Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Laser Fusion in 'Two Years'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Laser Fusion in 'Two Years'

    "The world could be on the brink of finding a new, efficient source of clean energy.

    Dr Ed Moses, director of the National Ignition Facility in California, and Sir Peter Knight, president of the Institute of Physics, explain how nuclear fusion could transform the world's energy needs."

    BBC News - Today - Nuclear fusion 'will work'

    "The UK has formally joined forces with a US laser lab in a bid to develop clean energy from nuclear fusion.

    Unlike fission plants, the process uses lasers to compress atomic nuclei until they join, releasing energy.

    The National Ignition Facility (Nif) in the US is drawing closer to producing a surplus of energy from the idea.

    The UK company AWE and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory have now joined with Nif to help make laser fusion a viable commercial energy source.

    At a meeting this week sponsored by the Institute of Physics and held at London's Royal Society, a memorandum of understanding was announced between the three facilities.

    The meeting attracted scientists and industry members in an effort to promote wider UK involvement with the technology that would be required to make laser fusion energy plants possible.

    "This is an absolutely classic example of the connections between really high-grade theoretical scientific research, business and commercial opportunities, and of course a fundamental human need: tackling pressures that we're all familiar with on our energy supply," said David Willetts, the UK's science minister.

    The idea of harvesting energy from nuclear fusion is an old one.

    The UK has a long heritage in a different approach to accomplishing the same goal, which uses magnetic fields; it is home to the Joint European Torus (Jet), the largest such magnetic facility in the world and a testing ground for Iter, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.

    But magnetic fusion attempts have in recent years met more and more constricting budget concerns, just as Nif was nearing completion.

    Part of the problem has been that the technical ability to reach "breakeven" - the point at which more energy is produced than is consumed - has always seemed distant. Detractors of the idea have asserted that "fusion energy is 50 years away, no matter what year you ask".

    But Mr Willetts told the meeting that was changing.

    "I think that what's going on both in the UK and in the US shows that we are now making significant progress on this technology," he said. "It can't any longer be dismissed as something on the far distant horizon."

    The Rutherford Appleton Lab is where the idea of fusion energy was first proved, and both that laboratory and the AWE play host to high-intensity lasers that can act as proving grounds for future technology.
    Ignition keys

    The laser fusion idea uses pellets of fuel made of isotopes of hydrogen called deuterium and tritium. A number of lasers are fired at the pellets in order to compress the fuel to just hundredths of its starting size.

    In the process, the hydrogen nuclei fuse to create helium and fast-moving subatomic particles called neutrons whose energy, in the form of heat, can be captured and used for the comparatively old-fashioned idea of driving a steam turbine.
    Continue reading the main story
    Laser fusion at Nif - the basics
    NIF hohlraum (LLNL)

    192 laser beams are focused through holes in a target container called a hohlraum
    Inside the hohlraum is a 2mm pellet containing an extremely cold mixture of hydrogen isotopes
    Lasers strike the hohlraum's walls, which in turn radiate X-rays
    The X-rays strip material from the outer shell of the fuel pellet, heating it up to millions of degrees
    The escaping material compresses the fuel by hundreds of times
    If the compression of the fuel is high enough and uniform enough, the hydrogen isotopes can fuse, creating helium and releasing "hot" neutrons

    Giant laser experiment powers up

    The aim is to achieve "ignition" of the fuel for which Nif is named - a self-sustaining fusion reaction that would far surpass breakeven.

    Nif's director Ed Moses told the meeting that ignition was drawing ever nearer.

    "Our goal is to have ignition within the next couple of years," he said.

    "We've done fusion at fairly high levels already. Even on Sunday night, we did the highest fusion yield that has ever been done."

    Dr Moses said that a single shot from the Nif's laser - the largest in the world - released a million billion neutrons and produced for a tiny fraction of a second more power than the world was consuming.

    But for ignition, that number would need to rise by about a factor of 1,000.

    The UK leads the High-Power Laser Energy Research (Hiper), a pan-European project begun in 2005 to move laser fusion technology toward a commercial plant.

    "We recognised several years ago with Nif... and the ignition that was likely to occur, that the profile of fusion would be raised," said John Collier, the director of Hiper.

    "We were thinking: 'what would be a way forward, how could Europe define a strategic route for laser power production to take advantage of these developments?' And that was the kernel of Hiper."

    Both Hiper and Life, a similar effort at Nif, estimate that a functioning laser power plant would need to cycle through more than 10 fuel pellets each second - a million each day. Nif, since its completion in 2009, has undertaken only 305 such shots in its quest for ignition.

    Professor Collier said the technological challenges that presented were incredible opportunities.

    "The BMW plant in Oxford is producing one Mini a minute - you think of the complexity of that and you wouldn't think that's possible," he said.

    "But these are tractable things; Lego bricks, bullets - these things are made in huge quantities and there are huge intellectual property opportunities for those people, those industries that get in.""


    BBC News - UK joins laser nuclear fusion project

    A non laser attempt to do the same ITER - the way to new energy has run into budget trouble...

    I always thought this was wishful thinking but when scientists start predicting 18 months to 2 years it seems pretty clear they think it is doable...

  • #2
    Ever since I was 10 years old, they've been promising fusion "in just a few more years." The worst moment was the Pons & Fleischman cold fusion announcement a while back.

    I've got this weird feeling that we'll never make fusion work, it'll always be out of reach. Very discouraging.

    Comment


    • #3
      Chogy hit the nail on the head: as long as I have been cognizant, the mantra has been "fusion in 10 years and Man on Mars in 20 years".

      Perfection of a fission economy seems like a more worthwhile goal at this point.

      Sure, fusion would be nice but looking for the solution to today's problems tomorrow at great cost without a predictable delivery date is not really productive. Fusion research should certainly proceed, IMO, but with finite resources available and looming issues at hand, we should be focusing on what we can do more than what we cannot.

      Fusion power will still face bigger hurdles: the Neo Luddites will rail against it because it is nuclear power. The Democrats and Republicans will do what they always do in such situations: trade prosperity for all for the votes of a few.

      William
      Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by snapper View Post
        Nif's director Ed Moses told the meeting that ignition was drawing ever nearer.

        "Our goal is to have ignition within the next couple of years," he said.

        "We've done fusion at fairly high levels already. Even on Sunday night, we did the highest fusion yield that has ever been done."
        Getting past break even is one thing, actual viable production is probably just as difficult if not more than getting a positive energy balance in the first place. This is not a prototype for a real power plant, and never will be, as made clear by this:

        Both Hiper and Life, a similar effort at Nif, estimate that a functioning laser power plant would need to cycle through more than 10 fuel pellets each second - a million each day. Nif, since its completion in 2009, has undertaken only 305 such shots in its quest for ignition.
        Professor Collier said the technological challenges that presented were incredible opportunities.

        "The BMW plant in Oxford is producing one Mini a minute - you think of the complexity of that and you wouldn't think that's possible," he said.

        "But these are tractable things; Lego bricks, bullets - these things are made in huge quantities and there are huge intellectual property opportunities for those people, those industries that get in.""
        Er...:pari: Yeah, mass production of Legos=designing a machine to shoot 10 tiny pellets a second with incredible precision, and that can retain this precision for years, under Sun-like temperatures and constant bombardment with high energy neutrons...yeah... :pari:

        I always thought this was wishful thinking but when scientists start predicting 18 months to 2 years it seems pretty clear they think it is doable...
        Fusion power is doable, I think, and this is doable, and might even help lead toward fusion power. But it ain't fusion power, not by a long shot.
        I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just saw this come up today:

          E-Cat

          I'll take it with a good dose of salt, for now, but if it pans out...

          Ed-

          Comment


          • #6
            An analogy: The fusion power plants we have been pursuing (tokamak like systems) could be compared to jet engines - a continuous combustion process. The laser fusion approach is more like a reciprocating engine - it would burn fuel pellets sequentially. This might make laser fusion more suitable to propulsion, and less convenient for grid power generation. The fuel pellets could be more expensive than bulk fuel consumed by a magnetic confinement reactor.
            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

            Comment


            • #7
              There are couple of start-ups I have read about including at least one in the US (name escapes me) and one in Canada (General Fusion?) that are looking at designs for fusion reactors that are supposed to be both cheaper and less complex than the more familiar and big budget "tokamak" programs. Maybe they will work maybe not. The biggest problem with any fusion reactor that I have heard of is that even if they work they tend to destroy their containment verssels over time. As they are designed high speed neutrons are produced by the fusion reaction and then travel through the magnetic containment fields to the reactor wall where they are used to heat water for steam. The trouble as I understand it is that these neutrons also stike the metal alloy walls of the containment vessels on the way and damage its structure with the result that over time the reactor vessel literally starts to fall apart. So if its going to work someone will have to come up with a design that produces a hell of a lot of power in a relativly short period of time compared to say a coal or gas fired station because the useful like of the reactor is going to be pretty short in comparison. Have I got my facts right anyone?
              Last edited by Monash; 18 Oct 11,, 09:53.
              If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Monash View Post
                Have I got my facts right anyone?
                Yes. Material research is a big part of ITER's research program. Nobody knows how long walls will survive under heavy neutron and heat load.
                Winter is coming.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Swift Sword
                  the mantra has been "fusion in 10 years and Man on Mars in 20 years".
                  To be fair, who's mantra. I was at a lecture by an expert 4 years ago and he put the timeline at 40 - 50 years. I am not sure the mainstram scientific community, if they got proper coverage would be so optimistic or lightly throw around numbers like 10 years, then again when it comes to getting funding, who knows these days. Also, when someone provides a deadline estimate, they really need to be specific about what they exacty expect to be achieved. Fusion in 10 or fusion in 50 is a loose statement. Furthermore, one has to take into consideration all future funding in the area of research. Financially, fusion has been hit hard in the past.

                  as AG says, viable commercial power plants is a totally different ball game.
                  Last edited by tantalus; 18 Oct 11,, 12:16.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Typical U235 fission events are 200 MeV, but the charged heavy daughters carry most of this (easily contained by the core, being translated to heat) and the neutrons are around 1 MeV. The fusion event they are trying to use (D-T) produces most of its energy as neutrons of about 14 MeV (there are many others, stars use a much more complex process for instance). So the D-T neutrons are about 14 times more energetic. But each nuclear reaction is weaker, so there will need to be many more for a similar output. Neutrons are a poor way to heat things, the charged particles do a much better job.
                    Nuclear fission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    Nuclear technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    No one (we know of) has built a fusion reactor yet, so the fusion radiation "problem" is still theoretical (fission radiation problems have been addressed well enough to make that a working technology). I don't think radiation embrittlement is the problem at this point. Ignition and sustained combustion are still pending. Many scientists would love to "solve" the radiation problems, once they are seen - annealing is one good idea. Fuel for fusion is cheap, but the reactors appear to be very expensive at this point (compared to fission). From what we know now, it does not appear that a fusion reactor will be very much like a fission reactor, the idea of using cooling water to run turbines is not the only way or even the best way to extract the fusion power - the charged particles from the reactions might be used to produce electricity directly.
                    Nuclear fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    Results of the Phaedrus Programme (this is the project I worked on, this is a 1985 summary, it was canceled in 1995)
                    http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm716.pdf

                    Other kinds of continuous reactors have been tried, magnetic mirrors were built for a time, until the losses were made apparent - they had no hope of working. The tokamak seems to be a good design, but other ideas have been studied as well (like laser fusion). The only "working" fusion designs today are thermonuclear weapons.
                    Magnetic mirror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    The effort to build fission reactors was huge, we haven't invested like that in fission, it could be that one or more other breakthroughs must precede a working fusion reactor. It would have been nearly impossible to build a fission reactor with 1890's tech, perhaps we are in a similar situation today? IMO, two years from now is unlikely for a working power plant design. Laser fusion is more like a weapon.
                    Inertial confinement fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    The Discovery of Fission - Moments of Discovery
                    FusEdWeb | Fusion Education
                    ANS / Publications / Journals / Fusion Science and Technology
                    http://www.fusionenergy.net.au/

                    Time lines: Fission was discovered (1938) after about 5 decades of radiation research, then a very expensive international effort, five years later, advanced the progress greatly. The 3 year long Manhattan Project led to plutonium production reactors (and weapons). It took another decade to build a working power reactor (USS Nautilus). About 70 years from the beginning of serious efforts on fission - it was working. Fusion is more difficult, it powers stars, vs warming regions of a planet (ancient uranium deposits in Africa). It is hard to predict when it will serve us in man-made fashion (it already serves/supports us via the Sun). If it took only 70 years, we still have to wait about a decade.
                    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 18 Oct 11,, 15:16.
                    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As I recall, cold fusion was one of the biggest scientific scandals of the 20th century.

                      Hence today, I am told, investors are typically hesitant to fund more research in this area. Here is an online article which gives the details -- A Nuclear Reactor in Every Home? | Feature | Chicago Reader

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We have far too much oil and coal for fusion to be a reality. I just can not see the major players in the energy business volunteering to pass on the hundreds of trillions still to be made on oil and coal. A hundred years from now when most of the oil and coal are nearing their use as a moneymaker, fusion will be miraculously pulled out of someone's hat.
                        Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X