Slashdot Mirror
New Advances Bring Fusion Closer to Reality
An anonymous reader writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports on new advances in nuclear fusion research. For years we've been waiting for the technical breakthroughs that would make cost-effective fusion energy a reality. Are we getting close, or are the problems insurmountable?"
While I believe that fusion will likely be the only sustainable energy source as our current supplies of oil and uranium eventually run out, nuclear fission is about the only 'safe' alternative in the meantime. Generating many orders of magnitude less radioactive waste than current fossil fuel plants, they are inherently better for the environment on a purely objective level.
What I object to, though, is the insinuation that we are the ones splitting the nuclei of the radioactive elements. These things are radioactive precisely because of their tendency to decay and in fact split themselves. They don't even split into other elements. You can't turn uranium into gold, for example, even though it ought to be a straightforward process of splitting off the required number of protons from each atom (if the "we're splitting atoms" camp claims are correct).
We use the heat generated by the decay of radioactive elements to fuel our generators. We do nothing like smashing atoms into smaller bits.
Just a pet peeve of mine whenever I see a nuclear power article.
It's not a theological magazine, it's an actual newspaper. The have World/US/Science/etc news.
r .html
http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monito
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
No, "Christian Science Monitor". It's a newspaper, and a highly respected one at that. You know, newspapers? Those paper things that get delivered to your neighbors and your local library? You should turn off the computer once in a while and check that place out. You'd be surprised what you might learn!
"What is the failure mode for a collapsed fusuion capable magnetic field?"
The plasma disperses and the fusion stops. What do you think happens when they shut the field down now after their tests?
"Wow, these are bad, very very very bad also."
Really? Why?
"The folks that came to our little burg for a 'rah rah' meeting claimed that power would be so cheap, it wouldn't be metered."
And it would have been had the anti-nuclear nutters who stopped the whole thing in its tracks. Yes 3 mile island happened and then chernobyl. So what? When an airliner crashes 400 people die. Do we stop all flight? Tens of thousands of people die in car crashes every year. Do we ban cars? No.
"The situation with nuclear power has not changed just becuase we are looking at 'new and improved' fusion"
If the halfwitted political loudmouths of society can be convinced this new form is "better" than the old form (whether it is or not) then we may get somewhere with it. If it ever works that is.
...on the history of the Christian Science Monitor.
My understanding is that it is one of the oldest and longest running *actual* news sources that has remained rather committed to the *actual* scientific truth, not the false truth pushed by Born Again Christian Fundamentalists.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
It is not a theological magazine. CSM has been known for decades as a solid newspaper, and has won several Pulitzers for its accurate reporting.
"Airplanes have always been 15 years away, and always will be" - John Doe circa 1880
With observations like that in reputable news sources like the Economist it is no wonder that investment in fusion waxes and wanes. People want a return on investment before the next election, not 30 years from now.
I'm sorry, we're looking at a theological magazine for technical articles?
I'm a total atheist, but the Christian Science Monitor is an extremely good publication, very independent.
It was apparently originally founded by a wealthy and religious woman about a century back. It is owned by a church, but you couldn't tell from the content. What you can tell is that it's not just another news organization for which profit is the all important thing.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Non-belief in a god != Belief God doesn't exist. Atheism is not the same as a religion. How many times must this fallacy be repeated? Not being a football player does not make me an athlete. Not collecting stamps does not make me a hobbiest. Not writing a book does not make me an author. Get it? Not believing in a god/God does not make me religious.
There is such a thing as non-religious. And it has nothing to do with faith. Its called atheism.
That's right. All your base.
IANANP (I am not a nuclear physicist) but a lot of people don't seem to know much about fusion so here are some links which explain a bit more about it:
l / fusion.html f usion
http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion2.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_
http://www.fusion.org.uk/
http://www.iter.org/
I have a sneaking suspicion that the article meant to refer to SILICON carbide.
Silicon and Silicone are often confused.
OTOH, perhaps this will be the next big thing. Talk about too hot to handle...
-j
That isn't a problem any more. The EU decided a few weeks ago to build ITER in france by themselves and inviting the Japanese to join if they like (dont know what's happening with the US participation, but considering that they didn't join until a short while ago and wasn't paying much anyway it hardly matters)
The Joint European Torus (JET) fusion lab in Culham, Oxfordshire, UK 'jumped' a few years ago. The plasma touched the wall of the reactor vessel and dissipated. The entire reactor 'jumped', and the event is visible on seismograph traces. (The reactor, in total, was quite heavy)
This is not good for the retaining magnets - the magnetic field quenches, and the energy goes into heating up the magnets. Even the superconducting (and therefore cooled) ones warm up - boiling off a lot of refrigerant, and possibly/prbably distorting/damaging the coils..
Afer this event, th reactor was shut down for a long period (I think months), while the coils were checked for damage and realigned.
As for the amount of energy in the plasma itself - it's relatively small. Although the temperature is high, the particle density is actually quite low, so the total energy contained is (relatively) small. It *won't* go up like a hydrogen bomb.
The core lining in JET was lithium. It gets mildly radioactive due to being bombarded by neutrons all the time, but this is not a big deal. The neutron activation of the concrete and steel rebar used in the construction of the core (it has to withstand high mechanical forces from the magnetic fields) is more of an issue.
The plasma isn't meant to touch the tokamak wall, as it causes long and expensive downtime, but it's not as catastophic as (say) setting light to an oil well.
I am a Nuclear Enginneer,and work in Britain on the Joint European Torus Fusion Device. Check it out... http://www.fusion.org.uk When we fuse together the hydrogen, the helium formed is more stable and highly energetic. The thing to consider here is potential energy too. Just as there is chemical potential energy in the gun powder of a bullet, which allows the weapon to be fully automatic, so there too is nuclear potential energy. For large enough plasmas it is possible to use the highly energetic helium to sustain the fusion reaction, in a process known as ignition, so more energy can be retrieved than was put in. If all energies are considered, no laws are violated. You are right about the electricity generating process. The use of steam pressure and turbines is limited by the laws of thermodynamics, namely the Carnot cycle, so can only ever be approximately 40% efficient. The next step is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). As the politicians couldn't decide whether to build it in Japan or France, Europe has declared its going to build it anyway, and we're now just waiting for people to take sides :)
What are the civilian applications?
I'm a dyed in the wool athiest, but apparently half the people on /. have never left the basement long enough to realize the 'Christian Science Monitor' is actually a well respected purveyor of journalism. Their articles are not filtered through the prism of faith, and are generally high quality.
I'd say Back to the Future is about as reliable as the Christian Science Monitor for finding science facts.
The CSM is actually a very respectable news source, and not especially influenced by CS ideology. It's no more about CS than The Economist is strictly about economics, or the New York Times is just about things that happen in New York.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"It's a real newspaper published by a church -- The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Mass., USA.... let's be clear: The Christian Science church doesn't publish news to propagate denominational doctrine; it provides news purely as a public service. Here's why: If the basic theology of that church says that what reaches and affects thought shapes experience, it follows that a newspaper would have significant impact on the lives of those who read it.
A newspaper whose motive is "to injure no man, but to bless all mankind," as its founder charged, would have a "leavening" effect on society, as well as on individual lives -- to use a metaphor Eddy herself appreciated and used. The idea is that the unblemished truth is freeing (as a fundamental human right); with it, citizens can make informed decisions and take intelligent action, for themselves and for society."
On a side note, I've just read throught the comments and I'm amazed at the number people that have made comments showing that they know no science... did IQs suddenly drop while I was away?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Nuclear fission does split nucleii into fragments. U-235 fission absorbs thermal neutrons (room-temperature kinetic energy) and splits in half, P-239 fission absorbs fast (high-energy) neutrons and splits in half. The resultant atoms form an assymetric distribution called the 'Mae West' curve because it forms two big peaks (mapped # vs Z) that look like mammaries to lonely nuclear engineers that don't see nekkid women that often.
While Uranium/Plutonium do decay naturally (stability of a nucleus is determined by the Nuclear Shell empirical formula, which is a rough analog of the electron shell theory - everybody wants to be Iron Fe/26, the most stable nucleus), there's another form of decay that's an outcome of genuine nucleus splitting. That's is the decay of of these usually-radioactive fragments. This decay is important to the operation of a fission reactor, but only in determining the criticality of a nuclear pile. 'Critical' == exactly as many neutrons are released in any time period as are absorbed, meaning steady power output. Basically, over 99% of the neutrons necessary to keep a steady level of fission events come from 'prompt' neutrons - neutrons that are freed in the splitting of an atomic nucleus. You get one small chunk (which could very well be gold), one big chunk, and a couple free/fast neutrons.
If these 'prompt' neutrons were enough to sustain criticality, then the number of fission events would increase geometrically. Since the time between generations is about a millionth of a section, this means that a reactor core that's 'prompt-critical' would quickly escalate in temperature until the structural integrity of the core failed, and you have a molten slag of Uranium - which is exactly what happened at Chernobyl.
So the way to avoid this, you have to put in neutron-absorbing control rods to keep the number of 'prompt' neutrons below the number necessary to sustain the next generation of fission events. If 'prompt' neutrons were the only neutron source, your nuclear reactor would quickly cool down. But the decay of the fragments (which are ususally radioactive isotopes of stable elements) release additional neutrons. The 'art' of tuning a nuclear reactor is to insert the control rods just enough so that the reactor isn't prompt-critical, but the decay neutrons are just barely enough to make the pile critical.
One of the biggest problems with fusion in general is fuel. The easiest fusion reaction is deuterium-tritium. Deuterium is plentiful - the ocean is full of 'heavy water' where one of the hydrogen atoms in a water molecule has a proton and a neutron. Tritium, however, is radioactive with a pretty short halflife. You have to make tritium by getting Lithium to absorb a neutron, then decay.
Last time I was up-to-date on fusion research, there was only an estimated 300 years of Lithium to sustain the predicted energy needs of the world. However, with fission fast-breeder reactors like they use in France, there would be 5000 estimated years of power. Fission fast-breeder reactors can be built today - it's just that to make them passively safe, you need to use a liquid metal coolant like sodium, and any disaster like Chernobyl (from terrorists, for example) would be catastrophic. Liquid sodium will explode if it gets wet, so it's a huge engineering challenge. Argonne Nat'l Labs has reactor designs like this, but the US population is scared of nuclear power plants (plus, the cost overruns at plants made them economically unfeasible).
[I am a published principal author and presentor of a fusion reactor design (presented at the 8th Topical Meeting on the Topic of Fusion Energy in Salt Lake City), so I have a tiny bit of credibility. I got out of the field specifically because of the 15-year carrot-on-a-stick paradox.]
"If the cost of fusion just stays constant, fusion will eventually win out."
It doesn't work that way. Fusion electricity isn't competing with other sources of electricity, it is competing with the price of running the plant. As it stands now, a controlled fusion reaction generally requires more power than it produces, a net energy loss. Simply increasing the price of other forms of electricity doens't magically make the efficiency of a fusion reactor climb above 0.
There have been no real incentives to make fusion work. Twelve years ago, these guys has a chance and they blue it. The lawyers in congress refused to create sane incentives-and now are risking their own lives due to that failure. The world would be a very different-and imho better-place if viable fusion now existed. The middle east would not be a hotspot like it is now for example. The problem is that the kinds of people that run congress love centralization of power-more than they love life itself. In their eyes, the only suitable role for technical people is as obediant servants that like doing what they are told. What the last 20 years has shown, you just can't run a technological society that way.
Ah the wonders of a contextless statistic. Wow, America has spent more than $17 Billion on nuclear fusion in the last fifty years without producing a commercially viable reactor?! Damn those profligate scientists and their free-spending ways! We must put a stop to this before they bankrupt us!
Oh wait. $17 billion divided by 53 years is... $320 Million a year.
In Federal budgeting terms, $320,000,000 is LINE NOISE. It's more than the National Endowment for the Arts gets, but that's about the only thing I can think of that's smaller. In comparison, check out these fun numbers from Table S-3 of our current federal budget:
Department of Defense: $401,000,000,000 (that's FOUR HUNDRED BILLION, and please note that that specifically doesn't include any money we are spending in Iraq)
Department of Homeland Security: $68,200,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development: $31,000,000,000
Executive Office of the President: $300,000,000
Yeah, you read that right: the "keep the White House bathrooms stocked with toilet paper" budget is roughly the same as the fusion budget. Oh wait, maybe we haven't been breaking the bank on fusion research after all...
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
The first wall will contain lithium, which can transmute to T when bombarded by the fast neutrons generated by the fusion reactions. For more info, see Boeing's blurb on the shield/breeding blanket designs.
Of course, with improving technology, higher beta (a measure of fusion plasma confinement capability), and hotter plasmas, D-T can be forsaken for other reactions. :)
"Use a molecule with an explosive bond that shoves two other molecules on a predefined pathway into a range where you get a 1% chance of reaction between two hydrogen nuclei, by tunnelling, and you could do it."
Um, what is an "explosive bond"? I'm sorry but this can never happen. First energy is released when bonds are FORMED, not broken. Second, any chemical reaction concievable can never initiate fusion of nuclei, the difference in energy scales (per atom) between chemical bonds (electromagnetic force) and nuclear bonds (strong force) is orders of magnitude. THAT is why cold fusion isn't real and never will be.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
According to the Uranium Institute, known resources of economically recoverable U-235 are "enough to last for some 50 years" at today's rate of consumption. If prices go up significantly, we could mine other sources, but even so, "all conventional resources are considered - 14.4 million tonnes, ... is over 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption"
Today, fission supplies 16% of the world's electricity. If we converted the world to using nuclear power for all our electricity, we would use up the uranium six times faster, so all known supplies would last somewhere around 35 years.
To go beyond this, we would need to resort to more exotic technology, such as breeder reactors or extracting uranium from seawater and phosphate deposits.