Fusion future? Sandia researcher Bill Fowler tests circuits on a device designed to produce large electrical impulses rapidly and repeatedly. Groups of such devices could be used to initiate nuclear fusion. Each element of the system features a pair of large capacitors and a switch arranged in a configuration that minimizes current-slowing magnetic fields.
Randy Montoya
A new device clears an obstacle to a type of fusion power plant.
A new device could bring high-yield nuclear fusion for generating electricity a step closer to reality, according to researchers at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, NM. The technology, developed by Sandia researchers in collaboration with the Institute of High Current Electronics, in Tomsk, Russia, can deliver very brief bursts of extremely large amounts of electricity and do it every 10 seconds thousands of times in a row. The researchers still need to use the device to produce a continuous series of miniature nuclear explosions that could heat water and drive turbines in a fusion power plant.
The Sandia device stores energy in a group of large capacitors and releases it very quickly, in just 100 nanoseconds. A new kind of physical arrangement of these capacitors prevents magnetic fields from forming and slowing electrical current, a major problem with previous devices. But while acknowledging that the technology is an important advance for delivering pulses of power, several experts say a power plant based on such technology faces significant hurdles, not the least of which is building the plant sturdy enough to withstand the strong explosions going off every 10 seconds.
While scientists have long known how to produce fusion--it's the heart of the hydrogen bomb--they've yet to find a way to harness that power in a power plant. Currently, the favored path to high-yield fusion that produces more energy than it consumes involves creating an ultrahot plasma and containing it within a magnetic field. An experimental machine designed to demonstrate such a concept is being built by a large international consortium in the south of France, and it's scheduled to be completed in about 10 years. (See "International Fusion Research.") But even if the project is successful, commercial-scale fusion power plants will still be decades away, as researchers will need to find ways to economically harvest the energy released by the fusion reactions.
Meanwhile, researchers have been routinely creating small amounts of fusion in the lab using a different technique, called inertial confinement. Here fusion starts when a small pellet of fuel is compressed by a burst of energy, which can be from different sources, including lasers. At Sandia, inertial confinement is now done with the Z machine, which uses electricity to create a burst of x-rays that compress the pellet. While such machines are good for helping to simulate nuclear weapons, they produce only a modest amount of fusion, releasing only a small part of the energy in the fuel.
Researchers at a California National Lab will soon attempt to start self-sustaining fusion reactions using the world's largest lasers. If it works, it could be a first step on the road to abundant fusion power.
Now complete, the National Ignition Facility could soon create controlled fusion using lasers.
More like a spark of stupidity
What a colossal waste of resources it is to develop another fusion reactor when we have one well situated and ready to be put to use--the Sun. Why re-invent the wheel and than try to build something that can use that wheel. We already have the wheel. We only need to make use of it--the Sun.
The problem is not energy generation but rather energy utilization. The Sun provides earth with more than enough potential energy for our use today and in the foreseeable future with the cost being only the price of converting the solar energy into usable energy be it electrical, mechanical, thermal etc.
At the same time, the use of the solar energy would contribute to a reduction in the Sun's heating of Earth.
Once the fusion reactor is "perfected" by these lab rats, there will still be the present problem of converting the nuclear energy.
If the trillions being invested and to be invested in developing a fusion reactor were spent to build devices to convert the solar energy, fossil fuel utilization would sink like the Titanic.
What do you think about the Bussard's fusion-reactor research?
.
What do you think about the Bussard's fusion-reactor research?
may it work? (and soon?)
could it (really) give us CHEAP and SAFE energy?
these are two (of the many) links you can find (googling) about this concept:
http://www.geocities.com/~dmdelaney/Bussard/bussard-fusion-reactor.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/Bussard_Fusion_systems.HTML
.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
Re: What do you think about the Bussard's fusion-reactor research?
Might it work... sure. Is it likely to produce economically viable power anytime sooner than ITER... probably not. Coming up with ideas for fusion aren't that hard, as in the original Farnsworth bench top unit. It's as simple as heating up a bunch of hydrogen to a really hot temperature... the devil is in the details. It seems as if Bussard has not progressed too far down the path of discovering the details. Seems like he still needs work on confinement. Then there is the issue of getting fuel into the system and heat out. Last and certainly not least is the issue of high energy neutron bombardment of the entire apparatus. This latter aspect is a huge, hundreds of millions or billion dollar, research endeavor as part of Iter to come up with metals that can withstand that sort of abuse.
Re: What do you think about the Bussard's fusion-reactor research?
What if Bussard daisy chained his electrostatic confinement units? Then, he could attach secondary magnetic bubbles as exhaust valves to each section in the chain. These exhaust valves, if opened and shut quickly enough, can allow enough energy to escape for heating water, but not so much that you melt the hardware or blow the whole compund into the sky. Having a greater number of valves increases the ammount of energy you can harvest from an individual reaction, boosting effiecieny. Also, by dissipating energy this way, you are pacing the rate of energy buildup at the same time that you are harvesting the energy, thus reducing the the average ammount of energy required for containment at the end of the cycle.
Next, if you use the pulse fusion technology described in this article to generate the reactions, you gain an extra ammount of control over the system. This part of the process will allow you to pace the initial energy generation. And, since both technolgies are dependent on electricity, you can connect both elements in serial. By doing that, when an electrostatic confinement bubble in the chain fails, the circuit is broken and the pulse-generated fusion reactions discontinue immediately. Of course, if the bubble failed during a reaction, which is the most likely case, you might not have a power plant any more....
I'm sure that leakage flaws in the bubbles would be a serious problem, too. You would have to do some very rigourous quality testing on every production unit before using it to build a reactor. That could be done done with much weaker radient energy sources, than actual fusion, though.
Re: What do you think about the Bussard's fusion-reactor research?
It sounds like you haven't read any of the material available on IEC fusion. First,in reality fusion has nothing to do with temperature. Fusion cross section curves top out at high velocities--Monstrosities like ITER, which use temperature to increase average particle velocity to the highest part of the cross section curve, do indeed have confinement problems with hot, neutral plasma.
The whole point of IEC is limiting the majority of the plasma to a highly charged cloud of electrons in the center (acting as a virtual anode). Then you get the fuel particles (a minority of the plasma) to the required velocities by electrostatic acceleration from the virtual anode. There's much less problem confining electrons with a magnetic field than a neutral plasma.
Re: What do you think about the Bussard's fusion-reactor research?
I should add something about the other two objections you raise: fuel and neutrons
-fuel addition just happens as neutral gas injection. This is easy and standard for D-D. Once the fuel is ionized, electrostatic forces accelerate it to the center and hopefully to fusion velocities.
-fusion product removal is a concern if you don't want them reacting as well, that depends on the fuel
-neutrons are a concern for any fusion system, except the neutron-free reactions, like p-B11. This is the part that really makes me think you didn't read the Bussard material, because he covers the aneutronic rxns, and why IEC is the likely the only ones with a chance of doing it.
Re: What do you think about the Bussard's fusion-reactor research?
I really hope someone is taking notes, cause if the government paid attention to sites like this and acted on the advice, we would solve all the world's problems in no time. what we need is a huge online chatroom where only people who have at least finished high school can talk, and have the subject be some problem with technology or the world. Its like 2 heads are better than 1, just multiplied a couple thousand times.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
To all the critics that imply this is a waste of money, I would ask you to think of a United States that didn't have the world's best universities and research facilities and many of the world's best physicists.
Even if this project doesn't result in fusion energy, it (like space and defense research) is likely to produce knowledge that does yield practical applications. However, even if that were not true, projects like these are what fund our basic physics research. The money is also what creates the incentives for students to pursue physics. Sure it's government subsidy, but it's a subsidy any government would have to make if they want to remain one of the technological leaders of the world.
You're absolutely right about that. Having a pie in the sky makes a man hungry. :-)
lschuber
Explosions? Are you sure you are talking about nuclear BOMBS and not reactors?
The whole point is to contain plasma and the products of the reactions.
And we already use neutrons in fission reactors, and guess what, they work! They are trapped by water that turns to steam, that spins turbines that spins a generator that creates electric power. Also, advanced fuels will not have neutrons.
gary7
The reason why no one is really interested, is because Dr.Bussard didn't give the papers detailing his work. Without those, we have nothing but a few non-scientific (as in not going into the scientific details) papers hazy of details to base an opinion. Definitely not enough for the attention of scientific community or governments.
It's not so much as media silence as "the dude is still working on it".
And the paper isn't as surprising either, stuff like this take months to write, and Dr.Bussard has allot of data to work out.
garygromet
Photovoltics are only good as secondary power source. They can greatly cheapen the bills, but they are incapable of supplying the civilized world alone.
And photovoltics may actually be the best option, others are increasingly more ineffective, which is bad considering that the top a photovoltic cell can archive is 40% (in laboratories mind you, not in commercial use).
Beyond that, solar power is only continuous in space, while on Earth the 1/3 or more of its power is gone due to atmosphere. Solar cells are also very expensive and rather fragile.
Oh, and Earth gets allot of sunlight, enough to power the world? Well only if you place solar panels all over the Earth's surface, including cities, farm fields and oceans. They take allot of space, space that can much more useful purposes, like farms of woods.
The main problem with solar is that its a diffuse energy source, that and the fact that it has many practical problems.
The only waste of money and time I see is trying to tap into an immensely diffuse energy source with ineffective tools at the expense of land, at a price that not even the most richest countries in the world can afford, to get a little energy that can be several times gained by a few grams of plutonium.
Beyond that, repeating what you already said will make you more look stupid. Are you stupid?
rhapsodyinglue
Dr.Bussard is a nuclear physicist, over 60 years old, worked for various respected offices and companies in the USA, and he too worked on the Tokamak. If he doesn't know, then neither does the guys trying to run that white elephant called ITER.
All the problems you mentioned are the problems of ITER, not z-pinch or IEC. Injecting fuel is the easy part, the parts necessary are in your cathode-ray-tube TV or monitor (if you still have one), which "heat up" the fuel more then enough, enough even for p-B11 fusion.
And building the "metals" isn't the problem, its putting in enough lithium-6 and li-7 to cover the wall and generate tritium. Also, with more advanced fuels, neutrons won't be a problem (as there will be little to none neutrons to speak of).
zippo
If one condition of the fusion doesn't work, then there will be simply no fusion. If the reactor fails, then there is no fusions, just hot plasma, which is relatively easy to dispose of.
If confinement fails, you'll get super-hot plasma that will burn the chamber walls, perhaps a bit more, but that's it. If there is a leakage then it will won't work in the first place or if there is a leakage midway, then the air will cool down the plasma. There might be a reactor fire, perhaps some radioactive elements that goes into the building's air, but the power plant won't blow up sky high (in fact, there is no nuclear reactor that could by the nuclear reaction alone, at Chernobyl it was the graphite reacting with water).
This is a reactor, not a bomb. Know the difference.
As for being hungry, well, I'm not the only one. Guess what we will run out, and what we will be forced to use? It's not berries and wine.
Oh, and let me recommend this site: http://www.fusor.net/
People are making fusion reactors in their basements and garages below 3000$.
Guest (jeam)
A new device clears an obstacle to a type of fusion power plant
Fusion is an important future energy source, but engineering problem and problem of converting the nuclear energy will make it difficult to come up with acceptable solution in the near future.
Solar energy may be the plausible solution although the Sun is not a constant source of power.We just need to find a pratical ways to store its power and used it when needed.
Billions invested in fusion research may be well spend in solar energy technology.
Guest
A new device clears an obstacle to a type of fusion power plant
Fusion is an important future energy source, but engineering problem and problem of converting the nuclear energy will make it difficult to come up with acceptable solution in the near future.
Solar energy may be the plausible solution although the Sun is not a constant source of power.We just need to find a pratical ways to store its power and used it when needed.
Billions invested in fusion research may be well spend in solar energy technology.
Jeam
Management of radioactive waste
We need to assess the risk of management of radioactive waste by the multi-barrier system. Using knowledge of the chemical properties of the various radionuclides in spent fuel, let follows each of the important radionuclides as it travels through the many barriers placed in its path. It turns out that only two radionuclides are able to reach the biosphere, and they arrive at the earth’s surface only after many thousands of years. A careful analysis of the critical points of the disposal plan emphasizes site rejection criteria and other stages at which particular care must be taken, demonstrating how dangers can be anticipated and putting to rest the fear of nuclear fuel waste and its geological burial.
If you looked at the electrical engineering department, the harnessing of the fusion reaction heat component was solved by dr.hagel...; I am not sure the spelling. His wisdom in cold fusion derived a more efficent way to convert heat into electricity.
A semiconductor material thats magnitudes higher then thermocoupling systems. Its matter of economics now to get a sustainable heat generator to back up the sun's radiance.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
lschuber
13 Comments
Only 20 years away, as it has been for over 60 years
Add to the extremes of explosions and confinement the incredible destructive power of 14 MeV neutrons, and we end up with currently intractable engineering problems. What can be done will be done, and we will have fusion power, but only the most optimistic suppose it will happen in only a few decades.
Reply
gary7
59 Comments
Re: Only 20 years away, as it has been for over 60 years
How convient that no one seems to be interested in the work of Dr. Bussard in Re: electrostatic inertial confinement, via the Polywell reactor. I have seen nothing on this device in the popular media since Dr. Bussards speech at Google last year.
If his WB 7 and WB 8 test reactors work as he has predicted, practical controlled fusion will be a LOT closer than 20 years.
(Does the phrase "media conspiracy of silence" ring any bells?)
GAry 7
Reply
garygromet
10 Comments
Re: Only 20 years away, as it has been for over 60 years
What a colossal waste of resources it is to develop another fusion reactor when we have one well situated and ready to be put to use--the Sun. Why re-invent the wheel and than try to build something that can use that wheel. We already have the wheel. We only need to make use of it--the Sun.
The problem is not energy generation but rather energy utilization. The Sun provides earth with more than enough potential energy for our use today and in the foreseeable future with the cost being only the price of converting the solar energy into usable energy be it electrical, mechanical, thermal etc.
At the same time, the use of the solar energy would contribute to a reduction in the Sun's heating of Earth.
Once the fusion reactor is "perfected" by these lab rats, there will still be the present problem of converting the nuclear energy.
If the trillions being invested and to be invested in developing a fusion reactor were spent to build devices to convert the solar energy, fossil fuel utilization would sink like the Titanic.
Reply
colinnwn
88 Comments
Re: The sun can't do it alone
The Sun is not a constant source of power. It disappears regularly at night and sometimes during the day. Solar power is definitely one valuable leg of our future energy independence. But, right now there are no practical ways to store its power.
The sun is also relatively low density power, meaning even at double the current conversion efficiency, we would need to cover most of the land near population centers on Earth with solar cells/wind turbines/thermal collectors to meet our energy needs.
Fusion power research is money well spent, even when we end up spending trillions on it. Right now its probably closer to 100 billion. The supporting technologies drive basic scientific research that will improve lives in the coming decades. And as physics understanding progresses over centuries, we will need sources of fuel orders of magnitude larger than what the sun provides.
Reply
garygromet
10 Comments
Re: The sun can't do it alone w/ present tech
You are right that the Sun cannot do it alone; we have to produce more efficient energy collector, which we will need even for fusion reactor built here on earth.
In the future, the distribution of electricity will take place on a world wide power grid making sunsets irrelevant.
Your statement "we would need to cover most of the land near population centers on Earth with solar cells/wind turbines/thermal collectors to meet our energy needs" reminds me of Malthus forecasting mankind starving from overpopulation.
Reply
cretin001
35 Comments
Re: The sun can't do it alone w/ present tech
kind of obvious... hot air baloons or somthing like that siting right above the jet stream with wind mils undrneath to colect wind and solar panels on top... just have to focus our money and resources on making better solar panels and some kind of superstrong wire that is also a good conductor and we got enough energy assuming we don't need helium or watevr for somthing else
Reply
colinnwn
88 Comments
Re:Malthus
Failed to take into account advancements in technology. But the capacity to improve physical processes through technology isn't unlimited. There is a reasonable limit to how quickly food can grow. So Malthus was just ahead of his time.
With energy collection there is a hard limit to how much we can harvest from the environment. Right now we are capturing 10-30% from solar cells and wind turbines. But we know the energy density in sunlight and wind. Even if we were to approach 100% efficiency collecting it, we would still require massive amounts of land to meet our energy needs.
Reply
Brian H
60 Comments
Re: Only 20 years away, as it has been for over 60 years
Actually, about 2-10, depending on what you count. Distinct from the approaches mentioned above, though with family resemblances to Bussard's work, the Focus Fusion group ( http://focusfusion.org ) has just received enough current and ongoing funding to do a couple of year's intensive work (about as much as a toroidal research group would spend in a few hours, $1.2 million) which should have a proof-of-concept reactor doing better than break-even with micro-burst pB11 (proton-Boron11) reactions (at about 330/sec., within a hollow anode cylinder smaller than your thumb). With its shielding and electrical housing, etc., the whole rig will be about the size of a home garage, and output about 5MW continuously, with a few days down time once or twice a year for servicing and re-fueling. No waste or stray radiation or radioactive components generated, and output should be nicely profitable at about ¼¢/kwh.
Within 10 years, licensed factories should be turning out thousands of generators on every continent, to be trucked and installed wherever desired.
The consequences will be electrifying. World-wide. Long before your toddler finishes high school, or maybe even grade school.
Reply
garygromet
10 Comments
Re: Only 20 years away, as it has been for over 60 years
What a colossal waste of resources it is to develop another fusion reactor when we have one well situated and ready to be put to use--the Sun. Why re-invent the wheel and than try to build something that can use that wheel. We already have the wheel. We only need to make use of it--the Sun.
The problem is not energy generation but rather energy utilization. The Sun provides earth with more than enough potential energy for our use today and in the foreseeable future with the cost being only the price of converting the solar energy into usable energy be it electrical, mechanical, thermal etc.
At the same time, the use of the solar energy would contribute to a reduction in the Sun's heating of Earth.
Once the fusion reactor is "perfected" by these lab rats, there will still be the present problem of converting the nuclear energy.
If the trillions being invested and to be invested in developing a fusion reactor were spent to build devices to convert the solar energy, fossil fuel utilization would sink like the Titanic.
Reply
Dr. Orbis
7 Comments
No Fusion? No future for you!
Thing is,
if we don't perfect fusion, particularly H -> C fusion, we will eventually "fail" as a "dominating" species, e.g., no off-planet expansionist role.
We have a limited window to achieve fusion. As we run through the last of the reduced carbon and fission isotopes, the mis-match between what solar based conversion (bio, PV, wind, hydro) can generate, and what it takes to support a civilization capable of engineering fusion will become apparent w/in the next 50-250 years, resulting in a huge downsizing of population and probably civilizational complexity. That scenario leads to an eventual role as a "niche" species that now has no "cheap" power source to re-rise above agrarian complexity. Doomed forever (happily, but stupidly, truly Green).
On the other hand, figure out Hot Star fusion, we can mine the outer planets for H, use it to produce C (usable for biological expansion), and have the power (and civilizational complexity) to begin to populate our quadrant of the galaxy.
What future do you want?
Dr. Orbis
Reply
Norfintork
1 Comment
Re: No Fusion? No future for you!
And one truly wonders why an all-out, Manhattan-Project like effort is not already being funded. The ITER project is more than 10 years away from something that sort of resembles a viable model for a commercial reactor. What the US should do is start pumping tens of billions every year into our own crash fusion program – NOW. Then we can license it to ITER after we pass them up.
Another alternative is make this into an “X-Prize” project. Offer 100 billion to the first team that creates a system that can sustain and do N% above breakeven.
Reply
lowilliams
17 Comments
Re: No Fusion? No future for you!
Dr. Orbis
You have it right! Now can we convince our leaders that we need fusion? We should follow Sir David King's advice given in the NEW SCIENTIST April 10, 2004 "Fast Forward to Fusion"
In the book “The World is Flat” Tom Friedman asks for a vigorous plan to counter global warming. He suggests the Apollo moon landing program as the model for an energy development program.
This note is to alert you to the publication of my book “Global Warming Can Be Conquered” (ISBN 07 414 426 8 X). This book answers Mr. Friedman’s request.
In the book I justify the need for, and outline an ambitious plan for a new energy infrastructure called the Renewable-Fusion-Hydrogen (RFH) Energy System. This system offers TOTAL elimination of the emission of fossil carbon by 2050. It is NOT the 80% reduction by 2050, currently under discussion. The 80% reduction in carbon dioxide may slow warming but is inadequate to protect the biosphere for more than a few decades. RFH Energy System has the potential to push critical warming off for several centuries and in the interim provides all nations with energy independence.
My goal is to develop world wide interest in implementing the RFH Energy System. If you think the RFH Energy System makes sense please help me promote it by encouraging everyone you know to support its implementation. You can help by simply forward this note to everyone on your contact list, or if you buy the book lend it to others.
We must commence dramatic reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide within the next few years. If you have an alternate plan, promote it and if it is better than RFH energy I will help promote your system. We need to act!
You can review a brief outline of the system on my web site at:
www.endtoglobalwarming.com
You can send me a note at my e-mail address lowilliams@msn.com
or place one on my blog at:
http://energyindependence.home.services.spaces.live.com/default.aspx
You can buy the book “Global Warming Can Be Conquered” (ISBN 07 414 426 8 X) from the publisher for $19.95 at: www.bbotw.com
Reply
lowilliams
17 Comments
Re: Only 20 years away, as it has been for over 60 years
Your comment is footle. Mankind has wanted to fly like a bird since ancient times. It took 8000 years from the first villages for humanity to compile enough knowledge to produce the Wright Brothers. If we approach the fusion challenge with the vigor we attached to the Apollo Moon Landing I think we could have a utility, widely reproducible fusion reactor in 10 years. Look at www.endtoglobalwarming.com or read the book "Global Warming Can Be Conquered". It can be obtained at www.bbotw.com
Reply