Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

The World's Biggest Laser Powers Up

Continued from page 1

By Kevin Bullis

Thursday, March 26, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Innovative glass: The glass needed for the laser’s amplifiers was made using techniques developed specifically for the National Ignition Facility. Here are examples of melted and rough-cut neodymium-doped phosphate glass.
Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Department of Energy

Researchers have created fusion in the lab before, but their experiments required more energy than they produced. For example, a system at Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories, called the Z machine, uses electricity instead of lasers to compress hydrogen isotopes and produce fusion. A significantly larger version of the Z machine would be needed to generate more energy than it uses. Moses says that the NIF could reach fusion "gain" in just two to three years, well ahead of the more famous ITER fusion project in Cadarache, France, which likely won't be operational until 2018. "This has been a grand challenge for a long time, so hubris is the worst thing," Moses says. "But we think we see our way through it. When we get a [fusion] burn in 2010 or 2011, we'll be in a very exciting place. I think the world will wake up to the possibilities."

Moses is referring chiefly to the possibilities offered by a fusion power plant. Fusion poses no danger of nuclear proliferation, produces little waste, and uses abundant sources of fuel, so it could provide plenty of clean power for many thousands of years. Some say the fuel--hydrogen--is virtually unlimited, although proposed reactors will use tritium, a hydrogen isotope made from lithium, which is scarcer.

The current facility isn't built to generate electricity. But Moses says that with the right funding, a power plant using fusion from a system like the one at NIF could be running in a decade. In contrast, power plants based on the Z machine at Sandia or the ITER system in France are decades away.

Other experts, however, are more skeptical. "If NIF is successfully, they'll still be a very long way from turning this into a practical energy source," says Ian Hutchinson, professor and head of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. For example, he says, a power plant would require the lasers to fire much more frequently than the NIF lasers--5 to 10 times a second, rather than once every couple of days, as is possible now. (Each burst would release energy equivalent to about five kilowatt-hours of electricity: by comparison, an average nuclear power plant generates 12.4 billion kilowatt hours a year, while an average house requires about 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.)

In contrast, ITER will use magnetic confinement of hot plasma to produce fusion, a system that produces a continuous stream of energy that could be more suited to generating electricity than the very short bursts of energy produced by NIF, he says.

Whether or not it leads to fusion power plants, NIF is significant, says Stewart Prager, the director of the Department of Energy's Plasma Physics Laboratory at Princeton University. The science it will make possible "cannot be done elsewhere," he says.

Comments

  • 2-3 years?
    Time to sit back, and keep the fingers crossed.  Good luck guys.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lasertekk
    03/26/2009
    Posts:78
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Yeah, time to sit back and wait..
      another 15 years... 

      in 2-3 years they'll find out they need 5 years to design a successor even bigger machine.  Plus 15 years to build it, perhaps waiting 5 years to lobby to get it approved and added to some senator's pork barrel pet projects.

      We'll need another 15 billion adjusted for gov't pumped inflation to 30 billion to build the thing, which when repaid to bondholders costs 45 billion.

      Add in the operating billions.  People smart enuf to dink around with this are not cheap. For this facility and the next one.

      10 years after that is finished, that they'll decide that Deuterium fusion wasn't such a great idea and they'd really rather be using Helium-3 to create 2nd generation fusion plants. 

      Then they'll have to get another 15 billion, (which will be 150 billion in THEN dollars, since the feds have no appetite to tax and chinese are getting wary of lending us more money.  So they'll hyperinflate between now and THEN but that's another story)

      They'll have to strip mine the moon to get all the helium-3 needed for commercial use so that will cause a land grab on the moon and billions in expensive robotic & rocketry schemes to strip mine and get the h-3 here.  

      All making the supposedly too-cheap-to-meter fusion reactors incredibly expensive.

      I've got it! Let's stack all the money the fed prints out of nothing by pulling out of its nether-regions to lend to greedy banks who don't need it.  The massive weight will compress the earth till it spontaneously fuses, for FREE!  </sarcasm>  At least we could get this done before the scientists get their plants made.

      I'd say lets pop some self contained satellite dish sized solar panels in the desert, feed our nearby cities.  And use some to combine hydrogen from split water with CO2 from coal plants to fuel our cars with methanol.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      erbium
      04/25/2009
      Posts:110
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Source of Power? Never!
    No practical fusion power plant will ever be built using Laser or ITER technology. However, there is a technology that may result in a safe, cheap fusion power plant before Obama leaves office.
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell for details.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    GFreemanPHD
    03/26/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Optimism
    First off, I'll admit that I am a spokesman for NIF. But even if I wasn't, I'd still be an enthusiast for fusion energy. At this point, all 192 beams have simultaneously been successfully fired into the center of the target chamber, at  the expected energy levels. NIF is on target as a proof-of-concept for fusion ignition. It's a safer, cleaner, and proliferation-free technology that is still in its early stages. Yes, it will take two years or so to achieve energy gain, and years afterwards to build a fusion power plant. But in the end, it will be worth it.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    bobhirschfel...
    03/26/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Inertial Fusion is not just NIF
    I am heartened by the recent publicity of inertial fusion energy as NIF approaches full operation. But just like Tom Friedman's Op-Ed in the NY Times recently, this article doesn't mention that there are other significant efforts in the US to develop inertial confinement fusion - in particular ones that are primarily focused on developing power plants, as opposed to having that as a collateral benefit to weapons research.

    For example, the High Average Power Laser (HAPL) program is developing all the methodologies discussed in this article, including target fabrication & injection, more efficient KrF lasers and rapid repetition rates, etc. It's also a direct-drive system, which is less messy and more efficient for power generation, but isn't as effective for simulating weapons.

    Yes, I am involved in HAPL... Or rather I was ... until Congress zeroed its funding a month or so ago. Now instead of engineering I'm trying to make folks aware of this research and its potential so we don't lose years of hard work.

    (HAPL PDF: http://fire.pppl.gov/fpa07_sethian_hapl.pdf)
    Rate this comment: 12345

    njhahn
    03/26/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • Money Pit
    From a pure research perspective I don't have a problem with this, but not when funding this costs funding for Geothermal, BioFuel, Solar, and Wind research.  This one project probably cost more than entire research budget for Geothermal for the past 50 years. We have a nearly 7900 KM wide nuclear powered furnace under our feet that doesn't cause waste disposal problems and will never run out of fuel in ten thousand generations. This is what we should be spending money on. Until they can fit a fusion power plant in car or airplane, it is essentially a billion dollar boondoggle.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jmaximus9
    03/28/2009
    Posts:83
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Money Pit
         Good point, Geo-thermo should be explored. Amazingly, the oil companies with their depth of expertise in drilling are actually in the best position to spec out a geo-thermo well.
         Aside, you must make bets on many different technologies, Nuclear, Fusion, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and can not bet on just one.
         For instance, what if Fusion is possible and can be made small enough to fuel watercraft, spacecraft, or remote cities?
        What possibilities would that open up?

      Brian Glassman
      Innovation Management
      Commercialization of technology
      Rate this comment: 12345

      briang1621
      03/29/2009
      Posts:121
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • spiderman science
    and i thought the science in spiderman was fallible, turns out it really can be done! who would have thought
    Rate this comment: 12345

    camdaddy09
    03/29/2009
    Posts:37
    Avg Rating:
    3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Prescription: Networking
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.