Thailand’s first tokamak device is ready to start operations for fusion energy research in July, after a successful trial on April 21st, according to Thailand’s Institute of Nuclear Technology (TINT).

 

Named “Thai Tokamak-1”, the device was developed by TINT based on the Tokamak HT-6M, provided by the Institute of Plasma Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

 

A tokamak is a machine that confines a plasma using magnetic fields in a donut shape, called a torus. Fusion energy scientists believe that tokamaks are the leading plasma confinement concept for future fusion power plants.

 

Full Story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/thailands-first-tokamak-device-for-fusion-energy-research-to-begin-operating-in-july/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2023-06-14

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

The most versatile and flexible rental investment and holiday home solution in Thailand - click for more information.

To attempt is to achieve...good to see the Thais spending money and effort on physics than submarines and jet fighters. However the chance of them getting ahead of the others is miniscule. Still knowledge would be gained.

I hope it has an off switch ......

 

regards worgeordie

28 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

I hope it has an off switch ......

 

regards worgeordie

Doubt the on switch will ever be found first ????

52 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

I hope it has an off switch ......

 

regards worgeordie

Why do you hope so? You are probably confusing fusion with fission (what happens in nuclear reactors) which has a chain reaction which we all know can end very badly if not "managed". The beauty of fusion reactors like this tokamak is that there is no such chain reaction that grows exponentially. In fact you need to maintain several things like the plasma or the magnetic containment active or it'll just stop the reaction.

 

In other words:

 

With fission (nuclear reactors) the trick is to prevent the reaction from getting out of hand.

With fusion the trick is to make the reaction happen at all.

Edited June 14, 20233 yr by eisfeld

"Fusion energy is 20 years away from being a reality. And always will be." - attributed to some expert.

 

I know it's a tough problem, but really the fusion industry has made astonishingly slow progress..

9 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

based on the Tokamak HT-6M, provided by the Institute of Plasma Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Hmmmm

44 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

"Fusion energy is 20 years away from being a reality. And always will be." - attributed to some expert.

 

I know it's a tough problem, but really the fusion industry has made astonishingly slow progress..

I can't share this view. We've made tremendous progress especially in the last 10 years or so. Fusion is an incredible engineering challenge. I mean we are talking creating a plasma that is 100 million degrees hot, containing that with insanely strong magnetic fields created by superconducting magnets because anything that it would touch would instantly melt and evaporate. Just in a few months ago we've achieved scientific breakeven for the first time in history (Q >= 1) which means it produced more power through the fusion reaction than had to be put into heating the plasma. There are several research reactors in various countries showing steady progress. Just building such a reactor can take a decade. And then we are seeing the first commercial reactors getting funded just in the recent years. I'm 100% convinced that we'll see the first commercial reactors going on the grid in the next 15 years. CFS plans completion of their prototype reactor in 2025 to demonstrate overall net positive energy generation and then early 2030s a proper commercial reactor.

 

The potential of fusion energy can't be overstated. Abundant clean, stable and safe energy can transform society because energy is the limiting factor for a lot of things.

Edited June 14, 20233 yr by eisfeld

52 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

"Fusion energy is 20 years away from being a reality. And always will be." - attributed to some expert.

 

I know it's a tough problem, but really the fusion industry has made astonishingly slow progress..

I heard 25 years - and that was back in 1962 when the Harwell Research Lab in the UK thought that they had it cracked with 'Zeta'.  Turned out that what they thought was a fusion event wasn't.  

 

Still 25 years away from a commercially viable fusion reactor, it seems.  The trick is not only to initiate a stable plasma but to actually get a sustainable net energy gain.  There are alternatives to the Tokamak approach but little progress has been made with those.

 

It will be great if they eventually get fusion to work but, unfortunately, I won't be here to see it.

10 hours ago, gearbox said:

To attempt is to achieve...good to see the Thais spending money and effort on physics than submarines and jet fighters. However the chance of them getting ahead of the others is miniscule. Still knowledge would be gained.

It is good that this technology is being progressed here….however tiny the efforts may be

Fusion is the cheapest source of energy around, you just have to put solar panels on your roof to collect it. And it keeps the reactor 93 million miles away.

If the Tokamak is "ready to start operations", why the photograph of a plastic children's toy, rather than the real thing?

 

This is a real Tokamak (the JET Tokamak at Culham in the UK).

 

And they knows where to connect this thing ?

????

Edited June 15, 20233 yr by Tarteso

10 hours ago, worgeordie said:

I hope it has an off switch ......

 

regards worgeordie

Stopping them working is easy.

The difficult bit is getting them to work in the first place.

22 minutes ago, doctormann said:

I heard 25 years - and that was back in 1962 when the Harwell Research Lab in the UK thought that they had it cracked with 'Zeta'.  Turned out that what they thought was a fusion event wasn't.  

 

Still 25 years away from a commercially viable fusion reactor, it seems.  The trick is not only to initiate a stable plasma but to actually get a sustainable net energy gain.  There are alternatives to the Tokamak approach but little progress has been made with those.

 

It will be great if they eventually get fusion to work but, unfortunately, I won't be here to see it.

Back in the '80s we supplied materials to the JET project over at Culham and they were often '10 years away'

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

Hmmmm

Hmmmm what?

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

"Fusion energy is 20 years away from being a reality. And always will be."

As others have noted. It's not 20 years away but more like 93 million miles away and working.

It must have a 'medusa' effect.  Did you see the engineer in the photo...

Will the fusion process allow Thailand to keep the power on during a storm?

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Hmmmm what?

From the link:

The Chinese Tokamak HT-6M parts were delivered to HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn on July 15^th last year, under a memorandum of understanding signed in August 2017, to be used for research into high-temperature plasma and fusion energy, which may drive electricity generation in the future.

 

Thailand says it will have their own version in about 10 years time.

[reverse engineered no doubt]

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

From the link:

The Chinese Tokamak HT-6M parts were delivered to HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn on July 15^th last year, under a memorandum of understanding signed in August 2017, to be used for research into high-temperature plasma and fusion energy, which may drive electricity generation in the future.

 

Thailand says it will have their own version in about 10 years time.

[reverse engineered no doubt]

Yes. And? Why the "hmmmm"? Because it's Chinese?

3 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Yes. And? Why the "hmmmm"? Because it's Chinese?

No just reverse engineering... copy.

7 hours ago, eisfeld said:

I can't share this view. We've made tremendous progress especially in the last 10 years or so. Fusion is an incredible engineering challenge. I mean we are talking creating a plasma that is 100 million degrees hot, containing that with insanely strong magnetic fields created by superconducting magnets because anything that it would touch would instantly melt and evaporate. Just in a few months ago we've achieved scientific breakeven for the first time in history (Q >= 1) which means it produced more power through the fusion reaction than had to be put into heating the plasma. There are several research reactors in various countries showing steady progress. Just building such a reactor can take a decade. And then we are seeing the first commercial reactors getting funded just in the recent years. I'm 100% convinced that we'll see the first commercial reactors going on the grid in the next 15 years. CFS plans completion of their prototype reactor in 2025 to demonstrate overall net positive energy generation and then early 2030s a proper commercial reactor.

 

The potential of fusion energy can't be overstated. Abundant clean, stable and safe energy can transform society because energy is the limiting factor for a lot of things.

Fusion reactors are making pitifull progress. 

I accept that the energy produced can be more than the energy the lasers inject into the reaction ( Q >1 ), However this only represents somewhere in the region of 2% of the total energy required to be provided to the reactor . 

This is without taking into account that the energy produced is still not in a useable form and will incur further efficiency losses .

7 hours ago, JoePai said:

Back in the '80s we supplied materials to the JET project over at Culham and they were often '10 years away'

From my experience that's just popular misunderstandings by people who are not really familiar with the projects. The question is *what* was 10 years away? Nobody serious was working on commercial reactors or even dreaming about having them in those timeframes. Could have been a scientific milestone with a research reactor being 10 years away back then. And then through the grapevine it becomes "fusion energy 10/20/30 years away".

48 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Fusion reactors are making pitifull progress. 

I accept that the energy produced can be more than the energy the lasers inject into the reaction ( Q >1 ), However this only represents somewhere in the region of 2% of the total energy required to be provided to the reactor . 

This is without taking into account that the energy produced is still not in a useable form and will incur further efficiency losses .

It's simply not true that progress was pitifull. There has been huge progress. The gamechanger has been superconducting magnets.

 

The claim that the energy put into the plasma represents only around 2% is also not true. Taking ITER which is planned to go live 2025 it'll have a total electrical input of 320MW which generates 50MW plasma heating input. That's 15.6%. And that will produce 500MW of heat output. It is correct that there are further losses and it wont be overall net positive energy gain but they are research reactors after all. The previous record in a tokamak was Q = 0.65 and in two years we are looking at Q = 10. That is a 15x improvement. I call that a big progress. Again, so far these research projects did not have energy efficiency as their goal. Their goal was to solve the incredible engineering challenges in creating and sustaining these plasmas.

 

Only because of the big scientific and engineering wins in the recent years is it that we are seeing the first commercial companies being formed to start work on commercial reactors. Investors wouldn't put billions of dollars into them if they were not getting viable.

15 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

It's simply not true that progress was pitifull. There has been huge progress. The gamechanger has been superconducting magnets.

 

The claim that the energy put into the plasma represents only around 2% is also not true. Taking ITER which is planned to go live 2025 it'll have a total electrical input of 320MW which generates 50MW plasma heating input. That's 15.6%. And that will produce 500MW of heat output. It is correct that there are further losses and it wont be overall net positive energy gain but they are research reactors after all. The previous record in a tokamak was Q = 0.65 and in two years we are looking at Q = 10. That is a 15x improvement. I call that a big progress. Again, so far these research projects did not have energy efficiency as their goal. Their goal was to solve the incredible engineering challenges in creating and sustaining these plasmas.

 

Only because of the big scientific and engineering wins in the recent years is it that we are seeing the first commercial companies being formed to start work on commercial reactors. Investors wouldn't put billions of dollars into them if they were not getting viable.

Let's take ITER

The latest figures I have is  Q=,10. That is 50MWin 500MW out in thermal energy.

ITER have confirmed it now requires 440MW to operate the reactor. ITER also estimate that the 500MW of thermal energy will equate to 200MW of usable electricity

Thus giving a Q (total ) of 200/440  =0.45

Thus for a plasma Q of 10 results in a Q total of 0.45

 

9 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Let's take ITER

The latest figures I have is  Q=,10. That is 50MWin 500MW out in thermal energy.

ITER have confirmed it now requires 440MW to operate the reactor. ITER also estimate that the 500MW of thermal energy will equate to 200MW of usable electricity

Thus giving a Q (total ) of 200/440  =0.45

Thus for a plasma Q of 10 results in a Q total of 0.45

 

ITER is a research reactor. It has no systems to extract the power and was never planned to be overall net positive. Thus it hasn't even attempted to optimize any of that. The point was that we went from Q = 0.65 to Q = 10 in a few years. Reactors with Q = 25 are already planned. Which means there is a lot of progress. In fact I don't know any other field in energy that has achieved gains in efficiency as fusion has.

 

Are we there in terms of commercial viability? No, but we are actually getting very close.

ITER 2025 expected to experiment, as JET showed it could be done.

However many nations in the project and so is Russia. It costs money and Russia is doing, another and stupid thing, at the same time. So 2025? no way Jose.

If China and USA, also in ITER, get some dispute over sea area's and Taiwan, then wait for next century. There has been already many delays. 

Maybe Thailand will be the first.

12 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

"Fusion energy is 20 years away from being a reality. And always will be." - attributed to some expert.

 

I know it's a tough problem, but really the fusion industry has made astonishingly slow progress..

Probably because no military application to fund the fast track.  

 

 

1 hour ago, chalawaan said:

Probably because no military application to fund the fast track. 

Well, the amounts of money thrown at this problem over the past 50 years are eye-watering.

 

But I would say you are right in that there has been no concentrated effort, or even the political will to achieve that.

 

Most western governments would rather gargle battery acid than enable their citizens access to cheap, reliable, and clean energy.