) is used in fission reactions to control the release of particles like neutrons (it absorbs the excess) that are given off as the reaction proceeds (so those particles don't trigger more splits in an uncontrolled fashion).

3. Specifically the greenness of hydrogen, hydrogen is actually blue (water). It is green only to the extent of the source of the energy that produced it. Free hydrogen is rare on earth. So hydrogen is produced by electrolysis which requires electricity which must be green electricity. Hydrogen is a carrier, not a source.

Hydrogen is the most abundant (known) element in the universe, but the largest source of elemental hydrogen (so far) is in outer space. As noted, one of the issues of hydrolysis is what powers the electric current to carry that out (especially on a large scale).

However the isotopes of hydrogen ARE the "source" fuel. That is what is being fused.

I used to run some gas chromatography methods that used H₂ "as a carrier gas" (non-reactive) vs the usual helium "carrier" for some analysis. It would basically be the transport mechanism for what was a liquid being analyzed that was injected into a port, vaporized, and shunted into a chromatographic column.

4. Fusion is green like a concrete dam or a windmill because it doesn't produce carbon emissions. Fusion is cleaner than fission because the consequences of a blowup are miniscule compared to a fission blowup. Further, fusion is cleaner in the waste department since waste is much easier to deal with.

That's assuming it happens in an environment that flushes CO/CO₂ and is plastics- (polymer chain) free.

[Warpy]

5. Current nuclear power plant designs won't work where I live

because they require water, a lot of it, and that's one thing NM lacks. We're already getting 42% of our energy from solar and wind, so maybe we won't need nukes until technologies now in their infancy either mature or are replaced by better ones.

[hunter]

20. We could start building high temperature air cooled fission reactors today.

Last edited Thu Dec 7, 2023, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

And it's not like New Mexico couldn't import electricity from places where cooling water for more traditional fission reactors is plentiful.

Thousand mile HVDC lines are not anything impossible.

[Warpy]

21. Years ago, a forest fire melted high voltage lines

coming down from the coal fired plant in 4 corners. Half the state was without power until the fire moved on and everything cooled down enough for repairs to be made. Thousand mile lines would work fine until something untoward happened.

We're getting 42% of our power from sun and wind, things we have in abundance, unlike water. That percentage should keep increasing, and the power is decentralized.

The fission plant is only half the problem when we're talking about producing electricity in dry climates, the generators run on steam and I don't see high temperature ceramic thermoelectric power generation happening while I'm still alive.

Also consider that India, with a monsoon season alternating with aridity and China, with extensive deserts, are both trying to tackle this problem.

Oh, and cooling a fission plant isn't the problem, it's moderation. Western designs use water. Russian plants used carbon blocks, and we all know how well that worked when something went wrong. Molten salt plants are being tested, anc China might already have pilot plants up and running.

[hunter]

23. So long as New Mexico believes solar and wind assisted gas power plants are the solution...

... they will never be carbon neutral. There's only so much wind and solar power that can be installed before it hits a hard wall of diminishing returns. That's why I frequently say wind and solar power are entirely dependent on fossil fuels for their economic viability. I make this assertion based on the real world performance of gigawatt scale wind, solar, and energy storage projects that have already been built and operated for many years. It's very clear to me that wind and solar power cannot displace fossil fuels entirely, which is something we must do.

Modern high temperature nuclear reactor designs do not use graphite moderation in the manner Chernobyl, Britain's Magnox, or Colorado's Fort Saint Vrain reactors did. Many proposed and operating high temperature power plants use TRISO fuel, in which the uranium, thorium, and/or plutonium fuel are encased in tiny silicon carbide beads.

Power plants generally recycle the water that spins the turbines, to do otherwise would be a chemistry and corrosion nightmare. The power plants condensers are generally cooled with cold water from a large body of water or evaporative cooling, which does use large amounts of water. That doesn't mean air cooling, as happens in the radiator of your internal combustion engine car, isn't possible. There are many air cooled gas power plants around the world, and power plants that can switch between the types of cooling depending upon the immediate availability of water.

The steam temperature of traditional light water nuclear reactors is too low for air cooling to be practical. Desert nuclear power plants such as the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona use evaporative cooling.

With higher temperature nuclear reactor cores air cooling becomes a viable option.

You can watch the real world performance of New Mexico's power grid here:

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-SW-PNM

By subtracting out any sort of energy you don't like (coal, gas, etc...) you can model how well any "renewable energy" utopia might work in the real world. There are no magical batteries or synergies that can fix that.

[Warpy]

24. NM is a work in progress

South Australia is close in climate and population and here's a video showing how they did it:

Enjoy.

[hunter]

25. It's helpful they are on the same electric grid as Victoria and New South Wales.

Surplus wind and solar energy can usually be exported. I'm not saying this is a bad thing.

It's pretty typical in South Australia, as it is in California, that about half of the peak electrical demand in the evening is supplied by gas.

I know this is shifting the goal posts from electricity to total energy use, but over 80% of South Australia's energy use is fossil fuels, mostly oil and gas.

https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/data-charts/australian-energy-mix-state-and-territory-2021-22

Like it or not, nuclear power is the only carbon free energy resource that can support a planetary population of 8 billion people. The world is burning, we have to quit fossil fuels now.

We can't be betting the survival of our world civilization on magical fusion power plants, batteries, or synergies.

[Warpy]

26. NM is on the western grid

along with El Paso and points north and west. Surplus energy can be exported here, too.

The bottom line is that renewables can work in places where nuclear plants of current designs won't. NM is heading in the same direction as South Australia.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It is an end product, an energy carrier, derivative of another energy source

It is an energy downgrade because of the conversion and the laws of Thermodynamics.

As an energy storage it leaks, so it is not good for long term storage. (Leaks are easily managed to avoid fire/explosion.)

As an energy container, it is low density, not necessarily the best for vehicles.

The supplies of free hydrogen are not plentiful on earth, though the gas giant planets and their moons may have supplies.

[PSPS]

13. Yeah, about that "green hydrogen"

At best, electrolysis is a wash and it requires energy. If that energy is coming from a coal or other fossil power source, it wouldn't be "green" at all.

[Igel]

16. I think the French got it right.

Decades ago.

Recycle the waste. Most of the U-235 is still there. Pull it out, reprocess it, and make it into new fuel.

Pull out the Pu, use that for mixed fuel or Pu reactor.

Pull out the useful isotopes. That vastly reduces the amount of waste and its toxicity. It reduces the amount of mining needed.

It ran into a few tech issues, but that was old info in the '90s.

[mahina]

22. Welcome to DU!

[Igel]

17. Must focus on an unproven technology

while making sure that a group of advocates on your political side doesn't get upset.

Can't back fission reactors, that leaves fusion. Plus think of the funding requirements!

[Voltaire2]

18. Idiocy clowns and fools.

[hunter]

19. That's some magical thinking.

It seems to me likely that fusion power will never be viable in this universe.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

My dad's best friend was chasing this dream for a long time. Fortunately his work also applied to ion thrusters, so it wasn't all for naught.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

We have all the technologies we need to quit fossil fuels now. We just have to do it.