Comment Re:Falling funding: Why fusion stays 30 years away (Score 1) 135
Hmmm, edit appears to have disappeared. Forgive me if this shows up twice.
> [[Citation needed]] - "all the time" is not a mathematical statement and therefore cannot be included in your (pseudo) mathematical reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggatron - was about 50%
http://books.google.ca/books?id=KSA_AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA203 - calls for 80%, gives no reasons (maybe dup)
aries.ucsd.edu/HAPL/MEETINGS/0511.../SheffieldApproachFusion.ppt - 20% first year, 50% after
http://books.google.ca/books?id=5A51AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA139 - "70 to 80% [...] These values cannot be achieved today..."
http://hifweb.lbl.gov/public/Sharp/HIF_documents/Perkins-future%20fusion.pdf - makes fun of IFE predicted cap factors, says ICF would be 80% in order to work but doesn't really argue for that number
> [[Citation needed]] - not to mention that since the system is not under significant pressure,
> the containment building (if actually needed) will be far simpler and far cheaper than that needed by a nuclear power plant.
The magnets are under significant pressure, and represent a serious physical risk. A failure of the blanket releases tritium. To ensure that one doesn't lead to the other getting into the environment, you need a very strong containment vessel and building on the same level of size and strength as a fission version. You *have* seen the ITER containment building, right?
http://fire.pppl.gov/fusion_science_parkins_031006.pdf - breaks it down in detail
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/a-veteran-of-fusion-science-proposes-narrowing-the-field - Hirsch says "it is virtually certain that the regulators will demand a containment building for a commercial tokamak reactor that will likely resemble what is currently required for fission reactors"
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/7117740 - this is a very old study, but you can get a feel for the buildings as part of the overall system costs. They flatline it at 10% of the overall project cost, but they estimate that to be as low as 35 cents/kWt.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=iuC3IFwk5ZsC&pg=PA342 - no dollar figures, but this shows you why you need a big expensive building
That last one is pretty good overall if you're interested in this stuff. It's based on the UWMAK-1, which was a study carried out by Bechtel and WISC. Using current figures you get CAPEX numbers like $1.8 for the blanket, which you can scale using the second-last ref to suggest building costs on the order of $6/W. If you want to understand why all of this starts adding up, go to the UWMAK home page and look at the image. See the *little person* at the bottom? Now scale that thing out to a complete torus:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/studies/UWMAK-I
For comparison, wind turbines are currently going in at $1.50 to $2.00, and NG combined-cycle plants around $1 to $1.50.
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf
> but then substitute FUD for actual numbers
Which you could have shown me up by posting some numbers to show why I'm full of FUD. But you didn't. So first, pto, meet kettle. Secondly, now you have some reading to do.