World's biggest nuclear fusion project in trouble, launch pushed back to 2039

zohaibahd

Posts: 657   +16
Staff
In brief: The world's most ambitious nuclear fusion project has hit another major delay, with scientists now saying the massive International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor won't start genuine operations until 2039 at the earliest. That's four more years tacked onto an effort that has already suffered repeated postponements and budget overruns.

ITER Director-General Pietro Barabaschi recently provided details on the new "baseline" plan being evaluated by the project's governing body. Originally planned to begin firing up in 2020 with a total price tag of around $5 billion, the project has now ballooned to over $22 billion in costs, with an additional $5 billion proposed. The pandemic and repairs required on key machine components were cited as the main reasons behind the delay.

The setbacks for ITER, a joint effort between 35 nations, mean fusion power is extremely unlikely to contribute solutions for climate change and energy needs anytime soon. For over 70 years, scientists have tried to replicate the fusion reactions that power stars by fusing hydrogen atoms into helium, hoping to create a clean, virtually limitless energy source.

The challenges have proven immense. Tokamak reactors like ITER must superheat gaseous hydrogen fuel to over 150 million degrees Celsius to convert it into plasma while controlling it with intense magnetic fields. No design has yet managed to get more energy out than is required to spark the reactions.

Under the new baseline presented by Barabaschi, ITER will achieve full magnetic energy in 2036 with a more complete machine configuration, including the divertor to handle exhaust, blanket shield blocks, and other key components and systems already installed. This will allow for a more robust start to operations with hydrogen and deuterium-deuterium plasmas.

Moreover, instead of a symbolic "machine test" as originally planned, Barabaschi said the updated approach will allow for real research from the start using plasma, "leading to the demonstration of integrated commissioning at full magnetic energy and current." ITER will work towards achieving its goal of producing a burning plasma that achieves a 500-megawatt output from just 50 megawatts of input heating power.

Another change will involve using tungsten instead of beryllium for the reactor's plasma-facing inner wall lining. "You will not find a fusion reactor project that plans to use beryllium," Barabaschi stated. "This modification makes our experiment more relevant to next-phase devices."

ITER's switch to using tungsten instead of beryllium aligns with recent fusion research milestones. In May, tests at Princeton demonstrated tungsten's viability for containing extremely hot, dense plasmas needed for commercial fusion power. Their demo sustained temperatures of approximately 50 million degrees Celsius for a record six minutes with 1.15 gigajoules of power injected – 15% more energy and twice the density than before.

Still, even as we anticipate the limitless potential of nuclear fusion, Barabaschi suggested that we do not look at it as a solution to current climate and energy woes.

Permalink to story:

 
People spent countless trillions to reach the point of environmental collapse.
Now they need to spend even more to reverse the damage with zero concern for additional profit.

They don't have the stomach for it.
They're too late in the Money Game and can't be bothered to wipe after themselves.
 
People spent countless trillions to reach the point of environmental collapse.
Please, stop the relentless drumbeat of doomsayer fearmongering nonsense. In the 1960s, it was "pesticides will kill every bird on the planet", "we'll run entirely out of oil in 30 years", and (my personal favorite) "population growth means we'll be starving to death by the year 2000". In the 1970s, it was "global cooling" (checkout the April 1975 cover story for Newsweek), "acid rain", "no more metal ores", "dioxins", and dozens of other fraudulent and debunked scare stories. In the 1980s, they added Alar, PCBs, and the anti-nuclear power nonsense, which by essentially halting the industry forced hundreds of coal plants world-wide to remain online, doing far more environmental damage than all the rest combined.
 
Nuclear...A great way to go and I mean that
If they ever get this type of plant into production, it won't go "pop" like current nuclear plants do and leave a huge area irradiated for thousands of years should the worst happen. There is radiation within the reactor, but it will reduce to below background radiation levels within 2 decades which is much easier to manage.

It's main by-product is also Helium? Thankfully an inert gas, so you can't spark it and and create a crater!

They're not 100% safe but I'd say on balance it's a much less risky approach than the nuclear energy plants currently in use at the moment.
 
Please, stop the relentless drumbeat of doomsayer fearmongering nonsense. In the 1960s, it was "pesticides will kill every bird on the planet", "we'll run entirely out of oil in 30 years", and (my personal favorite) "population growth means we'll be starving to death by the year 2000". In the 1970s, it was "global cooling" (checkout the April 1975 cover story for Newsweek), "acid rain", "no more metal ores", "dioxins", and dozens of other fraudulent and debunked scare stories. In the 1980s, they added Alar, PCBs, and the anti-nuclear power nonsense, which by essentially halting the industry forced hundreds of coal plants world-wide to remain online, doing far more environmental damage than all the rest combined.

Aside from the coal power plants, everything you are describing is progress. We need to achieve balance between tech and nature or this planet will shrug us off and continue on without us.

Doesn't matter how you feel about it.
Doesn't matter if you're afraid.
It's a fact.
 
I can't help but believe this is a jobs program more than it is a goal of producing a fully functional fusion reactor. $22B over a decade is only $2.2B per year. Extending the timeline gives scientists working a very niche field that barely exists outside of government spending.

If this thing were truly likely to produce a stable fusion reaction that is cost effective to operate, I think there would be a lot more money being thrown at the problem. At the very least, the likes of big tech would be lobbying hard to get this thing done sooner so they can have cheaper data center operations.
 
Please, stop the relentless drumbeat of doomsayer fearmongering nonsense. In the 1960s, it was "pesticides will kill every bird on the planet", "we'll run entirely out of oil in 30 years", and (my personal favorite) "population growth means we'll be starving to death by the year 2000". In the 1970s, it was "global cooling" (checkout the April 1975 cover story for Newsweek), "acid rain", "no more metal ores", "dioxins", and dozens of other fraudulent and debunked scare stories. In the 1980s, they added Alar, PCBs, and the anti-nuclear power nonsense, which by essentially halting the industry forced hundreds of coal plants world-wide to remain online, doing far more environmental damage than all the rest combined.

Why do you keep spamming this BS, You have no interest in the truth , put out same junk and soundbites

I could imagine you laughing your head off at people with children born to dioxins mutations - that they are all fake.

You have been corrected so many times about that News Week article , but you still spam the lie , fully knowing it had so little backing. the science was out in the 1960s showing global warming was a real possibility.

Acid rain wasn't real either to you , all fake
Why not say ozone hole is fake as well and complete your BS lies

We can see climate change outside our windows. records are now broken every month , not by .1 on a degree , but often by 1 or 2 degrees. Oh just some unknown cycle, no idea what is is , or when it will stop, just as surprised as everyone else as it is increasing year after yeah with no foreseeable stop

To story at hand Fusion was never going to be a solution for excess C02 for decades away. If may help in 30 years to help actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Answer this one question. Show why CO2 is a not a greenhouse gas , Science that has been known for a 170odd years , and never proven to be wrong
But lets just spam an eye catching soundbite story on a USA weekly rag

You have no interest in the truth , only to spam lies to win a debate. You have never said a qualified argument ever. eg Though the increasing heatwaves,, floods, drought, animal extinction's are worrying I believe it is nothing to do with man made activity , though I can not refute the basic CO2 greenhouse gas proven science , I believe that this is only a very small part and all the govts and 100 000 plus scientists, and all the supercomputer modelling is 100% wrong , even though they consider 10 000s of processes, I just have a hunch its some unknown cycle , I can't say what it is, or when it will end, The world was warmer early on , and had we are still here , trust me , ignore the science , which I can not refute.
The big polluters with unlimited money know its 100% real , they can't make an argument , they just use useful *****s and those that don't care to spread misinformation

I can't even quote any papers to support my magical thinking, I used to quote weird scientists , but alas they all been debunked
You wouldn't let you or your family anywhere near concentrated dioxins , or be happy to live it the the cities that belched the pollutants causing acid rain

Even toxins will low cancer causing reagents , have hurt people who have used them extensively for years

Why go there, why have teachers or miners breathing in dust year after year

The cost to make the world a better place is so small.
 
Of course it's been pushed back and it'll be pushed back again and again. Projects such as these have been govt. funded boondoggles since their inception and designed to go on forever so as to line the pockets of the politicians and govt. contractors. These govt. funded projects have no incentive to succeed, they merely exist to keep enriching the bureaucrats and contractors who created them with your tax dollars. I'm 60 years old and I've been hearing for over 50 years now that fusion power is just around the corner and you younger folks will continue to hear it long after I'm gone.
 
Tokamaks are the worst form of doing fusion. They will never work, they are far too complex and far too large and will never be able to produce affordable energy even if they could get them to work reliably.

Stellarators and Inertial confinement are the way to go.
 
You have been corrected so many times about that News Week article , but you still spam the lie , fully knowing it had so little backing.
Oops! Hundreds of articles were run besides that Newsweek cover story, with quotes and 'scientific data' from multiple academics. The -only- reason that the hysteria subsided was that, almost from the moment the stories were printed, the data began showing a marked warming trend. Otherwise, every environmentalist "academic" on the planet would have climbed aboard that bus and you'd be promoting "global cooling" alarmism today.

Fact facts: it was yet another in a countless list of now-debunked environmental scares.

Acid rain wasn't real either to you , all fake
Pretty much, yes. In some areas, the pH of rain was slightly lowered, sure. So what? That actually helps some varieties of trees, while it (slightly) hurts the growth of others. Net danger to humanity: zero.

We can see climate change outside our windows. records are now broken every month
You don't understand what the word "science" means, and you wish to debate it? The warming trend began BEFORE the so-called theory, meaning observing it continue does nothing to validate it. We exited an ice age 20,000 years ago, and have been steadily warming since -- the rate that sea level is rising today is actually far slower (let me repeat that: slower) than it was 15,000 years ago.

, not by .1 on a degree , but often by 1 or 2 degrees.
Of the measured warming since 1850, nearly 2/3 of that warming trend occurred before 1930, despite the fact that today we emit more than 150 times as much CO2 as we did then. Oops!

Answer this one question. Show why CO2 is a not a greenhouse gas
Answer me this. Since scientists have known for two centuries that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, why was Svante Arrhenius roundly discounted by the world's scientists when he first postulated that CO2 could alter world temperature? When you can answer that, you can debate the atmospheric thermo-physics involved here.

(Hint: there were two objections scientists had. Turns out they were wrong about both, and CO2 can and does affect global temperatures. But until you can answer Part I, you have zero hope whatsoever of understanding Part II -- why it still doesn't lead to a global catastrophe).
 
Last edited:
According to the experts buy the time this fires up it will be to late to save the climate that us humans have destroyed. Oh well money worth spending I guess, might come in handy when the ice age hits.
 
Relax, this delay is nothing new, practical nuclear fusion is only 20 years away!

It was 20 years away in the 1950s, 20 years away in the 1960s, 20 years away in the 1970s, 20 years away in the 1980s, 20 years away in the 1990s, 20 years away in the 2000s, 20 years away in the 2010s, 20 years away in the 2020s...

 
Back