every single article about the fusion breakthrough is like "... and this is the first big step towards privatization and commercialization, where private business can generate profit!" said with the most gleeful of tones.
unequivocally, every single aspect of fusion power should be public domain. and the generators themselves should be nationalized and unionized in-perpetuity.
we should be treating this like the invention of fire or agriculture. to hell with energy companies.
@AmyZenunim They almost have to be nationally run.
I was looking into what was known about the safety aspects of operation a year ago for a hard sci-fi setting, and discovered that fusion reactors of any type are going to be a major proliferation risk, because of the fast neutrons.
@Mayabotics @AmyZenunim it is hard to understand how this particular envisaged scenario could come about in a Fusion reactor.
There is no reason to store any significant amount of hydrogen near the vessel, and the hydrogen plasma in the vacuum in the reactor vessel itself is such a small mass <1g that it is not an explosive risk nor does it have capacity to generate much gas.
@Mayabotics @AmyZenunim
That said, the walls can be so radioactive that if you could somehow blow-up, or more likely collapse, the 100s of tonnes of the vacuum chamber you would have an awful mess to clean up.
I suppose potentially the lithium walls, that are envisaged for some designs, could also catch fire making a fairly nasty dirty plume.
The vast majority of the publicly available safety analysis is for a tokamak.
There are several ways hydrogen can build up, usually involving unfused tritium or deuterium accumulating in pockets in the first wall or a leak in storage. A second risk of explosion comes from erosion of beryllium or tungsten dust from the first wall. An explosion from a Lithium liquid cooling/shielding is far less likely. 1/2
@kasilas
Some light reading for you:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S2352179121000740
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0269749118340156
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309596525_Identification_of_safety_gaps_for_fusion_demonstration_reactors
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0920379621004890
https://www.kns.org/files/pre_paper/36/16A-676%EC%9E%84%EC%88%98%EB%AF%BC.pdf
https://www.kns.org/files/pre_paper/37/17S-850%EC%9E%84%EC%88%98%EB%AF%BC.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245221718_Hydrogendust_explosion_hazard_in_ITER_Effect_of_nitrogen_dilution_on_explosion_behavior_of_hydrogentungsten_dustair_mixtures
https://www.kns.org/files/pre_paper/42/19A-377-%EC%9D%B4%EB%8F%99%ED%9B%88.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/er.3793
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239116289_Radiochemical_characteristics_of_tritium_to_be_considered_in_fusion_reactor_facility_design
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-015-9921-8
2/2
This one is specifically on failures of liquid lithium cooling loops, abet for a particle accelerator.
https://scipub.euro-fusion.org/wp-content/uploads/eurofusion/WPENSCPR18_20318_submitted-4.pdf
Those links arent clarifying to me the scenario you have in mind. I can see plasma contamination, reactor erosion, component damage, damn awkward room clean-ups and even operator risk. However, beyond that the risks seem typical of those in many big vac fab systems e.g the dust risk.
Do you have a particular design and incident in mind?
(I'm an ex-physicist and spend a lot of my life on hot plasmas and doing risk assesments - so feel free to be specific.)
@Mayabotics If you haven't specifics in mind feel free to ignore me.
I am just quite interested as (as some of the links mention) even in atomic physics, this risk is not one that comes up all that often.
But, hell, maybe it should.
*Sighs* Sure I'll play this game.
First link is about about 3H traps in Be PFMs, and as result the 3H inventory inside the VV is much higher than would be expected. If you read the papers coming out of the EU DEMO and ITER safety assessments, both have regular detritiation "baking" procedures to remove excess 3H from PFMs to lessen degassing risks during a LOVA or maintenance.
1/N
2nd link is a study done for CFETR of a beyond design basis accident of a hydrogen-dust explosion inside the VV using the ITER 3H limit and 1/100 to 1/10 the ITER W dust limit, and the containment building is breached, either in same explosion that breached the VV (like Chernobyl) or in a subsequent independent failure (like Fukushima). It is this study that estimated the impact of an accident like this could reach an INES level 6.
2/N
3rd link is about design basis extension accident conditions for EU DEMO, which mentions the same dust/3H explosion risks, and also brings up the risks of H3 releases as a result of the intentional 3H breeding in the WCLL blanket.
4th link is specifically about one of the hydrogen explosion reduction measures being taken for EU DEMO.
5th link about modeling a specific LOVA failure leading to a hydrogen/dust explosion in ITER.
3/N
6th link is about the role of relief valves in a hydrogen/dust explosion in ITER.
7th link is about a nitrogen-gas dilution countermeasure for a hydrogen/dust explosion in ITER.
8th link is a conference paper for a parameter study of a hydrogen/dust explosion done for K-DEMO.
9th link is an older analysis of a hydrogen/dust explosion after LOVA for K-DEMO by the same team as above.
4/N
10th link is about how the radiochemical characteristics of 3H impact various aspects of ITER operation. First, it discusses and rules out an early fear that 3H would cause a rapid detonation of a 3H/dust explosion after a LOVA by beta decay induced oxidation. Then discusses 3H redeposition in other parts of the system after oxygen baking. Third, it discusses H gas generation and that a hydrogen gas removal system would be needed in ITER's holding tanks for 3H contaminated water.
5/N
11th link isn't about a hydrogen explosion, but modeling the dust mobilization during a LOVA. As the other papers show, mobilized dust can greatly amplify the explosion potential of a relatively small amount of 3H.
6/N
12th link is about risks associated with the liquid-Li loop for the DONES accelerator. It discusses the potential for a accident when water coolant for the colliminator makes it's way into the beam duct, and how it can potentially reach the Li target before the fast isolation valve can react, causing a water + LI reaction, though the FIV would be able to at least prevent an overpressure of the beam duct if it performs as designed.
7/N
All this, and I haven't even gotten to the papers about the hydrogen generating potential of a failure of fittings at the heat-exchanger of EU-DEMO's WCLL blanket, thermochemical hydrogen gas production in the VV during a combined LOVA and coolant leak for the older pressurized water coolant-loop designs, and hydrogen gas accumulation due to diffusion and failure of ventilation systems!
8/N
So congrats on proving that you didn't read past the first link, and that you didn't think about what you did read.
In summary, hydrogen-gas (and dust) explosions are a well understood and accepted risk, and it's one that's being taken very seriously by the fusion research community since Fukushima hammered home the point that BDBAs needs to be considered in modern risk assessments.
9/9 (FIN)
@Mayabotics
Thanks for the Twitter nostalgia. I almost miss social media expert's rants on complex topics.
Still, maybe you are genuine - I suppose you do not know who I am so maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt but your final tone is just so out of order, I won't be explaining my "concerns" or continuing.
Ask more physicists that you trust (maybe more nicely), and you'll be shown them.
For us, our interaction ends here.
Adieu.
They also require tritium inputs... from fission reactors.
@AmyZenunim
Worth reminding people that (like with medical breakthroughs in the US) almost every stage of the research has been funded in part or entirely by tax money.
Energy companies claiming they should get to profit bc they 'developed' it are stealing from the rest of us.
@brrbrr the private sector has no reason to develop fusion power if it eats into its investments in carbon-producing power generation. it will be the exact same problem we've had with them buying up and suppressing renewable energies in other forms. they have every reason to maintain the status quo where they are on top.
and even if by some miracle they feel forced to divest from their other energy initiatives in favour of fusion, they will still exploit the masses for top dollar
@brrbrr the private sector has already displayed, world-wide, that it cannot be trusted with ownership of the "last mile" of infrastructure going into people's homes. look no further than telcos and energy (electric/gas).
and yes, these companies DO act as a monolith. they are driven by the nihilistic pursuit of "shareholder value." they would burn the world entirely if they thought it would produce a higher dividend and they could get away for it.
@brrbrr I'm Canadian and it's no better up here.
and you speak as if corruption and stagnation don't exist in these sectors either. why spend money to innovate when you have a monopoly and a captive audience? this is why we still run coal power in North America.
Whether it's #fusion, #AI, 3DPrinting or #ElectricCars, every tech is perverted to suit the profit principle of life under the bootheel of #Capitalism.
I'm not saying you have to be an active revolutionary (though that is fun). But we can choose to be #Bootlickers or not.
@AmyZenunim All they did was achieve ignition. They pulled 200 megajoules, to charge a 2 megajoule shot of 192 lasers into the inner wall of a capsule holding a hydrogen capsule, and they got 3 megajoules out of it. It's literally just an experiment, not even housed in something they would consider for a reactor.
We're 30-50 years away still
This was actually nuclear weapons research, and not energy production research at all!
But the only announcement I have seen that makes this clear is the announcement from someone at the lab itself.
Everyone else is essentially either lying by omission or simply making things up.
✰ Alice D. ✰
Maya
kasilas
Virtue signal 💉💉💉🇺🇸 🇺🇦
Stoneface Vimes
numbakrunch
Jess Mahler
David Rodriguez
Chilly Dee Williams
Gargravar
katrina
Bunny Jane's Humansona
PamWingedHorse
Charles Edward Miles
GrasshopperMan
Now on 3 wheels
Fish Head
flabberghaster
Jyoti Mishra
John Shirley
climate voter/degrowthist
professor
Riley
level 5 troon hazard
JenX
Barry Schwartz 🫖
yunchtime