This is a nice effort to describe
the energy production in a graphic form but does not capture the real technical
virtuosity that this design demonstrates.
The energy take off is in the form of an ion pulse that is readily
converted to grid power and drawn off without a major loss in efficiency as
happens with heat engine solutions.
Way more important is that the
system appears to improve as it is enlarged and I suspect that the technical
problems become less. This is not true
for competing systems.
I expect that this setup will
prove to successfully demonstrate plus unity energy production but not so
significant that the present setup is actually good enough.
I wonder if it is almost time to
think the unthinkable and to bravely design a set up an order of magnitude
larger.
Let us make it pay.
Understand the focus fusion energy flow
What does it mean when we talk about “scientific feasibility of focus
fusion?” What does “net energy” add up to? LPP has updated our
energy analysis for a focus fusion generator based on our most recent data and
calculations. The result is summarized in a chart called a Sankey diagram, in which
the width of connecting lines represents the amount of energy. We want to
emphasize that at this point in the research, there are large uncertainties in
any net energy analysis, but it is important to illustrate what is meant by
“net energy” from a Focus Fusion generator.
This analysis assumes 90% energy transfer to plasmoid, a ratio of
fusion energy to plasmoid energy ratio of 100%, 80% energy efficiency recovery
from the beam and X-ray pulse. If energy-recovery efficiency is only 70%, net
energy is reduced to 14.6 kJ, but is still positive. If fusion energy is
120% of plasmoid energy instead of 100%, net energy yield is increased to 35
kJ. Net energy production occurs if gross fusion energy is above 35 kJ, the
goal of our scientific feasibility demonstration.
In the baseline scenario of the diagram, cycling 200 times per second
would provide 5MW to the grid.
\
No comments:
Post a Comment