Biggest Obstacle of Nuclear Fusion Overcome?

Yetihehe writes "Nuclear fusion could become a more viable energy solution with the discovery of way to prevent super-hot gases from causing damage within reactors. The potential solution, tested at an experimental reactor in San Diego, US, could make the next generation of fusion reactors more efficient, saving hundreds of millions of euros a year."

Comments

I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[PrescriptionWarning]

but I guess it makes me wonder if such a thing would ever be possible? Can a car run purely off of garbage? Or does the fusion process require a more specific substance to begin with, like water or carbon or something?

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[Fordiman]

Deuterium, usually. Heavy hydrogen.

And, no. You can't have Mr. Fusion in your car. You have to use Budweiser in your Direct Ethanol Fuel Cell - which is fine; if a purpose for Budweiser can be found, it's better than drinking it.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[QuantumPion]

Technically, you can fuse any element lighter then iron (so that the final product is at most iron). However, the heavier you go, the higher temperatures you need and the less efficient the process. This is because iron has the highest binding energy of any element. Past iron, you have to use fission.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[b1t r0t]

If you have more complex elements, work your way down to Hydrogen with Fusion.

Actually, you work your way toward iron from either direction. The farther away from iron that you start, the easier it is to get a net gain in energy. Fusion is best with hydrogen and helium, and fission is best with heavy elements like uranium, plutonium, and thorium.

You can do fission with light elements (except for hydrogen-1 of course) and fusion with heavier elements, but you have to put in more energy than you get out. This is why stars die out.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fuse iron with lighter elements - that is, you can gain energy by adding protons and neutrons to iron, all the way up to lead. In fact, you can gain energy by adding protons to lead, but then it alpha decays, so what you're really doing is hydrogen -> helium.

But what you can't gain energy doing is 56Fe + 56Fe -> 112Te

So you always have to have something lighter than iron as part of your fuel if you want to gain energy.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[NittanyTuring]

One of the problems with Mr. Fusion is that it would produce way too much energy. One banana peel, into pure energy, would produce 1.25 billion kilowatt-hours. How many miles can you get on that? Releasing such energy instantaneously would probably spell the end of this sector of the solar system.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[espinafre]

And how much energy can be extracted from a grain of rice? Would there be a Type R version of Mr. Fusion?

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because iron has the highest binding energy of any element.

Actually, the isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon is nickel-62. You can look it up.

I'd paste in a nice table that I just made, except the lameness filter won't let me.

But anyway, the isotope of Nickel with the highest binding energy per nucleon, using figures from the linked table, is Ni-62 at (8.794497 +- 2.3e-05) MeV.

For Iron, it is Fe-58 at (8.792144 +- 2.4e-05) MeV.

By way of comparison, the most abundant isotope of Nickel is Ni-58, at 68% abundance according to Wikipedia.
Ni-58 has binding energy per nucleon of (8.731963 +- 2.5e-05) MeV.

As for Iron, viz. Fe-56 (at 92%), with (8.790248 +- 2.4e-05) MeV.

Anyway, binding energy is very important but it is certainly not the only thing which determines what isotopes get produced most often.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[pnewhook]

They claimed nuclear power would make electricity "too cheap to meter". I'm wondering what claims they're making for fusion that will turn out to be completely bogus?

The "they" you are talking about was one moronic U.S. bureaucrat: From the Canadian Nuclear FAQ:

It is a common perception that early nuclear power proponents boasted of electricity from nuclear reactors becoming "too cheap to meter" in the near future. In fact, while nuclear reactors have become one of the cheapest large-scale options for base-load electricity, it was never the expectation of earlier nuclear engineers that costs would come down low enough to render metering irrelevant.

In fact, the oft-quoted prediction, "too cheap to meter", was made in 1954 by an American bureaucrat, Lewis Strauss, in a speech that very much reflects the public's post-war euphoria over nuclear technology (and technology in general), galvanized by President Eisenhower's vaunted "Atoms for Peace" program launched in December 1953. Strauss' comments predated the first nuclear power plants by three years, and included other optimistic references to wiping out world hunger and extending human life expectancy.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[greenegg77]

After all, Budweiser is just kidney-filtered Guiness...

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[Heraclius]

Budweiser is certainly a much less expensive fuel than gasoline, so that's a plus.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[javamann]

And tastes the same, that's a minus

Wow!

[gasmonso]

The first post related to fusion on /. without declaring that cold fusion is only a few months away!

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:Wow!

[Mayhem178]

Pretty close though. This one claims that "lukewarm fusion" is just around the corner.

Re:hmmm..

[GundamFan]

Well... What do you think they burn in these things? (kidding... put away the flamethrowers junior economists)

1:1.2784

[Anonymous Coward]

saving hundreds of millions of euros a year

You misspelled dollars.

Oh, right. That's not how you spell 'dollar' anymore.

Re:1:1.2784

[Fordiman]

NST is a european web magazine. Of course they're talking euros.

Re:1:1.2784

[blubman]

Actually, the dollar is litarally killing the world economy. It is, in a way, dying, an similar process as the German Mark underwent. All we have to wait for is a large selling of dollars on stock exchanges around the globe 'triggering' the downfall. After all, you Americans are borrowing $3 mil. a DAY of the rest of the world...

So yes, the dollar WILL be the new dollar, for a while. And after that, the economy is going to shift to the East.

Re:1:1.2784

[DSP_Geek]

Do what? The Euro started out at roughly parity with the US dollar, dropped to $0.83 around 2000, then started climbing seriously in 2003. The oilocracies are making some noise about selling crude in Euros, as a matter of fact. It's already happening in effect: measured in constant Euros the price of a barrel hasn't changed all that much over the past three years.

Re:1:1.2784

[MrNaz]

Completely offtopic, but meh:

I'd like to point out that the absolute exchange rate ofa currency means exactly diddly. Take the Japanese Yen for instance. 1 USD = 111 JPY Does that mean its a weak currency?

The strength of a currency is related to the price stability relative to average prices in the zones it is most heavily used in. As the Euro currency has maintained excellent parity with the price of goods and services globally, it is considered a strong currency.

Really, the word "strong" is a misnomer. The correct word for describing a currency's merit relative to others is "stable". One could say that the Euro is taking over from the US currency not because it is becoming stronger, but because it is becoming more stable.

It is for this reason that the strongest currency and the only truly stable currency, is gold. Well sort of. After all, you can't eat the stuff. Nonetheless, it is about the only thing that has carried value throughout the ages and survived the rise and fall of empires. So, if you're worried about your piggy bank being made worthless by economic collapse associated with runaway inflation, buy gold. Not some high markup crappy necklace or ring, but bullion. Buy it at the market price, about $660US / ounce at the moment. 1 ounce is about 31g, with a small 1% or so margin for casting and your savings will be, well, worth their weight in gold.

Re:1:1.2784

[cyber-vandal]

Well if you're a Brit, an Canook or an Aussie you're pretty much the same thing (woohoo I'm gonna burn now)

Re:1:1.2784

[MrNaz]

In actuality, that isn't quite correct. Fiat currencies (currencies not backed by some commodity) are pegged to nothing. Their value relative to a basket of goods changes from year to year. While central banks try to keep the value of their local currencies stable according to the *local* CPI and government inflation targets, they are more or less powerless to keep it stable with global prices.

Gold retains its stable value according to *international* prices, as gold is more likely to be valuable to a larger number of people around the world than USD or Euro or any single currency. USD are worthless in some regions, because they are unable to be traded with local money marketers. Gold on the other hand, has no such limitation. Everyone, and I mean eveyrone, wants gold. So chnages in the price of gold are in actuality changes in the price of the major currencies used to measure it.

That is why, when measured in USD or Euro over the last few years it can appreciate significantly. Not because the value of gold is rising, but because the values of the currencies relative to *global* prices are falling. Strengthening major currencies like the Chinese Yuan, Indian Rupee and various middle eastern currencies could cause this, as could a strengthening South African Rand, South Africa being the largest supplier of gold currently.

You said that currencies like GBP, USD and Euro have proven to be a better store of wealth. That is because you are so used to measuring the value of dollars *in* dollars, that you will obviously perceive a dollar to always be stable to the dollar. Your GBP, USD and Euro are stable by tautology. To give you the extreme example, were the British government (or the US govt or any govt) to collapse, your currency notes would instantly be worthless. One ounce of gold today however, will get you roughly the same amount of food and shelter as it would have under the Roman empire 2,000 years ago. Try saying *that* about a $5 note in 2,000 years (ignoring the fact that a $5 note would probably be a rare collector's item by then).

There is a proposal by the Arab Leage to create the "Gold Dinar" which would be a common currency between Arab countries the same as the Euro is a common currency for European nations, with one important difference. Every dinar would be backed by a certain amount of gold. Anyone holding a dinar note would be eligible to go to the central bank and convert it into the set value of gold. The amount of gold a Gold Dinar would convert to would be fixed, and the central bank would only be able to print as many notes as they had gold in their vaults. Thus credit squeeze and liquidity crises would never happen, and money market manipulation would be impossible. Political stability aside, even if the entire country collapsed, the people's wealth in their earnings would be convertable to gold and retained unlike in Western countries where a government economic default means that ordinary every day people lose money.

As fiat currenies "create" fictitious wealth, leaving the real wealth in the hands of those that hold the economic assets (the corporate class of super-rich), a government collapse leave the peasants (you, me and Aunt Hilda) with nothing, and the super rich with everything, as they control the assets like the land, the bulidings, the gold and of course the military, while we're all left with our hands full of toilet paper and houses that defaulting banks are allowed to sieze to pay back their secured creditors who, again, are the super rich corporate types.

Wake up. Your dollars are nothing but paper.

- Naz

hundres of millions of euros?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are that many foriegners being killed annually by fusion? I knew stuff was bad out there, but this is amazin

Biggest obstacle?

[chinobis]

So, nuclear fusion has finally got serious backing from politicians and the R&D budget to go along with it?

Re:Biggest obstacle?

[khallow]

So, nuclear fusion has finally got serious backing from politicians and the R&D budget to go along with it?

My take is that nuclear fusion has had the necessary backing since the 70's. The real problem is that it hasn't shown sufficient returns on that investment to warrant increasing the budget by an order of magnitude or more. Even when fusion generates more energy than it consumes (including fuel acquisition and processing), we still have the problem of making the technology economically viable. I might approve an order of magnitude increase in funding at that point, but I see no reason to do so now when there are technologies, particularly fission, wind, and solar power that are becoming viable.

Re:Biggest obstacle?

[LnxAddct]

Nuclear fusion in the states has always had the necessary backing and funding. In fact the Department of Energy just recently announced its latest budgets and gave the nuclear fusion folks every penny requested. Billions every year are invested by the government, and even more so recently because there is a huge push to get off of our oil dependance. The government is also dumping a good chunk of change into an international reactor called ITER (latin for "the way"). ITER will be a stepping stone to commercial reactors. It is under construction and will finish being built in 2015. It is already going to have a net gain in energy production, now scientists are more focused on getting more bang for their buck. ITER will not be used for producing electricity, but it is a good prototype for a reactor being built after it that is designed to create about 6 to 8 times as much energy and will be used commercially to produce electricity. So, even though scientists have been saying that we are 10 years away from viable fusion for 50 years now... we really are this time, and the reactor is being built. Within 2 decades the first commercial reactor should be finished, and within 3 to 4 decades, nuclear fusion should start becoming pretty widespread. And this is all assuming a pretty much worst case scenario with no major unpredicted advances being made in the field.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Biggest obstacle?

[tbo]

I might approve an order of magnitude increase in funding at that point, but I see no reason to do so now when there are technologies, particularly fission, wind, and solar power that are becoming viable.

Solar and wind are approaching economic viability as supplemental energy sources. What I mean is that they are good at helping meet some of the peak demand, but not so good as a baseline power source, since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. In particular, there are several hours each day in which the entire continent is in the dark (wind is also usually calmer at night). In an all-solar/wind energy scenario, you'd also need an enormous amount of energy storage capability (electricity-to-hydrogen-to-electricity in fuel cells, maybe), which rather dramatically raises your costs.

Nuclear, on the other hand, can be more expensive, but are well suited to be run continuously (aside from maintenance every once in a while), since fuel is only a small fraction of the cost per kW/h.

What makes more sense than either source on its own is nuclear fission to supply most of the baseline power, with solar and wind to supply peak power, and a few natural-gas fired plants for backup. Conveniently, peak generating times of solar and wind tend to correspond to peak demand.

Given the above scenario, you'll run out of fuel for your fission reactors in half a century or so (give or take a few decades), unless you start using breeder reactors, which aren't really a widescale-proven technology, and pose some nuclear proliferation issues. If you're going to pour research money into breeder reactors, why not spend it instead on fusion, which is pretty much the ultimate terrestrial power source?

Re:Biggest obstacle?

[ConceptJunkie]

The current plan 'yeah, we'll have first real plant producing electricity by 2040' just sounds so damn unambitious. *34 years*. People went from 0 to moon in less than 10... and that was in the sixties!

Well, since they've been trying to develop fusion power since the 50's, that sounds about right. If it was so darn easy to make, we'd have one by now. Fusion power would have all the advantages of fission power, but far fewer disadvantages. Even the environmentalists could like it.

Interesting factoid: Philo Farnsworth, widely recognized as the inventor of electronic television in the 20's was a bigshot in fusion research in the 50's. He helped develop a device called the "fusor", but as we all know, while they did get fusion, they were never able to reach the break-even point.

Re:Biggest obstacle?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Given the above scenario, you'll run out of fuel for your fission reactors in half a century or so (give or take a few decades), unless you start using breeder reactors, which aren't really a widescale-proven technology, and pose some nuclear proliferation issues. If you're going to pour research money into breeder reactors, why not spend it instead on fusion, which is pretty much the ultimate terrestrial power source?

That timeline is for Uranium at current market rates using non breeder reactors. Breeder reactors using Thorium could potentially last 1000 years or more - there's lots more Thorium laying around, and a breeder setup will make the stuff last up to 20 times as long.

summary is wrong

[aadvancedGIR]

The technique is not about preventing the gas from causing damages, but just to avoid the magnetic field leaking it in the first place. Kinda cool improvement anyway.

Re:summary is wrong

[Fordiman]

Actually, it is about causing damage. The mag field does not 'leak' (implying that the magnetic field becomes somehow compromised); instead, it's overcome. The technique doesn't incerease the mag field's strength, but draws off the cause of the 'bursts'. The end result is that the fusion reactor is damaged less, loses less heat/plasma density, gets better efficiencies, and has to be shut down less often.

Thus saving millions of dollarpounds each year.

Re:summary is wrong

[The_Mr_Flibble]

And doc oc doesn't go crazy.

Bad Headline

[pavon]

Hemos, Where did you get this "Biggest Obstacle" from? The researcher didn't claim it in the article, and it isn't true. IANANP, but from what I've heard, the biggest obstacle to nuclear fusion is maintaining the reaction for long periods of time, and doing so with relativly low energy input.

This is a cool development, but unless I read incorrectly it doesn't solve those problems.

Re:Bad Headline

[eldavojohn]

Hemos, Where did you get this "Biggest Obstacle" from? The researcher didn't claim it in the article, and it isn't true. IANANP, but from what I've heard, the biggest obstacle to nuclear fusion is maintaining the reaction for long periods of time, and doing so with relativly low energy input.

This is a cool development, but unless I read incorrectly it doesn't solve those problems.

So there was a lot of talk of lighter elements being used (easier to force together) and devising a way to create self sustaining reactions. That is, the first nuclear reactions create enough energy to spur the next reactions and a little more energy on top of that.

I'm not a nuclear physicist either and your same questions came to me when I saw the headline. In actuality, there are ways to accomplish this. It doesn't matter how much energy was your start-up cost because you have a self sustaining system with some output--eventually you recoup your losses. Although I've heard much talk of this, has it ever been proven that it can be done? I think so, but you'll have to read the wikipedia entry on it.

On top of that, there is the issue of the forces acting against the atoms:

A substantial energy barrier must be overcome for fusion to occur. Nuclei repel one another because of the electrostatic force between their positively charged protons. If two nuclei can be brought close enough together, however, the electrostatic force is overwhelmed by the more powerful strong nuclear force which only operates over short distances.

To answer your question in short, I think there have been some very clever ways of continually inputting a little more of a hydrogen isotope into the system and then clearing out the resulting product while feeding a little energy back into the system to maintain its temperatures. The whole while, you are tapping some of the heat to produce the energy.

You raise a valid point and this initially plagued models but now we are concerned with how we control and divert the energy (heat) of the system. It's been shown the return on this nuclear process can be slightly greater than the input. We're not "creating" energy, we're merely changing the molecules and harvesting the byproduct of that reaction so the laws of thermodynamics are adhered to in these models.

Re:Bad Headline

[swelke]

Hemos, Where did you get this "Biggest Obstacle" from? The researcher didn't claim it in the article, and it isn't true. IANANP, but from what I've heard, the biggest obstacle to nuclear fusion is maintaining the reaction for long periods of time, and doing so with relativly low energy input.

Well, IAAP (not nuclear, though) and the biggest obstacle to sustained fusion is indeed maintaining the reaction for long periods of time (minutes would be nice). The trouble is that the reaction quits when too much of the energy gets lost by - get this - hot particles escaping the magnetic field, taking heat with them (thus cooling the reaction and stopping it) and incidentally damaging the machinery. If you read the article, they're claiming (we'll see if they're correct about it...) that the new method removes a few particles from the field (but without cooling the remaining gas much), and manages to stabilize the rest of the material (in some mystical, poorly explained way).

If this pans out, it could make tokomak-style fusion a much more promising option. If they manage to figure out the physics behind why it works, then they might be able to refine the technique, which could eventually make fusion practical. But only if this works as advertised. It's been my experience that approximately 107% of all nuclear fusion press releases are either badly exaggerated or pure fiction.

Re:hmmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't want to make this too economical. Then private interests could eclipse the role of politically driven government pork projects.

Like with space travel.

biggest obstacle will be environmentalist.

[Shivetya]

First rule is, there is always someone opposed. There will be some doom and gloom environmental group that comes out opposed to fusion. They won't even have to make sense, when they fail to sway public opinion they will use the courts to delay. They will buy a politician or two to stall as well.

Hell, if the environmentals don't get it the rich NIMBYs will.

So while we have overcome another technical hurdle its the legal, disinformation, and fear, hurdles that will be harder to get around

Re:biggest obstacle will be environmentalist.

[famebait]

You're right. Let's just cancel the whole project.

Re:biggest obstacle will be environmentalist.

[iogan]

I think maybe you're confused between fusion and fission. Environmentalists generally don't mind fusion, as it is a safe, and very eco-friendly way of producing energy. Which is, you know, what they like.

Fission, on the other hand.. is problematic. It might be the only viable alternative at the moment (well actually I'm just saying that to not get flamed) but nobody can say it doesn't have its share of problems. Waste being the biggest, safety (yeah yeah I know, pebble reactors, yada yada ;-) ) being the second biggest.

Re:biggest obstacle will be environmentalist.

[MrEction]

Environmentalists generally don't mind fusion, as it is a safe, and very eco-friendly way of producing energy. Which is, you know, what they like.

Well, occasionally perhaps, when you run in to someone who understands the distinction. It seems that every time I bring fusion up, it has to be explained that it is not fission. A lot of people hear the word "nuclear" and just immediately get worried. This is why the term NMR ("nuclear magnetic resonance") had to drop the word "nuclear" to establish the MRI ("magnetic resonance imaging"). The word "nuclear" wasn't marketable.

Re:biggest obstacle will be environmentalist.

[MrEction]

First rule is, there is always someone opposed. There will be some doom and gloom environmental group that comes out opposed to fusion.

Ah, but in the current political climate, you can nail opposition to fusion as anti-environmental, and that should hopefully at least confuse some opposition enough to make them check facts. After all, anyone who opposes fusion is encouraging the use of fossil fuels. :)

And if you really want to make fusion sound like a clean energy source in the current political climate, stop referring to it as a "nuclear fusion power plant" and start referring to it as a "hydrogen fuel power plant". After all, in the current public view, "nuclear"=bad and "hydrogen fuel"=good. And of course, you wouldn't be lying, since fusion runs on hydrogen, and would also be very handy for running large scale electrolysis of water.

Re:hmmm..

[Like2Byte]

It's in the US. How can it save hundreds of millions of Euros a year?

FTFA, "...the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER) - which is to be built in Cadarache, France, from 2008 at cost of 10 billion Euros." The experiment was completed in the US. The reactor's use will be in France and probably service, oh, I don't know...Europeans.

The medium shapes the message

[Toby The Economist]

It's another small step forward. This is good, but that's it.

In fact, far more interesting, is how this article is an example of the effect television has had upon the reporting of news in all mediums.

The medium through which a message passes shapes the message being transmitted.

You can't discuss philosophy using smoke signals; looking at a picture is utterly different to reading a discription of a picture, being in a church for a ceremony is entirely different to watching it on TV in your kitchen.

Television as a medium can only show entertainment.

As such, all messages shown on television are shaped into entertainment.

Unfortunately, where TV *is* our culture (do you remember back when the debate was merely if TV would reflect culture or shape it?) it strongly influences all other mediums as well.

As such, we *cannot* have an article which simply says: a researcher has made a small step forward, solving a possible problem with fusion technology.

No. What we get is "BIGGEST OBSTACLE OVERCOME!!? NUCLEAR FUSION NOW ON THE TABLE?!"

It has to be exciting. It has to grab the reader. It has to be *entertaining*.

Re:The medium shapes the message

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Well, you have to bear in mind that Slashdot has a tendency to filter for that kind of sensationalism.

I'm sure there are plenty of minor breakthroughs in all sorts of fields that get reported responsibly, or not at all. But nobody pays attention to those stories enough to submit them to Slashdot. And if they DO, no doubt Zonk or whoever passes over them as small beans compared to the big stories Slashdot has to tell, like "Linux text editor you've never heard of may fork, says analyst!" The only stuff that makes the grade is the stuff with nice, attention-grabbing headlines.

SO all we see on Slashdot is the sensational stuff, which leads to lots of complaints like yours.

Vapourwear

[Silver Sloth]

From TFA

"I think it's a very interesting solution to a very important problem," says William Dorlund, a plasma physicist at the University of Maryland in College Park, US. But he warns it will be difficult to apply the solution to functional reactors until the theory behind the technique is well understood.

Translation:- Vapourwear

Re:Vapourwear

[famebait]

No, "vaporwear" would mean you're shrouded in smoke. This here is not smoke but plasma, and it's not doing the shrouding, it is itself shrouded in a magnetic field ("fluxwear", if you will), which following this discovery can be made more hardwearing than before, which will in turn protect from damage the hardware, which encloses the whole system and as such might be referred to as "hardwear" for the contents. It is important to be wary of the difference lest the reader grow weary. It's not really all that hard.

And still people will complain...

[the_humeister]

...as they do with any new energy source. Wind turbines kill birds and look ugly. Dams flood areas. With fusion, they new complaint will be: "It still uses radioactive particles."

Re:And still people will complain...

[Fordiman]

but... but... oh, god, I hate environmentalists... but it doesn't PRODUCE any ionizing radiation, aside from gamma stuff that's shielded anyway!

"See that? it's radioactive! don your radiation suits sisters!"

*blinks*

But those things don't *stop* gamma... and ... *knocks on the reactor shielding* it's not getting through anyway...

"You're gonna make this place uninhabitable for the next tenthousand years, MURDERER!"

That didn't even make any sense... gamma rads don't hang out like alpha or beta... *brain snaps* ARRGGHHH!! KILL!!! *whips out his 'Environmentally Friendly Shotgun (TM)'*

Re:And still people will complain...

[Anonymous Coward]

*whips out his 'Environmentally Friendly Shotgun (TM)'*

Make sure you're using shells with non-lead pellets, or they'll complain about that, too.

Re:And still people will complain...

[OldManAndTheC]

Clearly we must figure out how to compress environmentalists into super-dense pellets for use as fuel in fusion reactors.

They should vanish in a brilliant flash of green ...

Re:And still people will complain...

[dhovis]

Although the fusion process itself may not make any alpha or beta radiation the high energy neutron flux will make the metal reactor parts radioactive.

This is an important point. I remember reading some time ago that there was interest in using Vanadium alloys for fusion reactors. I used to wonder why this was. I am a Materials Scientist, and Vanadium is usually used as an alloying element, but not as the basis for an alloy. I think I finally figured it out. The most common isotope of Vanadium is V51. If V51 absorbs a Neutron, it quickly beta-decays into Cr52. From there, Cr52, Cr53, and Cr54 are all stable. Further neutron absorption will eventually convert atoms to Mn, Fe, and eventually get to Co59. All of the beta-decays involved are relatively short lived, IIRC. From a materials science prospective, V, Cr, Mn, and Fe are all Body Centered Cubic (bcc), whereas Co is hexagonal close packed (hcp). If you produce too much Co, you could start getting phase transformations in the alloy, which would probably degrade the strength. Fortunately, if you start with V51, then it can absorb 8 neutrons before it gets to an element that has a high probablity of degrading the alloy strength.

Disclaimer: This is just speculation on my part, but it makes a lot of sense. If anybody knows more than I do, I'd love to hear it. I suspect maybe there are also concerns about the magnetic behavior of Fe and Co in the presence of the high magnetic fields used for fusion.

Re:And still people will complain...

[Politburo]

Who modded this pile of strawman crap as 'insightful'?

Re:And still people will complain...

[vtcodger]

***but... but... oh, god, I hate environmentalists... but it doesn't PRODUCE any ionizing radiation, aside from gamma stuff that's shielded anyway!***

But it does produce a bunch of neutrons that convert non-radioactive materials to particle emiting isotopes. It's not that big a deal I think, but fusion reactors are going to generate some radioactive waste. If (OK, when) a fusion reactor manages to blow up there may well be some radioactive contamination of the neighborhood. The party line here is that at any given time, there won't be much fuel in the reactor core so the explosion can not be all that devestating. It'd be interesting to see a comparison of radioactive contamination from say one thermonuclear accident a decade to the steady release of minute amounts of radioactives from coal and petroleum. I'd bet that fusion wins out on that score.

Anyway, the tree huggers are (slowly) coming to comprehend that nuclear and thermonuclear power are probably LESS polluting than fossil fuels. It'll be a few decades before they figure out that the world economy really can not be run on the methane emitted from fermenting dandelion greens, but eventually they will come around. Who knows, in a couple of decades, you and your environmentalist neighbors may yet find true love.

Not quite Mr. Fusion yet

[Overzeetop]

FTFA: Curiously, however, Evans notes that the theory behind the effect does not precisely match the results. According to their calculations, the perturbations should have released both particles and heat from the plasma. Instead, the heat was not bled off with the plasma but remained mostly contained within the magnetic field.

So it works, but they're not sure it works for the reasons that caused them to create the effect in the first place. Sort of a scientific shrug. Good news, but they're going to figure out why it really works (not just that it works) before they put it into practice.

Kind of frustrating to think that for the cost of the military action in Iraq, we could have built 8 Tokamac reactors. (I know, you could say the same about welfare...it doesn't make the money thrown at Iraq any less irritating)

Re:hmmm..

[KDan]

More importantly, how stupid is that headline? "Biggest problem" my ass. This is just one maintenance problem... hardly the "biggest problem".

Daniel

It'll Be All Done...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in 20 years.

Trust me. The fusion folks can be counted on to be consistent.

you are wrong

[way2trivial]

the biggest obstacle is public perception of anything with "nuclear" in the name

Re:you are wrong

[Jeremi]

the biggest obstacle is public perception of anything with "nuclear" in the name

Nah, that's not such a big obstacle... you can fix that simply by choosing a different name. For example, when everybody was having a snit about "Food Irradiation", they simply relabeled it "cold pasteurization", and presto, problem solved.

As for what to call this technology? I think "hydrogen power plant" would be a fine name. But this all assumes it can be made to actually work... that is the big obstacle.

Re:you are wrong

[Dolly_Llama]

Amazing! Just think of the possibilities!

Torture         --> Aggressive Professional Interrogation
POW             --> Enemy Combatant
Domestic Spying --> Terrorist Surveillance

What others can YOU find kids?

Re:Err...

[Wooster_UK]

Depends what the new method does, exactly. I skimmed the article, but it wasn't quite heavy enough on detail. If it saves millions of euros/dollars/pounds/whatever, then you've just increased profit per MWh, a small step towards profitability. And if any of that saving is in terms of the energy input required, then you've just pushed it towards being energetically-favourable, too. If the new technique makes it safe to run the reactor at a higher temperature, then it's pushed even further towards a net energy gain.

Poor AMD

[Rorian]

And just as they started their massive energy-saving campaign, it turns out we don't need it after all.. .. At least in 20 years time.. or 50..

Huh...

[spankey51]

huh... I always thought the biggest obstacle to overcome would be... you know... getting a positive energy return from the damn thing!

Viable is a key word

[canuck57]

Nuclear fusion could become a more viable energy solution

This is what mankind needs to be sustainable, a cheap and clean energy source. Lets face it, we are adicted to energy and burning all that oil and natural gas is not sustainable. Plus it is costing a fortune. So hopefully they can find more solutions like this and put this technology to widespread use. 5 cent a KWH anyone?

Re:Next generation?

[JimmehAH]

Yes. There have been Tokamak reactors for over 40 years. It's just that they require more energy to run than they release from nuclear fusion.

Re:hmmm..

[richdun]

Actually, it's the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor . It'll service no one with power (just science), and is being paid for by a lot of different countries.

TFA used euros because it was written from a European perspective. It's generally customary to quote price in the local currency of the audience you are writing for.

Strange summary...

[Brett Buck]

How can there be a "next generation" of fusion reactors that are going to be "more efficient", when the aren't any viable, net-energy-producing fusion reactors AT ALL? To have a next generation, you first have to have a *first generation*. It's still an entirely open question whether functional fusion reactors (with postive energy balance) can even be built.

            Brett

Didn't Dr. Octopus figure this one out already?

[Benjamin Shniper]

Using AI -controlled extra metal arms seems like a much cooler way to fix this problem of controlling the reaction to prevent outbursts. Plus you can beat up superheroes.

-Ben

Re:Err...

[Jesus_666]

It gets even better! Not only can we save countless Europeans from death, we can also convert the saved Euros into pounds and thus save lots of pounds. Ultra-light fusion reactors are just around the corner!

Fe Fusion

[WinPimp2K]

Technically you can fuse iron - ask an astrophysicist for the gory details.

But it takes more energy to fuse than is released. So iron fusion is pretty much the last fusion reaction to be expected from an end-of-life reactor (of the thermostellar variety)

crap!

[cdn-programmer]

The biggest obstacle on nuclear fusion is neutrons. Fusion produces a lot of neutrons and the idea of neutron free fusion using He3 is so far over the horizon that it isn't worth thinking about.

Fission also produces neutrons.

Since both reactions produce neutrons they have the same issues - namely dealing with radioactive wastes.

Fisson is easy to create. A team of boy scouts can do it in their own back yard. Fusion is very difficult.

Fission can be totally safe. It can also be very dangerous. It depends on the reactor design but the issue is that the technology is already on the shelf. IE. We can do it now and we have been able to do it for 50 years.

Now the issue is that with the USA designed high pressure reactors, they only use about 2/10 of 1% of the uranium that is mined. What this means is that with a better design we can get about 475 times the milage from our uranium.

There is so much energy available to us that it is almost beyond our imagination. Consider that there are about 114 reactors in the USA which have been running say about 50 years. 50x475 = 23,750 years. There has literally already been enough uranium mined for almost 24,000 years for a well designed reactor like the IRF (Integral fast reactor - look it up in the wikipedia). If we wish to produce 100% of our energy from uranium we have enough uranium mined already for over 2,000 years. Of course the best solution is to use this energy to free up hydrogen which we can combine with carbon to produce synthetic oil (syncrude!). We need about 75 GWe reactors right now here in Alberta. We have a terrible hydrogen shortage. The price of gasoline at the pumps is a symptom of this problem.

Yet - we keep reading stories about the holly grail - Nuclear Fusion.

Yes, some day will will build a fusion reactor. The research is a good idea. But the idea that it will be problem free is a false idea. The biggest obstacle is not wear and tear due to plasma - the biggest obstacle is neutrons flying around and these are difficult to control. In fact - the best solution might be to pack a bunch of thorium around the plasma and use the neutrons to transmute it into U233 which we can cart off to a fission reactor. As an alternative we can pack U238 around the plasma and cart of the Pu239. These are viable fuel cycles - unfortunately at present they are not politically correct.

Re:crap!

[Jeremi]

Fisson is easy to create. A team of boy scouts can do it in their own back yard.

Dude isn't exaggerating

Re:crap!

[kidtexas]

While the neutrons created in a D-T fusion reaction can and will activate the surrounding structure, the byproducts from fission have a much longer half life than the neutron activated structure of a fusion reactor. Think tens of years instead of thousands - all the sudden a much more manageable problem if we could get the damn things to work.

You are however correct that a lot of thought needs to go into how to correctly manage and extract the energy from the flux of neutrons in a fusion reactor.

Re:crap!

[cdn-programmer]

Yes - you are correct. However Thorium is easy to mine and is commonly available. India is undertaking development of the Thorium cycle. China is also nuclear. Any nuclear reactor anywhere in the world can be stuffed with Thorium and you get U233 out of it which is easy to chemically separate from the Thorium.

You can also just pull a fuel element from the reactor when it has only been in there for a short period of time - this will contain a high percentage of Pu239 as opposed to Pu240. Pu is easy to chemically separate as well. It is an effective material for making bombs which "we" demonstrated on the Japanese.

The actinides can be burned. All you need is a neutron flux. This gets rid of the 1000++ year radioactive wastes - and we get power from this as well. This is what the IFR does in fact.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and has been for a long time. I personally do not think that our "misguided" decision to not use these fuel cycles will delay India, Pakistan or China from pursuing them.

OTHO, we are presently burning over 25% of the world's oil production and we have alternatives which we are not pursuing. Instead we are pursuing along with the UK - a misguided war in the middle east that is clearly based on our desire to control (you can read steal) their oil.

The middle east is living in part in the middle ages and they have an egaggerated view of the value of their oil. But of course - the price at the pumps has everything to do with our desire to buy it. Last time I filled up my car I bitched at all the other people in the service station that if they weren't so eager to full up their cars I wouldn't have to pay so much for the gas!

The point is that still people are looking over their shoulder at the next guy and playing a game of economic brinkmanship - wondering when the next guy will stand down and take the bus or ride a bike. As part of this game we send a lot of kids to the middle east to "stablise it". Some come back in body bags. We should add to this count the number of kids in the middle east who are killed - but somehow that number isn't worthy of the media's attention.

The issue is that we have all the energy we need right here at home and we are not using it. Instead we are the ones pursuing a war.

We have 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in the tar sands. We need hydrogen. We don't have it. We need about 75 nuclear reactors in the GWe range. We don't have them. The reason we don't have them in part is because as you point out - someone overseas might want to build a weapon.

The truth is that many people overseas already have built all the weapons they want. Furthermore in the middle east the main reason they want to build the weapons is because we're over there attacking them.

Insanity rules!

Re:crap!

[Phanatic1a]

Fission also produces neutrons.

Fusion produces orders of magnitude more neutrons.

In a fission plant, excess neutrons are bad. You want the pile to be barely critical, a stable, but not runaway, chain reaction. So you actually don't have a lot of neutrons flying out of the pile. You moderate the ones you do produce, and use them to fission additional fuel atoms.

But in a D-T fusion scheme, the bulk of the liberated energy is produced in the form of a very energetic 14 megaelectron-volt neutron. And this neutron doesn't participate in additional reactions, DT fusion isn't a chain-reaction process like fission is. The neutron will leave the plasma. Heck, ideally, that's how you get energy out of the reactor, by trapping that neutron in a surrounding blanket, causing that blanket to heat up so you can use that heat to boil water. Every single D-T fusion generates one of these neutrons, so the neutron flux will be many many times that of a fission plant.

But that's not an issue because of "radioactive waste." The wastes we're concerned about from fission aren't neutrons, they're from fission fragments and decay daughters. Some of those might emit neutrons themselves, but really, that's not the primary concern; neutron-induced radioactivity is actually pretty short-lived.

The reasons neutrons are a concern in a fusion plant is that continuous high-energy neutron bombardment does very bad things to all known materials that you might want to build a reactor vessel out of. When a neutron strikes an atom, it displaces it within the crystal lattice. If that happens once, no big deal, but in a commercial fusion reactor, the reactor vessel will experience 300 to 500 displacements per atom over the lifetime of the device. That means that, right now, we don't even know what to build one of these things out of. Austinitic steels start to swell, crack, and degrade after only about 30dpa, and the very best candidate materials we know of can only handle about 150; those might be acceptable, if the cost of changing the inner wall out isn't too high, but we just don't know.

And ITER won't even begin to explore those issues. ITER's flux will only generate 3 displacements per atom.

Fusion is very very hard. My money says that we'll never use commercial fusion power.

Re:crap!

[Dr. Zowie]

Since both reactions produce neutrons they have the same issues - namely dealing with radioactive wastes.

Bollocks.

By far the biggest problem with fission is not neutron activation of the machine itself but rather the creation of unstable intermediate-mass daughter atoms. The problem is that the neutron-proton ratio of heavy stable elements is slightly higher than the neutron-proton ratio of lighter stable elements. Hence if you break apart a heavy nearly-stable nucleus you get very unstable isotopes. A few of those isotopes have half-lives measured in hundreds to thousands of years, causing a big problem because you have to store the waste a long time.

Neutron activation of the machine itself is not a big deal. Fission reactors are largely made of aluminum and water. Aluminum that absorbs a neutron ends up (after a short-lived decay chain) as stable. The oxygen in the water produces mostly the heavier stable oxygen isotopes and a small amount of stable fluorine. The hydrogen produces mostly deuterium and a tiny, tiny amount of tritium (from neutron absorption by deuterium). Tritium is messy but not a long-term problem as its half-life is only 12 years.

Existing fusion machines have neutron-activation problems largely because they are experimental rigs, composed of lots of materials that are not particularly well selected for neutron absorption or non-activation. If tokamak technology becomes an engineering reality, tokamak plants will be engineered for minimal neutron activation.

Here's how to save trillions

[WinPimp2K]

From TFA

"We were very pleased to find out that we can actually use fairly small currents in these coils"

Yes, but we need more current.
And we need to install the coils under the seat of every Congresscritter.
After all, if these coils can handle the heat produced in a fusion reactor, they ought to be able to prevent the damage done by 536 hot air windbags.

Then we will save Trillions

Re:Solution: ditch your TV

[Tx]

Funny, I went the other way. After a long period of wasting time having long conversations with your wife, reading books, going biking, building mame cabinets and remodelling my house, I realised that was all a huge effort to expend just to avoid watching TV. Bought a 42" plasma, never looked back. ;)

Re:Tested in San Diego?

[PhoenixFlare]

I'm not a scientist but is testing Nuclear Fusion in a very populated area a good idea?

I'm not a scientist either, but I have read a little on the subject....And from what I understand, the reaction would peter out and die very quickly - very little fuel is used in comparison to a fisson reactor, and the reaction itself requires very precise control to happen at all.

Comments like yours are part of the reason there's so much nonsensical backlash against this sort of technology - "I have no idea what i'm talking about, but it must be bad just because! Nuclear bombs are evil, so this must be the same!".

Couldn't they have done this in some place a little less populated? Like North Dakota or in the area near Area 51?

I would have one of these reactors in my backyard (well, if I wasn't in an apartment right now, anyway) with no reservation whatsoever.

Natural Organic Save Our Animals Power

[spun]

I suggest calling nuclear fusion "Natural Organic Save Our Animals Power," or NOSOAP. Something tells me hippies would love to have NOSOAP.

Just Around the Corner... again.

[dpbsmith]

Fusion power has been Just Around the Corner. For the last fifty years or so. There is always some new technical breakthrough that is about to overcome the biggest obstacle.

And we are always told that fusion power will be safe because, uh, well, because, well, it's not fission. It's completely new and totally different, so it must be safe. (Not that fission isn't safe, mind you, but fusion will be even safer). And it won't produce any radioactive waste. To speak of. Not from the actual fusion reaction. Well, sure, the neutron flux may make a lot of other things radioactive, but that's big deal. Why, in fact, the government has promised that Yucca Mountain will be ready by 1998. If you want to pick nits it isn't, uh, actually in operation yet, but it's Just Around the Corner.

Also Just Around the Corner: helicars and moon colonies.

Seven links

[Kobun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_flux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

The above links, read in order, should step through nicely outlining the fusion process, and some of the major challanges that are to be overcome in making it a viable power source for use on Earth.

Today, I will have understanding of fusion. Tommorrow I will understand Subscriber trunk dialing, and then, computers. Once I have an understanding of computers, I will rule the world!

My apologies, Terry.

Re:Err...

[ultranova]

I think achieving energy breakeven is just an engineering problem. Once you scale up the reactor to a certain size then it breaks even.

Unfortunately, the big enough size is about 1.424025 × 10^29 kg. So I'd suggest finding out a more efficient solution and not depending just on economics of scale.

Article that doesn't suck.

[Kadin2048]

Too bad the link on their front page is broken (and requires giving zip code + age before you can get to the "Oops! Page not found" result).

I Googled and found this, it's got some links to some cool amateur photos of the implosion:
http://laughingsquid.com/2006/05/11/trojan-nuclear -power-plant-demolition/

and i thought ...

[mjjw]

I thought that the current biggest problem was political. ITER is being built in the south of France, at a site with nuclear licenses etc., but just happens to be in middle of the mountains. The Japanese are building the parts, so ITER will be manufactured in Japan then transported in pieces to France. The french have to build a six-lane motorway through the Alps to transport the electromagnetic coils on lorries which use all six lanes all around the mountains to the site. So before ITER can be built, Japan has to build a factory and some boats to carry the parts to France while France has to build a motorway and some lorries to carry the parts to the site. And they have to build the machinery required to put the whole thing together (although due to political and funding reasons that may be built elsewhere and transported to the site).

So, politics rather than brains is dictating the speed of advance in this field.

Garbage -Hydrogen-Energy

[ghoul]

Well all organic garbage contain CH chains. Technology could break down these chains and use the H relesed for fusion. Given that my hand held calculator is more powerfull than the 2 room large ENIAC of yesteryear I would not be surprised if in the future fusion reactors could be minituarized to fit in cars. Of course noone would really use these as most cars would run on the pavement embedded electric network and charge their batteries by induction.
Maybe camping equipment manufacturers would sell it to the yuppies of tomorrow who would like to go off the grid during vacations.

Re:Garbage -Hydrogen-Energy

[Cunk]

What's a "hand held calculator"?

Re:Garbage -Hydrogen-Energy

[timeOday]

Besides, individuals will never be allowed such a powerful, compact energy source. It's inevitably too useful as a weapon. Even fertilizer sales are tracked by the FBI now. For cars, maybe we'll wind up with hydrogen -> fusion -> electricity -> hydrogen -> fuel cell -> electricity.

1.54350997

[Doc Ruby]

The euro started trading at an artifically specified U$1.18, dropped quickly to just over $0.82 in actual markets, and has climbed from that natural valuation to $1.27. That's an over 54% increase. The euro's superiority is clear, defining supremacy over the formerly supreme dollar.

You can't be "sarcastic" simultaneously about both a false euro introduction rate of $2.00, and predicting the imminent supremacy of the euro. Especially when getting the intro rate wrong isn't sarcasm.

We Already Have a Working Fusion Reactor

[GSpot]

We already have a working fusion reactor.

It is called THE SUN. The only problem with the Sun is that you cannot charge people for using its energy. This is why they are trying to put it (the sun) into a proverbial bottle, so they can sell it to you for big ca$he.

Obstacle?

[neokushan]

I wouldn't say this was the biggest obstacle of Nuclear fusion, all this will do is save a few hundred million a year.

Re:Semantics

[RsG]

That's what you get for staring at the hydrogen-1 reactor all day. Does terrible things to your eyesight :-P

Why this REALLY is big news

[DeviceDriver]

The savings may be what the article focused on, but the real news is in ability to produce net energy.

The ELM's are effectively "bubbles" of plasma that "impacts" the wall. This leads to erosion of the wall
and significent heat loss. First, the plasma cools from the contact. Second, the wall erodes and atoms,
beinging significently heavier, never really get up to temperature. Third and most important, the atoms
from the wall cause brumstrumalung(sp) radiation. Each of these is a major energy loss and principle
reasons why fusion has never really worked.

Reality check on bad science.

[styryx]

This is too far down for anyone to really see...pity.

Disclaimer: I am a fusion scientist.

The result mentioned in the article has been around for about a year in the fusion community. It is very good work, and opens up further areas of study. However, it is specific to a single Tokamak, and so far has not yet been repeated. Furthermore, the result has not yet been fully understood. (This is linked to it not being repeated.)

This may be sensational news, but it shouldn't be, due to claiming to solve a problem, which so far they haven't fully done. Don't take anything away from the guys who did this. Like I said, excellent work. But until the result is confirmed and understood it should stay out of mainstream media.

There are many big problems for fusion, like plasma instabilites, neo-classical tearing modes, ELMs (as mentioned), ohmic heating in transformer coils. The list goes on, it's a complex subject. Thankfully with all countries signed up, and more than enough money for ITER's budget (even if America pulls out again), the politics can be minimised and the physics can continue.

Biggest problem?

[putigger]

I'm not so sure this is the biggest problem. This is the first time I've heard of edge-localized modes being a huge problem (granted, I am not a plasma physicist). Most times I've seen people raising practical concerns about large tokamaks for energy production, the "biggest" problem cited has been neutron bombardment of the reactor walls. Energetic neutrons have the nasty habit of making the vessel walls radioactive and - worse - making them brittle and prone to mechanical failure.

Guess I was wrong...

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I guess I was wrong, I thought the biggest obstacle to fusion was the Coulomb force which cause the atomic nuclei to repel each other. You know, similar to the problem they had trying to create fission by firing alpha particles at the nucleus.

Re:OT: Trojan cooling tower demolished

[jdray]

Another one of the lesser-known reasons for closing Trojan is the high cost of fighting the annual barrage of lawsuits from said environmentalists. It takes an army of lawyers to keep their army of lawyers at bay. Also, paying the small army of people who's only job it was to keep up with the ever-changing landscape of federal regulations. Trojan was designed to be run by a very small staff, maybe 250. By the time it closed, there were at least that many in the group responsible for keeping up the documentation on the place, let alone making it squeeze out power.

But yes, nuclear power plants are all one-off designs with no "off the shelf" replacement parts available, unless you count the doorknobs and lightbulbs. Toshiba seems to be testing a novel new approach to distributed nuclear power that makes a lot more sense. It'll do battle with the NIMBY crowd, but you can't please everyone.

One advantage to designs like Toshiba's is that they're small. Yet another issue with Trojan was that if it was cranking out power at it's peak (1100 MW) and it suddenly went offline, the whole Western U.S. felt the hit. Smaller plants cause less havoc when they trip. Furthermore, economic right-sizing for plants seems to be at about 500 MW. Power traders seem to like to manage plants of that size, though I can't say I completely understand why.

In all, I hope to see something of a resurgence in popularity of nuclear power, particularly as we see rising fuel costs for gas fired plants and continued environmental issues around the existence of hydroelectric dams. I don't think we know much at all about the long-term impacts of wind farms.