Submission declined on 23 February 2024 by Drmies (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
| Submission declined on 2 January 2024 by Ldm1954 (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: Declined by Ldm1954 11 months ago.
| |
| Submission declined on 29 August 2023 by OlifanofmrTennant (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. Declined by OlifanofmrTennant 16 months ago. | |
Comment: No. As before: not enough secondary sourcing on the specific topic, narrowly speaking. This is really expository writing with an infusion of original research/synthesis. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia is the wrong place for an article like this. Wikipedia is a place where articles are on establised topics, it is not on possible future technologies. Please look carefully at what Wikipedia is not, and also not a crystal ball. If you trim down this by a factor of 10 (10% of the current length) and just state established facts it might have a chance. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Fusion Island
edit.jpg)
Fusion Island in the mid 21st Century [Image via Dall-E]
Fusion Island is a tokamak-based fusion energy technology concept for the oil industry first described in 2005. It is based on the production for distribution and sale of cryogenic liquid hydrogen, where the same liquid hydrogen is also used to cool magnets made from high temperature superconductor (HTS). Fusion Island is an example of a fusion process heat commercialization strategy.[1]. Importantly the Fusion Island strategy concept relies on the use of hydrogen cryomagnetics for the major magnet windings of the tokamak avoiding the need for supplies of scarce and expensive liquid helium. Fusion Island is an example of a compelling technology concept of the future that has not yet been developed. As such it is similar, in conceptual status, to other bold prospective technology concepts, such as the space elevator or Hyperloop.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Origins
editThe term Fusion Island was first coined in October 2005 by William Nuttall, Bartek Glowacki and Richard Clarke writing in the British magazine The Engineer.[2]. The concept of Fusion Island was explored for the UK Energy Research Centre at an April 2007 meeting hosted by Worcester College Oxford and the Culham Science Centre. The meeting had the title: Sustainable Hydrogen Production: A role for Fusion? It examined the potential for large scale Hydrogen production through methods other than electrolysis. A report prepared by Michael O’Brien, then of the UKAEA, is available[3]. The Fusion Island concept was further elaborated in July 2008[4]
In 2005 Nuttall et al. defined Fusion Island in the following terms:
"On ‘Fusion Island’, hydrogen would be:
- The product sold commercially;
- Potentially the cryogenic liquid used to cool the fusion reactor magnets;
- The source of energy to fire-up the fusion machine; and
- A link to an industrial sector that is willing and able to fund the high capital cost of a fusion system."[2]
The UKERC meeting observed that in 2007: "... currently there was no business model for Hydrogen, neither was there one for fusion, nor for the coupling of Hydrogen to fusion - but the economies of scale concerned with these technologies were great."[3]
In the 2020s, however, the question of fusion as a source of commercial hydrogen production is attracting more attention[5]. Key technological enablers of the Fusion Island concept are becoming available and the pressure on the international oil industry to find low carbon alternative business models is growing.
In 2005, Fusion Island was presented by Nuttall et al. as literally an island electrically isolated from the mainland. It supplies liquid hydrogen to global markets in a manner similar to the liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes of today. A graphical impression of the earliest form of the Fusion Island concept is available online[6].
From the outset the Fusion Island idea challenged the dominant orthodoxy that the dominant path to large scale commercialisation of fusion energy would be based on electricity generation in a fusion power plant. In 2022 a Japanese fusion start-up, Kyoto Fusioneering, proposed a fusion cluster concept giving prominent emphasis to low-carbon hydrogen production and maritime distribution[7]
Role of the Oil Industry
edit
The concept is that Fusion Island would be developed by an International Oil Company (IOC) perhaps in collaboration with an industrial gases company[2]. Such companies include the necessary skills and competences but also such engineering propositions are well-matched to risk appetite of an IOC[4]. IOC stock valuations have long been shaped by a desire to see reserve replacement[8]. As a liquid fuel production facility, Fusion Island has the potential to support reserve replacement thinking[4].
Oil Industry Interest in Fusion
editIn 2021 oil companies ENI and Equinor both invested in Commonwealth Fusion Systems[9]. Meanwhile Cenovus Energy has invested in Canadian fusion company General Fusion[10]. While oil industry interest in fusion energy is now clear, thus far there is little sign of the electricity generation industry showing enthusiasm for fusion technology.
An alternative source of low carbon process heat for IOC process heat applications is conventional nuclear fission energy[11]. Nuclear fission, however, is associated with several important safety and security concerns including: a large amount of stored energy in the reactor core and the need for post-shutdown decay heat management. Neither of these concerns apply to tokamak fusion, with its fuel stored outside the reactor and its straightforward shutdown procedures. Oil industry processing infrastructures (currently refineries etc.) are safety critical locations. For such locations, the regulatory burden for a fusion process heat source can be expected to be far lower than for a fission alternative.
Use of term "Fusion Island" by First Light Fusion
editIn 2019 UK fusion company First Light Fusion started using the term fusion island in a different sense to that described above[12], and elaborated in 2023[13]. This alternate use of the term is a variant of the established term "nuclear island" in conventional commercial nuclear fission based power plant design, where the plant can be said to be divided into the nuclear island, on its own basemat, with the electricity generating turbines generally being part of a separate balance of plant.
References
edit- ^ Konishi, Satoshi (2001-11-01). "Use of fusion energy as a heat for various applications". Fusion Engineering and Design. 58–59: 1103–1107. Bibcode:2001FusED..58.1103K. doi:10.1016/S0920-3796(01)00559-2. ISSN 0920-3796.
- ^ a b c "A trip to 'Fusion Island'". The Engineer. 31 October 2005. Retrieved 2023-04-22.
- ^ a b "Sustainable Hydrogen Production: A role for Fusion?". UKERC. Retrieved 2024-08-16.
- ^ a b c Nuttall, WJ; Glowacki, BA (July 2008). "Viewpoint: Fusion Island". Nuclear Engineering International. 53 (648): 38–41.
- ^ Handley, Malcolm C.; Slesinski, Daniel; Hsu, Scott C. (2021-07-10). "Potential Early Markets for Fusion Energy". Journal of Fusion Energy. 40 (2): 18. arXiv:2101.09150. Bibcode:2021JFuE...40...18H. doi:10.1007/s10894-021-00306-4. ISSN 1572-9591.
- ^ The Engineer Magazine (2005). "Fusion Island - artist's impression". Cambridge University Engineering Department.
- ^ Kyoto Fusioneering (2022). "Explanation of our contribution to a carbon-neutral society".
- ^ "Reserve-Replacement Ratio: What it Means, How it Works". Investopedia. Retrieved 2024-01-05.
- ^ Commonwealth Fusion Systems - News and Media (1 December 2021). "Commonwealth Fusion Systems Raises $1.8 Billion in Funding to Commercialize Fusion Energy".
- ^ Duggan, Wayne (23 September 2023). "Nuclear Fusion: 5 Ways to Invest in the Energy Breakthrough". US News and World Report.
- ^ "Nuclear Process Heat - World Nuclear Association". world-nuclear.org. Retrieved 2023-12-29.
- ^ Ingham, Lucy (2019-10-15). "Fusion island breakthrough may make power source viable "up to a decade sooner"". Verdict. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
- ^ Fusion, First Light. "UKAEA confirms viability of concept at heart of fusion energy reactor design | First Light Fusion". firstlightfusion.com. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
- in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
- reliable
- secondary
- independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.