Well, This Looks Really Bad for Fusion Power

[Tuckerfan]

Like, you can pretty much forget about seeing it in your lifetime, bad.

An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.

Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled.

Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome and that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away.

At a meeting in Japan on Wednesday, members of the governing Iter council will review the plans and may agree to scale back the project.

(bolding mine)

The rest of the article is pretty much a downer as far as seeing the reactor work any time soon.

[mugaliens]

Well, that's for one such reactor.

There are others.

[PraedSt]

Bubble fusion! (Yes, I'm still following that. And no, no progress yet).

[geonuc]

As the article points out, we are far from being ready to build a commercial working reactor anyway. Research certainly goes on, even without this effort.

[cjameshuff]

Well, that's for one such reactor.

There are others.

Other tokamaks, and some completely different approaches. Polywell is continuing to show promise, for one.

I don't see how they can predict 100 year delays. Fusion research is poorly funded currently, and there's many approaches that have probably not gotten the attention they deserve...stellarator designs and other variations on the tokamak scheme, for example. Changes in attitude toward fusion research could lead to drastic differences in results after just decades.

[Valkyrie801]

The problem being it would not be used for the fusion reactors purpose.

Understand?

[Paracelsus]

Here's another question: is nuclear fusion really worth all the trouble we are putting into it? Closed-cycle nuclear fission reactors are highly-efficient and do not generate GHG either, and that technology is off-the-shelf and implementable on a large scale. Moreover, fuelling a fusion reactor such as ITER would require a steady source of tritium, which would probably wind up coming from mining operations.

[tashirosgt]

Is the future Focus Fusion? It looks respectable: http://focusfusion.org/

[cjameshuff]

The problem being it would not be used for the fusion reactors purpose.

Er...what?

Understand?

No.

Here's another question: is nuclear fusion really worth all the trouble we are putting into it? Closed-cycle nuclear fission reactors are highly-efficient and do not generate GHG either, and that technology is off-the-shelf and implementable on a large scale.

It's worth it, but there's no huge rush...fission can provide plenty of power for a good long time to come.

Moreover, fuelling a fusion reactor such as ITER would require a steady source of tritium, which would probably wind up coming from mining operations.

Mining? Tritium isn't mined. Anyway, D-T fusion produces neutrons, which can be captured by lithium to produce more tritium. This does consume lithium, maybe that's what you were thinking of...

[Ronald Brak]

Here's another question: is nuclear fusion really worth all the trouble we are putting into it?

Well it is probably not worth it if your goal is to produce a commercial energy source. Conventional fission reactors are not very viable commercially without subsidies and fusion reactors look like the bits inside will have to be a fair bit fancier and more expensive than a fission reactor. The fuel is cheaper, but fuel is only about 7% the cost of electricity from fission.

[novaderrik]

you mean that the clean, cheap and safe fusion power that has been 50 years away for the last 50 years is now 100 years away?
that seems like a step backwards in the PR department...

[Demigrog]

you mean that the clean, cheap and safe fusion power that has been 50 years away for the last 50 years is now 100 years away?
that seems like a step backwards in the PR department...

Who ever said it was going to be cheap? You can only pick two!

[kleindoofy]

... the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome ...

Ohhh, I hate stupid sentences.

No, the technical hurdles to fusion have *not* "become more difficult to overcome." How would that be possible?

It's just that the scientists have come to realize that the technical hurdles are more difficult to overcome than they had thought they would be.

Grrrr. Journalists.

[Nicolas]

Conventional fission reactors are not very viable commercially without subsidies

Are they? I was under the impression that my former neighbour - a 4GW fission power plant- was getting disgustingly rich. It did require subsidies/loans to be built, but those have long been repaid, and now it's a money making machine.

[Ronald Brak]

Are they? I was under the impression that my former neighbour - a 4GW fission power plant- was getting disgustingly rich. It did require subsidies/loans to be built, but those have long been repaid, and now it's a money making machine.

In the nineties the US nuclear industry had $60 billion dollars in debt. If a power company purchased a reactor at this point they would now be making large amounts of money due to the run up in fossil fuel prices prior to the global financial crisis and the fact that there were no major nuclear power accidents in the United States, but this is very different from being commercially viable from construction. No new nuclear plants were built in the US for a couple of decades because they were too expensive and they are only being built now because more subsides were given. The introduction of carbon trading will help to make nuclear power more competitive, but it still faces stiff competition from other low emission energy sources.

[Ara Pacis]

Subsidies or no subsidies, it's hard to create a level playing field as subsidies play a larger role than many people realize. If part of the material or fuel is delivered over a road, then it is partly supported by subsidies from public roads, wheras a rail line may not be. This might also extend to subsidized environmental and public health amelioration due to damage cause by a process. Miltary conflicts to maintain control and protection of resources for a process may be considered a form of subsidy.

Personally, I'm not too worried about subsidies. They might support less efficient or damaging processes, but they can also jumpstart new technologies as well. No matter how deep are the pockets of investors, they still tend to measure return on investment with a stopwatch. Government subsidies can give stability to an important and nascent industry that would not otherwise get financial support from investors.

[geonuc]

No new nuclear plants were built in the US for a couple of decades because they were too expensive and they are only being built now because more subsides were given.

Economics was not the only reason. The licensing process was seen as too burdensome and too risky. With the new streamlined licensing process in place, utilities are now more willing to build.

[Ronald Brak]

Economics was not the only reason. The licensing process was seen as too burdensome and too risky. With the new streamlined licensing process in place, utilities are now more willing to build.

Since the mid 80's reactor construction has been very low worldwide:

http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/ima...ld_nuclear.gif

So even if licensing in the US had been streamlined 30 years ago I doubt it would have made much difference.

[Gillianren]

From what I understand, doesn't it have at least as much to do with public outcry as economics?

[geonuc]

From what I understand, doesn't it have at least as much to do with public outcry as economics?

Not so much anymore. Sure, building a new plant will stir up the NIMBY's and the anti-nukes, but US utilities are mostly planning on adding units to existing nuclear sites. For example, Southern Company's Vogtle plant, which is a two-unit site now, is on the fast track to get two more reactors (Westinghouse AP1000). Generally, local populations are not nearly as opposed to nuclear power as the country as a whole. Many of the locals work at the plant or derive secondary economic benefits from it.

[PraedSt]

Are they? I was under the impression that my former neighbour - a 4GW fission power plant- was getting disgustingly rich. It did require subsidies/loans to be built, but those have long been repaid, and now it's a money making machine.

As far as I know, you're right. Once you pay back the loans, you make money. But for nuclear plants in general it can be a little complicated.

Building a nuclear plant is takes a lot of money, so interest expense if high. On the other hand, operating expenses are very low.

The result of these two opposing forces is that there are three cases to consider.

1. Thinking about building a plant.

2. Plant running, loans not repaid.

3. Plant running, loans repaid.

For (1). You want low commodity prices so it's cheaper to build your plant. Higher electricity prices at the time of your begging have two effects. One, your competitors won't be so disadvantaged, so this is bad. But on the other hand, you can easily cover your projected interest expense. Overall, higher is good for getting that big loan.

For (2). You want high commodity prices, as you have a relative operating cost advantage over coal and natural gas. Higher electricity prices- as above. Falling electricity prices are the reverse. It helps you (cost advantage again), but it also hurts, as your interest expense is so high. Overall, I presume higher would be better.

For (3). Unless electricity prices fall a lot, you mint money. Your neighbourhood plant was here.

[Gillianren]

You also want regulated electricity markets, so the price of electricity is higher than it would be . . . .

This, given certain events in California, seems backward to me.

[PraedSt]

Agreed. Nuclear is expensive to build. Lower operating costs are not much use if you can't build them in the first place. On the other hand, I like deregulated (and hopefully cheaper) markets, and nuclear is not a fossil fuel....so I guess you could say I'm conflicted.

[Gillianren]

. . . Deregulated (and hopefully cheaper) . . . .

Again, I'm not sure why you believe this would be true.

[PraedSt]

Again, I'm not sure why you believe this would be true.

Oh I see what you mean. Deregulation raised prices in California did it? Sorry, I didn't know.

[Gillianren]

Oh I see what you mean. Deregulation raised prices in California did it? Sorry, I didn't know.

It's part of the Enron thing. Deregulation did all kinds of bad things to California.

[korjik]

Dereg dropped it in Texas until the fuel costs shot up. Unfortunately, that was only about a year.

California and its deregulation wasnt really a deregulation. IIRC, it was more a way for Enron and friends to get the CA legislature to give them a way to rip off the entire state.

In most places, deregulation dropped prices until the recent fuel price increases overwhelmed the drop from competiton. Now, with the outcry over new fossil fuel plants, there is a great cost inflation factor in that new capacity is not being built quickly enough, creating an inflation that is driving prices up by restricting demand.

[PraedSt]

This, given certain events in California, seems backward to me.

Well, I've just spent the last hour reading up on electricity deregulation, and it turns out that you're right. All instances of deregulation, and not just California, have produced results that are decidedly mixed. In some cases, the results were clear cut- deregulation led to higher prices.

Very odd, very complex, and very interesting. I think I'll spend weeks going over it all. Thank you!

And I'll edit my previous post...

[PraedSt]

It's part of the Enron thing. Deregulation did all kinds of bad things to California.

Yeah, I read that. Thing is, I think you're more right than you know (see previous post).

My hunch (only a hunch) is that electricity markets are different because:

1. You can't really store electricity, and
2. It's expensive to switch electricity suppliers- unlike say switching clothing brands.

Anyway, I've just started looking into this...

[Demigrog]

Well, I've just spent the last hour reading up on electricity deregulation, and it turns out that you're right. All instances of deregulation, and not just California, have produced results that are decidedly mixed. In some cases, the results were clear cut- deregulation led to higher prices.

Part of the problem is that deregulation happened at the same time that tougher environmental laws prevented new cheap coal plants from being built--supply cannot keep up with demand. Without deregulation, we'd either have the exact same price increases (maybe without some of the outliers that Enron-style price manipulations caused) or rolling blackouts.

One piece of good news for California: cap and trade won't raise their electricity prices nearly as much as the rest of the country. Here in SW Virginia, our coal-based rates have always been low. We're about to get some serious sticker shock, and we're largely still regulated.