Fusion's False Dawn - A working fusion reactor might not be possible (Scientific American)

[heli]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fusions-false-dawn

Scientific American | March 2010 Issue
Fusion's False Dawn
Scientists have long dreamed of harnessing nuclear fusion — the power plant of the stars — for a safe, clean and virtually unlimited energy supply. Even as a historic milestone nears, skeptics question whether a working reactor will ever be possible
By Michael Moyer

Ignition is close now. Within a year or two the 192 laser beams at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) — the world’s largest and most powerful laser system, a 13-year, $4-billion enterprise — will focus their energy onto a pellet no bigger than a peppercorn. Energy from the laser beams will crush the pellet’s core with such force that the hydrogen isotopes inside will fuse together and release energy, an H-bomb in miniature.

The trick has been tried before — and with success. But every time scientists have fused together these isotopes, they have had to pump far more energy into the lasers than the reaction spat out. This time the ledger will flip. The boom at the pellet’s center will release more energy than the lasers squeezed in, a switch more important than mere accounting would suggest. In theory, this excess energy could be collected and made to run a power plant. Its fuel would be materials found in ordinary seawater; its emissions — both atmospheric and nuclear — would be zero. It would be like capturing a star to run the machines of the earth. It would feed humanity’s endless thirst for energy, and it would do so forever.

Construction has also begun at the world’s other major fusion facility, a $14-billion project based outside the village of Cadarache in the south of France. ITER (pronounced “eater”) will not rely on a vise of lasers; its superconducting magnets will hold hydrogen isotopes together and heat them to 150 million degrees Celsius — 25,000 times hotter than the surface of the sun. This experiment is also expected to produce a net energy gain. Moreover, unlike the laser system’s intermittent bursts of energy, magnets will be able to hold the plasma together for tens or perhaps hundreds of seconds, generating a continuous blaze of power.

The achievements will be a milestone in the quest, fervent since the dawn of the nuclear age, to tame the processes at work in the center of stars and manipulate them for our own ends. Yet the flash of ignition may be the easy part. There is a growing recognition among veteran fusion scientists that the challenges of constructing and operating a fusion-based power plant could be more severe than the physics challenge of generating the fireballs in the first place. Some physicists who are not directly involved with fusion research question whether the feat is possible even in theory. A working reactor would have to be made of materials that can withstand temperatures of millions of degrees for years on end. It would be constantly bombarded by high-energy nuclear particles —conditions that turn ordinary materials brittle and radioactive. It has to make its own nuclear fuel in a complex breeding process. And to be a useful energy-producing member of the electricity grid, it has to do these things pretty much constantly — with no outages, interruptions or mishaps — for decades on end...

[Teaser]

1. Stil worth pursuing

These are engineering problems. Difficult, yes, but worth the research. And solving them is what engineers are for.

[bhikkhu]

11. given the limited funds available for alternatives, maybe no

if you read or have followed the history of fusion research, it has been draining the R&D funding pool dry for decades without producing anything of value. It is arguable that if we had put the same time and money into solar the technology would be decades ahead now.

"Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking" by Seife is a very good read, and a good overview.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Depends on the sort of "fusion" we're talking about

There's been a lot of money spent on "big fusion." (ex. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak">Tokomak")

On the other hand, relatively little has been spent on "small fusion." (ex. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell">polywell.")

[tridim]

2. Cold fusion is hot again

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4967330n

The Sun is a working fusion reactor. Proof of concept is already done.

[tinrobot]

10. The sun isn't a cold fusion reactor...

But the 60 Minutes report was interesting. Looks like Pons and Fleishmann were right.

[On the Road]

3. It is a Daunting Task

but even if it turns out to be impossible, there are other possibilities for harnessing atomic forces. One is using boron in a kind of fusion-fission process:



It has its own pitfalls, like a greater ingition temperature. But still, one of these methods is bound to work.

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/35/

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Personally, I'm pulling for Nebel and co. at EMC2

http://www.google.com/search?q=nebel+fusion

[On the Road]

5. Man, I Hope One of These Things Works

You read an article in the press about some new technology and it sounds like it will change the world. Then, years later, after nothing has happened, you find out that there's some hideously large obstacle that's always been standing in the way of ever producing it.

Small-scale and cold fusion is still not out of the question, but it's still a long shot.

Personally, in 30 years I think a lot of electric energy is going to be coming from thorium fission. It builds on the exeperience gained with uranium fission but has none of the drawbacks in fissile materials, material scarcity, or radiation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Of the various small fusion efforts, I feel best about "Polywell"/"Bussard" fusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#Recent_US_Navy_funded_work

[scubadude]

7. I think Fission is the way to go. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

They burn Thorium, a relatively abundant element, in a liquid cycle that enables them to chemically remove contaminants while in liquid phase. Produce roughly 1/1000 as much waste as current reactors. They will also solve our current waste dilemma, just burn it in LFTR reactor. Inherently safe. Operates at atmospheric pressure and self regulates. We have already run reactors like this for many years cheaply and easily.

This one is the way to go. Deserves much more attention than fusion in my estimation.

See a great google talk here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

Scuba

[GliderGuider]

8. God I hope the skeptics are right.

The last thing the other species on this planet need is a bunch of hairless apes with Rift Valley genetics and fusion power.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. You think they'd be better off

with "a bunch of hairless apes" burning every single last bit of coal?

(Really?)

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Lets do both

It's the only way to be sure.

[GliderGuider]

15. That's exactly what I think we would do

As long as carbon-based energy sources remained cheaper and/or more effective than fusion-sourced electricity in some places and for some purposes, we'd continue to use them alongside fusion power. In fact, any displacement of fossil fuels by other energy sources serves to reduce the cost of fossil fuels. That makes them more affordable to the energy-hungry poor of the world, and thereby ensures their continued use.

This is a moot point, though, because fusion power is still the same 30 years away it's always been.

Our best hope, in my mind, is the simultaneous introduction of wind/solar electricity and a global grass-roots ecological awakening that will drive a bottom-up shift to lower human activity levels. Without such an awakening, activity levels will generally not go down because it will be in many peoples' interests to keep increasing them, and the Prisoner's Dilemma comes into play. Fortunately the awakening has a better chance of being realized than fusion power, because at least it's already happening.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. The 30 years away figure depends on what we count as its "arrival"

For example, if the folks at EMC2 had an announcement tomorrow (they won't) a roll-out would take some time. They won't have an announcement tomorrow, but there's a chance they might have net energy production in a few years' time.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/interview-dr-richard-nebel-of.html

May 05, 2009
Interview Dr. Richard Nebel of IEC/Bussard Fusion Project by Sander Olson

...

Question: How close are you to creating a fusion machine capable of actual energy generation?
Answer: We are hoping to have a net energy production product within six years. It could take longer, but this definitely won't be a 50 year development project.

...

If the folks at NIF announced tomorrow that they were successful in producing sustained fusion (they won't) a roll-out would take even longer, however, an announcement of successful fusion may be this year.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100128-nuclear-fusion-power-lasers-science/

Fusion Power a Step Closer After Giant Laser Blast

Nuclear fusion plant possible within a decade, physicist says.

Ker Than
for National Geographic News
Published January 28, 2010

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. No, that's not good scientific method

You have no control group.

[GliderGuider]

18. Maybe not, but it's good old human nature... nt

[joshcryer]

14. And oil, and natural gas, and oil shale, and finally baby animals and trees.

[jjcrain]

19. Supporters say it isn't a question of if, but when - Today's WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575039330758722368.html

FEBRUARY 22, 2010
A Future for Fusion?
Supporters say it isn't a question of if, but when
By LEIA PARKER

It's a tall order, but scientists at an English industrial complex near Oxford are attempting to develop an energy source that replicates the sun. The problem isn't whether fusion can work: It does. Scientists have successfully released energy from light atoms by fusing their nuclei together. The special reactor at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in England holds the world record for most fusion power produced. The problem is turning fusion into a viable large-scale energy source—one that is economical, clean and safe. That is still somewhere over the horizon. After decades of research and billions of dollars in public financing, no fusion experiment yet has been able to generate more energy than it consumed in the process.

Britain's Green Party, for one, doesn't rule out "big-stick" solutions like fusion power as potential energy sources in the future. But the party would rather see the U.K. government investing in renewable energy sources that work already, says James Abbott, the party's science and technology spokesman. "Our main concern is it's obviously an expensive and highly specialized form of energy production, and it's still at an experimental stage," he says.

Fusion's supporters, however, include the governments of the European Union, U.S. and China, and they are funding fusion research at a rate of roughly $1 billion a year in total. The world's leading magnetic-confinement fusion project is at Culham, where scientists are, not surprisingly, optimistic. "Once we know how to do fusion, which ultimately we will, it will clearly dominate energy production," says Steven Cowley, director of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy and chief executive officer of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority.....

Meanwhile, a much larger project, capable of producing far more power than JET, is under construction in Cadarache, France. Experiments at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor—to be housed in a building 19 stories tall with five more stories below ground—are scheduled to begin in 2018. ITER is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars, funded by the governments of the European Union, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the U.S. These governments are issuing ITER contracts to businesses in their own countries. They want the project to broadly stimulate high-technology industries around the world, says Neil Calder, the project's communications head. The majority of contracts will be signed in the next four to five years, he says. The initial goal for ITER is to generate some 500 megawatts of power for extended periods, enough in theory for roughly 500,000 homes. But more important, ITER hopes to achieve the breakthrough that so far has eluded fusion researchers: a reaction that generates more power than it consumes. And if that succeeds, ITER plans a demonstration power plant—capable of producing at least two gigawatts—that could be functioning by 2040, Mr. Calder says....

[Terry in Austin]

20. Fusion, the greedy grail

Somehow, we feel entitled to abundant energy. And the prospect of unlimited energy offered by fusion, well, ohboy-hotdamn!

After all, more's better, right? Greed is good, the story goes.

Trouble is, the (temporarily) unlimited energy of oil drove our population to its present level. It's already busting the global britches, and with a permanent supply of abundant energy, well, the overpopulation we've got now will seem like just a pale preview.

At some point, more is not better -- more becomes toxic. If we're not already there, we're pretty darned close.

I'd say be careful what you wish for. Maybe it's not too late to start thinking in terms of "just enough."

[Nihil]

22. Agreed.

It would be far more hopeful if there was significant progress on
conservation *before* any "free lunch" solution like fusion becomes
viable on a global scale ...

(Not that I think we'll get to the latter before the population starts
to be involuntarily cut anyway but the principle still remains.)

[madokie]

21. I've always seen it as

Hey look at that shinny object over there. If you look back to the dawn of the nuclear age fusion has most all the same talking points as did nuclear energy then. Its a sham, pure and simple. Well maybe man will be able to do fusion on a large scale but it won't be in our life times and it won't help us with our present problem of GW. Nuclear energy is neither safe nor clean.

[wtmusic]

23. Leave it to SA to come up with that idiotic headline.

It "might not be possible". It that like "Some say it's not possible"? :eyes:

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. One of my favorite faux headlines from the newspapers in Sim City 2000

Naysayers say "Nay"

(Bad headlines are more the rule than the exception. Remember the recent Science Today headline that said that atmospheric CO2 levels were not increasing?)

[wtmusic]

25. Love it!

:thumbsup:

[kristopher]

26. I don't follow that logic.

If fusion were market ready or even on the cusp of entering the deployment stage - in other words if it were actually able to produce a positive net energy balance - then you might have some sort of point.

However given the rate of advances in fusion, to write an article in a popular science magazine that is intended to focus on the arguments of those who see little practical promise in this technology seems reasonable. It is clearly identified as such in the headline. That, of course, contrasts sharply with the stealth misinformation campaign that the Nuclear Energy Institute wages against renewable energy sources.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Net energy balance = cusp of entering the deployment stage?

From the article:

...

Ignition is close now. Within a year or two the 192 laser beams at the National Ignition Facility (NIF)—the world’s largest and most powerful laser system, a 13-year, $4-billion enterprise—will focus their energy onto a pellet no bigger than a peppercorn. Energy from the laser beams will crush the pellet’s core with such force that the hydrogen isotopes inside will fuse together and release energy, an H-bomb in miniature.

The trick has been tried before—and with success. But every time scientists have fused together these isotopes, they have had to pump far more energy into the lasers than the reaction spat out. This time the ledger will flip. The boom at the pellet’s center will release more energy than the lasers squeezed in, a switch more important than mere accounting would suggest. In theory, this excess energy could be collected and made to run a power plant. Its fuel would be materials found in ordinary seawater; its emissions—both atmospheric and nuclear—would be zero. It would be like capturing a star to run the machines of the earth. It would feed humanity’s endless thirst for energy, and it would do so forever.

...

The question which some raise is whether a practical power plant can be constructed, not whether a net energy gain can be realized.


From NIF:
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2010/NR-10-01-06.html

...

“This accomplishment is a major milestone that demonstrates both the power and the reliability of NIF’s integrated laser system, the precision targets and the integration of the scientific diagnostics needed to begin ignition experiments,” said NIF Director Ed Moses. “NIF has shown that it can consistently deliver the energy required to conduct ignition experiments later this year.”

NIF’s next step is to move to ignition-like fuel capsules that require the fuel to be in a frozen hydrogen layer (at 425 degrees Fahrenheit below zero) inside the fuel capsule. NIF is currently being made ready to begin experiments with ignition-like fuel capsules in the summer of 2010.

NIF (lasers.llnl.gov), the world’s largest laser facility, is the first facility expected to achieve fusion ignition and energy gain in a laboratory setting. NIF is an essential part of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Stockpile Stewardship Program, which ensures the reliability and safety of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile without live testing. NIF experiments will also be used to conduct astrophysics and basic science research and to develop carbon-free, limitless fusion energy.

...

[kristopher]

28. I think my meaning is pretty clear.

Achieving a flash of excess energy and being where you produce a positive net energy balance that puts you near the deployment stage are distinctly different concepts.

If you just want to kick your posts, why not just kick your posts instead of making inane, nit-picking type remarks. Better to appear eager to spread knowledge than a bit soft.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. I don't intend to get into a pissing battle

You said,

If fusion were market ready or even on the cusp of entering the deployment stage - in other words if it were actually able to produce a positive net energy balance - then you might have some sort of point.

...

The article said that this is different from all previous fusion attempts in that it will produce a positive net energy balance.

As for "kicking (my) posts," this isn't my thread.

Check your facts before making wild charges.