Fusion in 10 years

[Unclad Lad]

Not "We will have fusion in 10 years" but "We can build a plant that will producing power in 10 years".

Do I have your attention yet?

I attended a "California Green Energy Summit" last week (because: 1. I'm interested in that kind of stuff. 2. It was free. 3. Since I can't seem to find a job I have plenty of time on my hands.) The main part was a Greentech expo of businesses and manufacturers of electric cars, low-flow toilets, recycled construction materials, etc, which meant I could load up on pens, cheap flashlights, and various other bits of corporate swag. The other part were presentations, mostly of the kind of topics local-government wonks love, like grants, paperwork, policy, etc. I avoided all of these (although I was almost tempted into one of them by a very cute bureaucrat from Alameda who was a speaker), and went for the more technically-oriented talks. One was for improvements in electric car batteries, another was for low-gradient geothermal (which is a fancy way to say "heat pumps").

And then there was the Fusion talk. I expected to see some slides about how fusion was only ten years away, yadda yadda yadda. Instead, their "10-year" line is to build it and the attending factories who will use all that clean heat. No Tokamaks, no magic lasers, just existing technology presented by the physicists themselves:

Output and Reward

Each pulse results in the release of the energy equivalent to that released in the burning of 1.6 barrels of oil. In a fully developed system, there is an pulse every 10th of a second, in one of the 10 reaction chambers. This results in the production of the energy equivalent of 16 barrels of oil per second or 1.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Clearly, the production of this much energy means that the system is large and will require a substantial investment. But if the size is scaled correctly, it is very profitable and it is this profit that is the end reward for the investors in this project.

What are these rewards? For a fully developed fusion energy complex (10 reaction chambers), the income stream is projected to be $10 to $20 billion per year if one uses the cost of the energy in coal as the basis for the pricing of the delivered energy. It is slightly more ($12 to $25 billion) if one equates the energy produced to that in $50 per barrel oil. Direct operating and maintenance costs are likely to be in the range of $2 to $5 billion per year.

Their design produces electricity almost as an afterthought; their primary goal is heat. Heat and pressure allow them to "refine" synthetic fuel; The hydrogen needed is obtained by one of several methods, and they get the carbon from atmospheric CO2. Which means all this jet fuel, diesel fuel, and gasoline is CARBON NEUTRAL.

All economic liquid fuels are hydrocarbons—molecules composed of carbon atoms and hydrogen atoms. The key to green liquid fuels is an economical, green source of hydrogen, a green source of carbon, and a source of energy to put them together in the right form. Hydrogen is also the key to any other benefits of a “hydrogen economy”.

FPC’s system provides the essential requirement, high temperature heat. The high temperature heat allows efficient hydrogen production either by 1) a thermochemical process, or by 2) high temperature electrolysis with electricity that is generated efficiently.
Economically providing hydrogen, heat, and electrical power, FPC’s system can provide the cleanest and greenest alternatives for liquid fuel production and smooth the insertion of fusion power into the energy supply.


Production of Synthetic Fuels

We generally think that fusion power plants will be sources of electricity, but in reality their output is heat some of which will be used to produce electricity. FPC's StarPower System (SPS) will also produce electricity, but electricity will not be the only product, and may not be the primary product. The availability of very high temperature heat permits the consideration of another process of energy conversion and that is the direct production of hydrogen from the thermal disassociation of water. The known, and well researched, Sulfur–Iodine process and the high temperature electrolysis process both produce hydrogen at about 50% efficiency.

Hydrogen is the key component in the production of synthetic fuels and can be produced from SPS systems at a cost comparable to the cost of production from reforming of natural gas. The hydrogen can be used directly as a fuel source or it can be combined with carbon to form various hydrocarbons including gasoline, kerosene (jet fuel), or diesel oil. Since these latter fuels support the existing transportation infrastructure, are transportable and storable, we intend to focus our hydrogen output on production of these synthetic fuel products.

The source of carbon can be biomass, or coal, or the CO2 in the atmosphere. Evaluation of the technology for extracting CO2 from the atmosphere by the Los Alamos National Laboratory concluded that this technology is now mature enough that it is viable as a source of CO2. Since we have to dispose of waste heat in any case, why not use the waste heat to drive a cooling tower that processes a large volume of air and extracts the CO2 from it? Carbon from an atmospheric source is slightly more expensive than carbon from coal, but the use of atmospheric carbon means that the liquid fuel we produce would become carbon neutral – the carbon comes from the atmosphere and returns to the atmosphere again when the fuel is consumed.
The processes for conversion of hydrogen and CO2 to form synfuels is a mature industrial process that has been used by Exxon-Mobil in the past and is currently being used by Sasol to produce liquid fuels in plants in South Africa and Arabia. Until now, the constraint for the production of synthetic fuels has been the availability of an inexpensive source of hydrogen. The heat from an SPS will remedy this shortcoming and make the synthesis of liquid fuel possible at a cost less than the current cost of the same fuel from a crude oil feedstock...

...The greenest kind of source of liquid fuel would use heat and Hydrogen from a green source in a chemical process that combines the Hydrogen with CO2 extracted directly from the atmosphere. FPC’s system provides the clean, economical, and large scale source of hydrogen and heat. With FPC’s system, the chief questions about this greenest means to provide liquid fuels concern the economics of extracting the requisite quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere. Current CO2 sequestration research supports our contention that this process is economically viable.

Most hydrogen is produced today by “reforming” natural gas, a fossil fuel. Electrolysis is a well-known source of hydrogen. Electrolysis is green if the electricity source is green, but the hydrogen is more expensive than that from natural gas due to summing the cost of the electrical energy and the costs of the electrolyzer.

A more recently developed process separates hydrogen from water “thermochemically”. As this figure shows, the potential for highly efficient conversion
of heat energy to latent chemical energy in hydrogen depends on having a heat source that provides temperatures above 900oC. By avoiding the cost of electricity for electrolysis, the thermochemical process may lower the cost of hydrogen. And requiring only heat and water inputs, the process will be green if the heat source is green.

Conventional fission reactors do not reach the temperature needed for the thermochemical process, which also limits the efficiency with which they generate electricity. Although the high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) might meet the temperature requirement, the HTGR has not been commercialized despite decades of development, and the problem of nuclear waste remains.

Uniquely among fusion systems, FPC’s chamber system provides the high temperature heat required for the thermochemical process—while also solving or avoiding problems facing other fusion chambers, even though they produce lower temperature heat. By the same token, however, FPC’s high temperature also increases the efficiency of electricity generation.

And this:

The highest temperature 'waste heat' process is the desalination of water if there is a need for water and a source of non-potable water and our final thermal process will be an exchange of heat to the atmosphere. But even this exchange will be used for it will drive the airflow necessary for the collection of CO2 for our synthetic fuel making system.

Thermal desalination is a well know process. In desert regions like Saudi Arabia’s Al Jubail power station desalination may compete with power generation. From the experience at Al Jubail, for instance, a kilogram of fresh water will be produced for each 220 kJ provided to the thermal desalinator. The result, for a full-sized fusion site, is that delivering 10% of the total heat to the desalination tower will produce 3000 acre-feet of water per day.

If all of our 'waste heat' were used to make fresh water from seawater, each facility would make a river of fresh water equal to 3 percent of the flow of the Nile river.

The processing of seawater to form fresh water as discussed above results in a brine or, if the process is continued to dryness, salt. The large amounts of lithium needed for the operation of the fusion reaction chambers can be obtained by processing the brines and solids that result from desalination. Deuterium, needed for the fusion fuel itself, is relatively abundant in seawater, found in approximately one out of every 3,200 water molecules, whereas the concentration of lithium amounts to only one out of every 2,000,000 water molecules.

As few as three full-sized FPC sites used to make fresh water from seawater could provide 100% of the demand for salt (sodium chloride) in the US economy (primary uses are clearing roads, livestock, and food). However, approximately 30 FPC sites will be needed to power the US economy as a whole. Therefore, returning excess salt to the sea in a sensitive and safe manner will be an important task for preserving the sustainability of fusion power. In fact, waste heat and waste brine or salt are the main byproducts from fusion that must be carefully managed to avoid potential damage to the environment.

There is A LOT more on the website: http://www.fusionpowercorporation.com/

Someone needs to invent a word awesome enough to encompass it. I can't.

[minimus]

This is not an energy source, its a more efficient energy conversion system. The "fusion" they speak of is creating synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from this conversion process.

The sulfur-iodine cycle has been proposed as a way to supply hydrogen for a hydrogen-based economy. With an efficiency of around 50% it is more efficient than electrolysis, and it does not require hydrocarbons like current methods of steam reforming but requires heat from combustion, nuclear reactions, or solar heat concentrators.

[Argentium]

Interesting, for sure. But for most of my life, fusion has always been "just around the corner". I wouldn't take bets on 10 years.

[HairHopper]

I don't see anything here that describes nuclear fusion.

[momopanda]

Interesting, for sure. But for most of my life, fusion has always been "just around the corner". I wouldn't take bets on 10 years.

It's a cliche even.
" Fusion is the power of the future....and always will be. "
But- a couple of connections in the right department, and a few nifty powerpoint slides, and some government tax dollars will certainly come your way.
Still, I'm surprised that the fusion sellers haven't gotten more mileage out of the climate change spooklyness. They need a better PR campain.

[Argentium]

It's a cliche even.
" Fusion is the power of the future....and always will be. "
But- a couple of connections in the right department, and a few nifty powerpoint slides, and some government tax dollars will certainly come your way.
Still, I'm surprised that the fusion sellers haven't gotten more mileage out of the climate change spooklyness. They need a better PR campain.

Yeah, someone really dropped the ball on that!

I've had this sneaky suspicion for a long time, that the traditional, plasma-phase, tokamak style attempts to fuse protons, or deuterons, will never succeed. I just don't think that we can create conditions on Earth to get the job done in a continuous reaction, that is economically favorable. That's why machines like the ITER are a fool's errand. I don't know if ICF will work either.

Whatever happened to MIGMA fusion?

[TimoneX]

Whatever happened to MIGMA fusion?

That approach seemed to die a slow death in the early 80s. Wonder if it was bought off and buried or just didn't deliver.

[gnome]

Interesting, for sure. But for most of my life, fusion has always been "just around the corner".

Same with the next big thing in solar - except is has always had a better timeline, perpetually 3-5 years off, instead of 10.

Seriously, solar has made big gains and continues to do so, but it's hard to not laugh at some of the hype.

[Argentium]

That approach seemed to die a slow death in the early 80s. Wonder if it was bought off and buried or just didn't deliver.

About the mid 80's was the last I heard anything about it

Same with the next big thing in solar - except is has always had a better timeline, perpetually 3-5 years off, instead of 10.

Seriously, solar has made big gains and continues to do so, but it's hard to not laugh at some of the hype.

Some of the excuses that I've heard on why Big Solar hasn't happened, are not so much the PV, or solar-thermal technologies, but on location and infrastructure issues.

However, if PV solar supposedly works economically, I sure haven't heard of any medium-scale pilot projects. Why is that so?

[Unclad Lad]

I don't see anything here that describes nuclear fusion.

That would seem to be, in large part, because I didn't actually post a link!

Fixed.