US Dept of Energy to award $50m for working fusion plant
Why not simply invent a working fusion plant using $50m from Uncle Sam
The US Department of Energy has announced plans to award up to $50 million in funds to private businesses to develop a working fusion pilot plant (FPP) by the 2030s.
Nuclear fusion is expected, or hoped or dreamed, to produce abundant amounts of energy with zero or near-zero ‘carbon emissions’ during operation. According to DoE Deputy Secretary David Turk, and anyone else rational, the development of fusion power could be key to energy abundance and security around the world.
“Fusion holds the promise of being an on-demand, safe, abundant source of carbon-free primary energy and electricity, with the potential to transform the way we generate and use energy,” Turk said.
Turk added that the private sector has invested nearly $5 billion into fusion projects. With the DoE’s $50 million (no typo) in funding allocated to support for-profit entities, it’s likely some of the funds will end up in the hands of organizations that have already done some work toward building working fusion plants. China, meanwhile, is drinking our milkshake.
Entities wishing to bid for some of the $50m in fusion funding [PDF] can submit proposals for projects that will lead to the design of a viable FPP sometime this decade. The overall goal is to arrive at a working reactor by the early 2030s.
Simply getting it to work is one thing, there must also be plans to improve the fusion performance of proposed systems so that they’re functional on a practical level by the latter end of the 2030s.
Are the DoE’s fusion dreams plausible?
The DoE plans to award funds over time, maxing out at five years, with that period only being contingent upon awardees meeting early milestones which they themselves will have to define in their bids.
The DoE will consider a viable FPP to be one that can demonstrate “a significant amount of net fusion electricity for three or more continuous hours … at a total capital cost that can attract private funding.” The DoE defines significant electrical production to be greater than 50 MWe – a very ambitious target considering what state-of-the-art fusion experiments are currently capable of.
Earlier this month, scientists in South Korea succeeded in sustaining a plasma gas reaction at 100 million Kelvin for 20 seconds without instabilities – a major breakthrough for nuclear fusion, but nowhere near 50MWe of electricity or three hours of continuous operation.
In January of this year, researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California also made progress toward fusion power with a series of experiments that produced more than 100 kilojoules of energy.
While that’s definitely progress, it still only equates to around 28 watt-hours of electricity – not even enough to usefully illuminate the average incandescent bulb.
See more here theregister.com
Header image: Culham Centre for Fusion Energy
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Brandon,
You ask: “Why not simply invent a working fusion plant using $50m from Uncle Sam” without a question mark. Is this a tongue-in-cheek remark?
If it is a question, the answer is there is no controlled fusion reaction like there is a controlled fission reaction. There are only fusion explosions which, if very big, would blowup the power plant. And if your comment is a tongue-in-cheek remark, you already know this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Brandon,
You ask: “Why not simply invent a working fusion plant using $50m from Uncle Sam” without a question mark. Is this a tongue-in-cheek remark?
If it is a question, the answer is there is no controlled fusion reaction like there is a controlled fission reaction. There are only fusion explosions which, if very big, would blowup the power plant. And if your comment is a tongue-in-cheek remark, you already know this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Brandon and PSI Readers,
I cannot reply to my previous comment because it is “awaiting moderation”, therefore it does not exist. Therefore it does not exist. As usual I did not read the entire article before making my comment. I have a question. Is a plasma gas reaction a nuclear fusion reaction? And the following comment is for some PSI Reader who do not understand why “100 million Kelvin for 20 seconds without instabilities – a major breakthrough for nuclear fusion, but nowhere near 50MWe of electricity or three hours of continuous operation”. It is this temperature would melt (or vaporize) any material known to exist.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Hmmmm, $50 mill could buy a Thorium liquid salts cooled reactor now. https://thorconpower.com
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
There is no functioning fusion reactor, at least for the next obligatory 30 or 50 years.
Why? ITER and Tokamak type fusion reactors are failed technology, the following are the reasons why:
i) How do you get the fuel in?
ii) How do you get the waste out?
iii) How do you get the energy out?
iv) How do you do i, ii & iii while the fusion reactor is still running?
Another journalistic puff piece.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi C.H.,
There is also the problem that if Fission (splitting a nucleus) produces energy then fusion (forming nucleus) cannot also produce energy. If it were true then you could theoretically split a helium nucleus into 2 deuterium nuclei releasing the binding energy, then use that energy to fuse two deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus producing more energy.
Herb
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Your comment on fusion is absolutely wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about, consider the following citation:
Nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei are combined to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons or protons). The difference in mass between the reactants and products is manifested as either the release or absorption of energy.[1]
As to the rest of your comment, I will let you work out why your idea is totally wrong.
Regards
Climate Heretic
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi C. H.,
The energy produced by fusion is from the conversion of mass to energy. The accepted mass of elements is a result of the averaging different isotopes. In reality the mass of atoms is an integer multiple of the mass of a neutron and since there are no fractional masses of these building blocks there can never be a release of energy that isn’t a multiple of the mass of a neutron times c^2. The conversion of deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus will not result in a loss of mass but will necessitate an increase in binding energy.
Herb
Howdy
| #
https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
Reply
Howdy
| #
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Andrew Rossi is full of shit. He has been at this LENR for the past 14 years (E-cat) and nothing has been produced commercially. Rossi claims that the device produces massive amounts of excess heat that can be used to produce electricity, but independent attempts to reproduce the effect have failed miserably.
There is no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur. For homework I will let you work out what is wrong with the article you referenced.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Howdy
| #
Homework? Ah, the oracle… I don’t care about the link I posted, and care even less of what you believe about either the link, or Andrew Rossi.
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Showing your true colors. Nice!
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hardly my true colours.
Are you even aware that every response you made to another, including the article author, has been a direct put-down? Hence my comment. Just thought you needed to know.
Climate Heretic
| #
No, you really showed your true colors. Your interpretation of my comments is flat out wrong. If I said; “something is wrong”, then it’s wrong. It’s up to the author to make a rebuttal.
Hence, by replying to what I said, you have shown your lack of comprehension in what was written. Just huff and puff pieces coming from you.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Howdy
| #
“For homework I will let you work out what is wrong with the article you referenced.”
“As to the rest of your comment. I will let you figure what is wrong.”
“As to the rest, I’m not even going to bother to correct you”
“What you have written is total and utter garbage. I should have followed my instincts, I will let you work out what those instincts were about you”
“As to the rest of your comment, I will let you work out why your idea is totally wrong.”
See a pattern at all?
Narcissist, scapegoater, manipulator, blame shifter.
“Narcissists are notorious for blaming everyone and everything around them. This projection happens because they believe they know how to do things the right way. Moreover, they cannot accept accountability when making a mistake, even if everyone else recognizes it.”
https://thenarcissisticlife.com/the-narcissist-blames-you/
I think that just about covers it.
Climate Heretic
| #
What a lot of diatribe coming from you. You certainly are not a psychiatrist. I suggest you go and look at yourself in a mirror. A true narcissist at heart.
As I said before you are certainly showing your true colors. I will treat you as the only way one would treat a narcissist. However, telling you how to do that would be too easy so I suggest you go and find out for yourself on how to do that.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Howdy
| #
“You certainly are not a psychiatrist.”
You have not the slightest idea what I am, so stop clutching at straws and making things up.
“telling you how to do that would be too easy so I suggest you go and find out for yourself on how to do that.”
More of the same… You’re just passing the buck!
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
https://www.learning-mind.com/blame-shifting-signs-deal/
Those statements came from you as fact, it is not diatribe.You have a lot to say against others challenging you, but actually inform on nothing, and leave it to the party you refer to take the initiative. What’s wrong, don’t you have any actual answers?
You did the same with everybody in the discussion, so is everybody but you guilty? Or is there a common denominator? Your previous attacks on all of us present, and your one track mindedness give you away. You really do fit the description of Narcissist, scapegoater, manipulator, blame shifter.
With the sincerest intention, please seek help.
(Rescued from spam bin) SUNMOD
Howdy
| #
“You certainly are not a psychiatrist.”
You have not the slightest idea what I am, so stop clutching at straws and making things up.
“telling you how to do that would be too easy so I suggest you go and find out for yourself on how to do that.”
More of the same… You’re just passing the buck!
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-
disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
https://www.learning-mind.com/blame-shifting-signs-deal/
Those statements came from you as fact, it is not diatribe.You have a lot to say against others challenging you, but actually inform on nothing, and leave it to the party you refer, to
take the initiative. What’s wrong, don’t you have any actual answers?
You did the same with everybody in the discussion, so is everybody but you guilty? Or is there a common denominator? Your previous attacks on all of us present, and your one track
mindedness replies give you away. You really do fit the description of Narcissist, scapegoater, manipulator, blame shifter.
With the sincerest intention, please seek help.
Climate Heretic
| #
The mass of the proton can be denoted in a number of units like – proton mass amu, mass of proton in kg, proton mass MeV. Discounting the electron in a hydrogen nucleus.
The proton mass in different units are as follows:
Mass of proton in kg is 1.672621898(21)×10−27 kg
Mass of proton in grams is 1.672621898(21)×10−24 g
Mass of proton in amu is 1.007276466879(91) u
Mass of proton or proton mass in MeV is 938.2720813(58) MeV/c2
Not an integer to be seen anywhere.
No, deuterium cannot convert into a helium atom. You need two deuterium atoms to convert into a helium nucleus. Well lets be a little more precise shall we?
H1 + H1 → H2 + e+ + 0.420 MeV
H1 + H2 → He3 + 5.493 MeV
He3 + He3 → He4 + 2 H1 + 12.860 MeV
So the overall reaction is:-
4 H1 → He4 + 2e+ + 24.686 MeV
So no there is not an increase in binding energy. There is a release of energy.
As to the rest of your comment. I will let you figure what is wrong.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi C.H.,
I have never heard where hydrogen gas (H2) slits into atoms, ionizes (loses an electron and produces energy. You should patent this procedure since now they are using energy to split a hydrogen molecule into hydrogen atoms and then using more energy to strip an electron from it creating a proton.
The ability to merge positive charges, overcoming the repelling force between them, and hold them together as a stable molecule without expending energy also seems to be a revolutionary development that could be commercialized.
Herb
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
The subject is fusion not fission.
As to the rest, I’m not even going to bother to correct you.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi C. H.,
You remind me of the people who believe that wind turbines are producing energy by ignoring the fact that it takes more energy to create the machine then it will ever produce.
You claim that the beta decay of Hydrogen 2 into helium 3 is the creation of energy, ignoring the energy needed to combine 2 deuterium nuclei (plural of nucleus) to form the Hydrogen 2.
When a star runs out of fuel for fission, it continues to radiate energy as the electrons and protons of atoms combine to form neutrons and the energy radiated into space. The resulting atoms are unstable and emit neutrons which then promptly split into protons and electrons radiating energy as gamma radiation. The proton and electron ashes of this reaction can then either form hydrogen atoms to fuel more fusion energy or recombine to form a neutron and again release more energy. Physics is easy when you believe in magic.
Herb
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Herb
What you have written is total and utter garbage. I should have followed my instincts, I will let you work out what those instincts were about you.
Regards
Climate Heretic
prutex
| #
off the cuff
costs 5$ to fill a 100 cu-ft scuba tank
electricy costs 15cent per kwatt hour
so 33 kwh to fill
100cuft tank can produce
6000lb lift in an air bag
Here’s the big reach if a winch could produce as much electricity as it uses if it were a generator.
4500lb winch
180 amps 12 v 2160w
129,600 kwh to operate
5 ft per minute
300 ft per hour
129,600 kwh generated in an hour?
of course the deeper you go the less air you have.
And air would need to be released from the air bag as it ascends
Reply
prutex
| #
doesn’t work
Reply