The Top Ten Things You Should Know About Fusion

The Top Ten Things You Should Know About Fusion

I gave a 20 minute talk to a local group in Pittsburgh. We decided to record the audio, and put it out on the web for other people to enjoy.

  1. We have Been Doing It For Years.

  2. We Know How To Make It Work.

  3. You Can Do Fusion At Home.

  4. The US Really Funded Fusion For about 15 years.

  5. There Is More Than One Method.

  6. Fusion Startups Are Real.

  7. We Need A Pipeline.

  8. China Is Taking An Interest.

  9. Superconductors Are Game Changers.

  10. Climate Change Is Not Waiting.

Selling Fusion In Washington DC

Introduction:

This past weekend I traveled to Washington DC to talk with fusion folks. The place always feels like Vegas to me. It seems like 98% of the jobs in Washington involve constantly speculating on what action our government will take next. Predictions abound. To get something done, it takes alignment from a couple hundred decision-makers spread across the federal bureaucracy. Selling a fusion program into this hot mess has got to be challenging. Except for the few people involved; it is hard for most to appreciate. On that scale, supporters must have a simple message. A message, that answers something that policy-makers already want to hear. Sometimes, fusion is presented as the solution to climate change - and we just need to get ignition to make it work. Sometimes, fusion is sold as a path to energy independence; or military might. I heard a real example of a committee reversing direction, in the middle of a review. First, they were asked: what they could do with more - and then halfway through - were asked for what they could do with less. Broadly, it feels like our government is in a holding pattern. For about 25+ years, fusion has been viewed as a science project. But - there are signs that this might be changing.  

For years, fusion support in DC has been stuck on this treadmill.

For years, fusion support in DC has been stuck on this treadmill.

Science or Power?

Congress will support science projects. Sure, they funded an international space station. Yes, they funded a particle accelerator. They view fusion as the same kind of project. But if fusion stays as a science project - then it will always be tied down. This may not be obvious right away. But dig deeper and you realize something important. Science projects do not lead to commercial power plants. So, Congress will fund burning plasma research - but not work to lower the plants’ cost. DC will support a new plasma model – but not look at ways to make the machine more practical. This mentality has made lasting damage in the program; it has strangled off the engineering side of fusion. Sadly, it is not only politicians who take this view. Other bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the Fusion Energy Science Committee repeat the same message. They kind of have to. Any other message would be too difficult to sell. The Academy recently called for 200 million more to do a domestic tokamak program. Astoundingly, they might actually get their money. One policy person told me: "they have a lot of pull - members of Congress will sometimes just do with whatever the National Academy recommends."

The Dynomak, one promising fusion approach developed by start-up  CT Fusion  in Seattle. The company is a spin out from 30 years of work at the University of Washington and is having problems raising capital.

The Dynomak, one promising fusion approach developed by start-up CT Fusion in Seattle. The company is a spin out from 30 years of work at the University of Washington and is having problems raising capital.

The Princeton Rotamak, has set a world-record for the longest stable FRC ever created. The project has had an annual budget of a few hundred thousand, and a small staff for 10+ years. In April 2018, the  Chinese energy company ENN  took an interest. They have since invested several millions and hired a staff of 15, in an effort to duplicate this work, in China. Meanwhile the US keeps ignoring innovations like this.

The Princeton Rotamak, has set a world-record for the longest stable FRC ever created. The project has had an annual budget of a few hundred thousand, and a small staff for 10+ years. In April 2018, the Chinese energy company ENN took an interest. They have since invested several millions and hired a staff of 15, in an effort to duplicate this work, in China. Meanwhile the US keeps ignoring innovations like this.

Changes:

Today, there seems to be an undercurrent in Washington. Policy-makers are touring both ITER and TAE Technologies. They come back confused. There is a stark difference in the staffing, culture, time-lines and attitudes. ITER is not supposed to be turned on until 2025 - or later. The plan seems to be fund ITER and wait forever. Meanwhile, TAE already put fusion on the commercial marketplace two years ago. The company continues to set records in runtime and temperatures.  This is confusing for policy-makers. The wheels of government seem to be mulling this over.  It is slowly dawning on folks: fusion is not a science project but an energy project. If fusion becomes an energy project then the government must treat it radically different. So far, this is still an undercurrent - on the surface nothing has changed. In many ways, nothing will really change until the fusion community does something big (but please guys: no more hoaxes). 

One approach pushed by the startup  Compact Fusion Systems  in Santa Fe. This is a liquid metal crunching on a plasma structure; very similar to General Fusion's technology. CFS has a solid technical team of former researchers from Kirkland Air Force base, NRL and two private firms. They recently raised funding from  Strong Atomics , a new venture capital firm, focused solely on fusion.

One approach pushed by the startup Compact Fusion Systems in Santa Fe. This is a liquid metal crunching on a plasma structure; very similar to General Fusion's technology. CFS has a solid technical team of former researchers from Kirkland Air Force base, NRL and two private firms. They recently raised funding from Strong Atomics, a new venture capital firm, focused solely on fusion.

The Plasma Liner Experiment at Los Alamos shows a great deal of promise as an innovative ICF related approach. The supporting technology is built by a company called  Hyperjet  in Chantilly, which recently raised ~8 million in a public-private partnership.

The Plasma Liner Experiment at Los Alamos shows a great deal of promise as an innovative ICF related approach. The supporting technology is built by a company called Hyperjet in Chantilly, which recently raised ~8 million in a public-private partnership.

US is Already Behind:

If Congress suddenly woke up to fusion power – they might also realize that China is pulling ahead. The Chinese program has mushroomed recently. Developments started in 2011 during their last five year plan. This was the same time that Congress cut funding for last remaining tokamak at MIT. That same year, China started staffing up an INEST office outside Hefei. They now have 500 fresh PhD’s working on fusion and fission innovations. They recently tested the 3D printing of fusion components. Meanwhile, the US program is turning away young people because they do not have the support. I personally have met many people over the years that could not find a position. Publicly, the INEST office is still supporting ITER – but privately they are very much eyeing the advances in mirrors and FRC. Meanwhile a billion dollar, Chinese energy company ENN has started a project to build a FRC based on the Princeton machine. The ground is fertile with ideas that have not been supported by the US government. Some are not American. For example, the gas dynamic trap in Russia recently broke through many of the problems that plagued mirror machines. Despite calls from US experts – the US has no mirror machine operating anywhere in the country. China has also moved into superconducting tokamaks. Today, Chinas' EAST is a top notch superconducting tokamak. The US has no such machine. 

There is raw frustration over this in the fusion community. That anger cuts across all approaches. Everyone in this field agrees: policy-makers simple do not get how important this work is.

Lockheed-Martin Compact Fusion Reactor and the Polywell - two fusion approaches based on the concept that the plasma diamagnetism will reject the outside field. This could lead to an awesome plasma trap. EMC2 has struggled to raise funding in San Diego; while Lockheed has refused to publish results.

Lockheed-Martin Compact Fusion Reactor and the Polywell - two fusion approaches based on the concept that the plasma diamagnetism will reject the outside field. This could lead to an awesome plasma trap. EMC2 has struggled to raise funding in San Diego; while Lockheed has refused to publish results.

Superconductors:

Over the summer of 2018, MIT announced that it had raised 50 million dollars in private investment. They formed a company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems. The group is going after a commercial, superconducting, tokamak. This is in response to the frustration with fusion funding in the US. It also signaled something to DC. They have started to notice the fusion startups. Since then, Dennis Whyte, head of the plasma fusion science center, has been talking to anyone and everyone. Dr. Whyte is trying to seize the narrative, and he has a compelling pitch to make. The tokamak is the most well studied approach in all of fusion – and they want to combine it with the huge advancements made in superconductors. It is worth pointing out what superconductors mean for fusion. One startup in Colorado saw their performance increase by ~100 fold in field strength and a ~1,000,000 fold in run time due to BSCCO superconductors. That is not even the best wire available. Moreover, the magnetic pressure should drive the fusion rates, exponentially. It is an holy #%$! improvement. Superconductors are so damn exciting; that almost everyone in fusion should be seriously looking at them.

The flowing z-pinch team at Uri Shumlaks' lab at the University of Washington. This effort was spun out into  ZAP Energy Inc . In 2018, the company received a fresh $6.8 million in ARPA-E funding. By flowing the plasma through the Z-Pinch; the plasma can be made stable against magnetic-drive pressure instabilities.

The flowing z-pinch team at Uri Shumlaks' lab at the University of Washington. This effort was spun out into ZAP Energy Inc. In 2018, the company received a fresh $6.8 million in ARPA-E funding. By flowing the plasma through the Z-Pinch; the plasma can be made stable against magnetic-drive pressure instabilities.

A Fusion Ecosystem:

Tokamaks are far from the only approach in fusion; and CFS is far from being the only company. So far, they have been one of the few groups privileged enough to garner a 50 million dollar investment. But, if investors dig a little deeper they will find a wealth of good ideas. Good ideas that our government has utterly failed to support. Examples abound. These groups have a wide variety of technology - from established to crazy - so investor beware. Some companies have found their new home in the Fusion Industry Association. This was started as an umbrella group for these little start-ups.

Washington State governor Jay Inslee touring the fusion startup  Helion . This company has been in business since 2010 and has achieved a 100 Tesla compression of a merged Field Reversed Configuration. The company has raised over 10 million in private capital; notable from the accelerator Y-Combinator.

Washington State governor Jay Inslee touring the fusion startup Helion. This company has been in business since 2010 and has achieved a 100 Tesla compression of a merged Field Reversed Configuration. The company has raised over 10 million in private capital; notable from the accelerator Y-Combinator.

 Conclusion

 So what are we to make of fusion? Is it a science project or is it a power project? Washington is certain still viewing it as a research program. Congress will probably continue to do so until the fusion community has some breakthrough; a tipping point. The danger is that the administration will react badly to these changes.  If Congress cuts funding for fusion as a science project - there is no guarantee that money will then go to fusion as a power project. Really, fusion funding does not need to be so complicated. What we need is very simple. We need an idea pipeline. We need something similar to what is used in biotech. Fund 20 ideas at 5 million a year, 10 ideas at 10 million and small handful (aka ITER) with the big budgets. Force groups to move up or down the ladder as they move closer to the power plant. That means using cost, runtime and Q as meter sticks to measure everyone by. This is not complicated, folks.

Basic.png



Fusion News - September & October 2018

Below are a smattering of events that you may have missed. The reality is, if fusion power became a reality today everyone reading this article will be able to participate. There is plenty of work out there. This includes all you investors, engineers and entrepreneurs out there - you know who you are.

1. On October 30th 2018, Phoenix (Phoenix Neutron Generators) broke ground on their neutron imaging facility in Fitchburg, Wisconsin. This was an exciting day for the company that started in 2005, as an offshoot of fusor research at University of Wisconsin. I have been watching this company for more than 8 years now - and this latest milestone shows how nuclear fusion has firmly moved into the everyday world. The company has made a very nice video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCUowOZHBj0) of the groundbreaking. The president openly describes how fusion is a key component of their neutron imaging technology. In the past, the company did not openly emphasize its' connection to fusion.

2. On October 26th 2018, General Fusion announced that Canada’s Strategic innovation Fund had invested 49.3 million into the company. This is the scale-up funding that founder Michel Laberge, Michael Delage and CEO Christofer Mowry have been seeking for their next large machine. The company plans to add 400 new positions and build a larger, more power CT compression device. The company emphasized that this was not a grant; the Canadian government is expecting some return on this investment.

3. The last week of October 2018, the Fusion Industry Association opened a new website. This group grew from the American Fusion Project, a lobbying group for fusion startups in Washington DC. The group is advocating to key decision-makers at the Department of Energy and ARPA-E, with the hopes of getting changes made in the FY 2020 budget. They are also planning to participate in Fusion Day, an annual congressional lobbying effort in March.

4. Dr. Kirk Flippo has SEVEN openings in the High Energy Density physics department at Los Alamos National Labs. That an usually number of openings. The jobs range from post-docs, to scientists, to engineering talent. Check out the Los Alamos job page and search for the P-24 group. I got an email from Dr. Ned Saleh, who used to work there, asking around if anyone was. If you think you are up to it, you should reach out, especially at the DPP APS conference this week in Portland.

5. Three items came out the from The Fusion Podcast. On September 19th 2018, I put out a summary article on my interview with Dr. Sam Cohen from Princeton. The week of October 7th 2018, I published a video about Tanner Hornes' effort and the history and development of cusp confinement. Lastly, on October 28th, I premiered a new interview with Dr. Joe Khachan at the University of Sydney for The Fusion Podcast.

An Interview With Dr. Sam Cohen

An Interview With Dr. Sam Cohen

Guest Bio - Dr. Sam Cohen

For 44 years, Dr. Sam Cohen has worked as a physicist at Princeton University. He currently serves as director of the Plasma Science and Technology program at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Since 1998, Sam has been performing research on plasma devices known as Field-Reversed Configurations (FRCs), studying their potential as power plants and rocket engines. In November of 2013, his small group announced that they had held an FRC stable for 300 milliseconds - a world record, by a large margin. Our interview covers a transition period in his career, from his time spent as a manager on the US ITER effort to his personal experiences rubbing shoulders with physics luminaries to the beautiful physics and practical aspects of field-reversed configurations. Dr. Cohen offers advice on how the US government could accelerate progress in fusion by re-invigorating research into small, clean fusion reactors, an activity now proceeding almost exclusively with venture capital support.

Seven Ways To Model Plasma

Seven Ways To Model Plasma

This post covers seven ways to model plasma: charged ideal gases, charged single fluid, two charged fluids, gyrokinetic, kinetic, everything and quantum.  The post was inspired by a recent paper trying to model plasma using Quantum Field Theory.  It opens with short histories of the charged ideal gas model and magnetohydrodynamics.  An example from magnetic mirrors is used to show flaws in the MHD model.  Next, the two-fluid model is explained based on differences between the ion and the electron.  After this, particle-in-cell is covered and how it fits with gyrokinetics and kinetics.  Gyrokinetics is shown to simplify ions’ corkscrewing motion.  Kinetics is shown as (BIC) blob-in-cell modeling.  Quantum and klimontovich (everything) models are covered at the end.

The VLAB Fusion Panel (11–7–2017)

The VLAB Fusion Panel (11–7–2017)

On Tuesday November 7th 2017 a fusion panel discussion was held on Stanford’s campus. The panel was organized by Virtual Labs, a non-for-profit organization in Silicon Valley. The goal of VLAB is connect entrepreneurs to technologists. Former members of the VLAB group have included managers at some of the valleys’ premier technology companies. The event was organized by Michelle Tsing, a lawyer and an entrepreneur. The panel was moderated by Dr. Rachel Slaybaugh a member of nuclear engineering department at Berkeley. The panel also included Dr. Michele Lebarge from General Fusion, Dr. Thomas McGuire from Lockheed Martin and Ray Rothrock, a former member of Venrock capital. It also included Dr. Matt Thompson from TA Technologies (Tri alpha rebranded, more on this later). I reached out to Michelle and she was gracious enough to share a 90 minute recording of the panel. You can watch the event through facebook - here. After watching this talk, I wrote this quick summary of the event. Enjoy.