Settings

Theme

First Light Fusion to Build Demonstration Facility at UKAEA’s Culham Campus

firstlightfusion.com

24 points by lijaf 3 years ago · 19 comments

Reader

DennisP 3 years ago

This is a great article on First Light's tritium production: https://nickhawker.com/2023/01/22/the-nuclear-physics-of-why...

Summing up: you need your fusion neutrons to breed more tritium from lithium. Lithium-7 produces tritium plus a lower-energy neutron that can breed one more tritium. Lithium-6 produces tritium but without the extra neutron.

Most designs lose a lot of neutrons, so they have to either enrich lithium for more lithium-7, or (most commonly) mix in either lead or beryllium as a neutron multiplier.

First Light's design captures 99% of the neutrons, so they think they can breed 50% more tritium than they consume with just natural lithium.

  • AtlasBarfed 3 years ago

    What's more valuable for lithium, environmentally: use in EVs or (even if they have a net-positive fustion reaction) use in a fusion reactor that is virtually guaranteed to not be LCOE competitive with even existing nuclear?

    • DennisP 3 years ago

      It'd be interesting to look at how much lithium is required by a fusion reactor compared to the electric cars that reactor could keep supplied with electricity. I suspect the reactors would have a pretty small effect on lithium availability for cars.

whinvik 3 years ago

> Although the machine itself will not generate power, it will be used to develop technology needed for future inertial confinement fusion energy powerplants.

5 years away and it will not even generate power. Seems a risky bet.

  • lumost 3 years ago

    It took me far to long to realize this, but the incentive on research grants is not to deliver a final product. In many cases the individuals responsible for delivering would be rewarded by no longer having a career.

    Hence, these programs tend towards infinite research proposals- the same is true in applied ml research in private corporations.

    • DennisP 3 years ago

      First Light isn't a research program funded by grants, it's a startup company attempting to develop a product. If they actually deliver before someone else makes them obsolete, they won't lose their careers, they'll make an absurd amount of money and be quite busy improving their reactors.

  • LatteLazy 3 years ago

    Prepare to be shouted down and told we'll all be running personal fusion generators by summer...

noobermin 3 years ago

I'm sympathetic, but how is projectile implosion supposed to be "proven" like NIF was? If anything, corrections to the imperfections which will come about and lead to instabilities will be harder with actually physically driven projectiles unlike the lasers at NIF where it's light and they can do crazy things like cross-beam energy transfer.

I also don't know why they claim to be "proven" by NIF's result, they are "ICF" by a choice of definition but it's a very different physical system, and just like NIF took decades, ironing out their sources of instabilities will literally be most of their effort, which they'll only know once they've done actual experimental runs.

garyclarke27 3 years ago

Helion seems to be the only Fusion startup that is confident of net energy gain at a system level within the next few years. If they can pull of Fusion Reaction direct to Electricity ie eliminating steam generator stage would be a game changer - but seems too good to be true. Sam Altman believes in it, he put in $375M of his own money.

  • born-jre 3 years ago

    Yeah me too, to layman that looked really promising, but then I watch this[0] video, and now I do not know what to belive.

    [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vUPhsFoniw

    • sendfoods 3 years ago

      This is great, thank you. Real Engineering's video was amazingly well done, I just wondered where the potential pitfalls could be.

      • DennisP 3 years ago

        I can respond to some of those points. FRCs have been around a long time but Helion isn't just making an FRC, they're making two, slamming them into each other, and then compressing with a magnetic field.

        The neutrons from D-D fusion are much lower energy than D-T fusion, and don't cause the same damage to materials. They're similar to fission neutrons, and modern fission reactors last sixty years without refurbishment.

        According to Helion and other sources I've seen, their hybrid reaction would only release 6% of its energy as neutron radiation, compared to 80% from D-T. They could also build reactors dedicated to D-D and hence He3 production, designing their power plants to mostly burn D-He3. That would reduce neutron radiation to less than 1% of power output.

        Regarding net power and scaling, I'm not competent to talk about it but here's the CEO of Helion going into some detail on their view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1vyMcqiVtA

  • gene-h 3 years ago

    Helion has claimed that fusion is 5 years away since 2014: https://engage.aps.org/fps/resources/newsletters/newsletter-...

    • DennisP 3 years ago

      That's inevitably conditioned on funding, which Helion didn't get as soon as they hoped. Now they have plenty.

jjk166 3 years ago

I am highly skeptical of First Light Fusion. While the general branch of fusion reasearch (impact fusion) was widely studied decades ago, the issue was creating the immense speeds necessary for ignition - you need to get the projectile up to ~.1% of the speed of light. While this is probably physically possible, doing it repeatably and economically was deemed impractical.

First Light is attempting fusion with a much lower velocity projectile, too low to work based on the previous research, but it's okay because they have a magical amplifier at the end that makes up the difference. They have not disclosed the design of this amplifier, nor have they published any peer reviewed material detailing the tests they claim validate that the amplifier works. So from a strictly scientific perspective, that's a big red flag.

On the economics side, the main, and really only selling point of impact fusion was the simplicity - where all other ICF fusion concepts suffer from instabilities and thus need incredible levels of engineering precision to get right, with impact fusion you're just brute forcing a solution by slamming the fuel together so hard that it can't do anything but fuse. As long as you have the right mass moving at the right speed, you're good. The energy amplifier completely negates this though. Now you need an ultra-precision manufactured part hit in just the right way to properly focus the energy, and all the instabilities of ICF come roaring right back. If your goal is just understanding the physics, like at the NIF, that's not a huge issue. If your goal is to produce a powerplant that can compete commercially with existing options then that's a second major red flag.

Finally, there is the company itself. If you look at the team, the CEO has a little bit of plasma physics experience, but pretty much everyone else is a businessman who advertises their expertise in rapid growth and large exits for startups. This is the team I'd want if my goal was to build a lot of hype and bring in a lot of gullible investor money; it's not the team I'd want if my goal were accomplishing a feat of science and engineering that generations of geniuses and well backed programs have repeatedly tried and failed to achieve. Maybe the founder had a true eureka moment, discovered something no one else had ever considered, and these are just the type of risktakers who are willing to take the leap of faith necessary to turn the idea into reality, but to a cynical person like me it's a red flag.

But hey, it would be really cool if they proved me wrong.

nynx 3 years ago

I think there’s a lot of promise in FLF’s designs (especially for in-space fusion propulsion), but they’re moving too slowly.

  • winReInstall 3 years ago

    Sometimes research is hard to scale. What would you do differently?

    Build variations of devices ahead of outcome, so that additional experiments can be executed almost in parallel?

    Prioritize the research equipment delivery on a planetwide level?

    Get the state to sponsorthose cushy wages and pensions nuclear scientists had, back in the 70s?

Keyboard Shortcuts

j
Next item
k
Previous item
o / Enter
Open selected item
?
Show this help
Esc
Close modal / clear selection