Slashdot Mirror


National Ignition Facility Fires 192-Beam Pulse

An anonymous reader writes "The construction and test firing of the National Ignition Facility have been completed. NIF was designed as the first facility ever to achieve self-sustaining nuclear fusion and, in particular, to reach the point of ignition in which more energy is generated from the reaction than went into creating it. While the recent 192-beam pulse only produced 80 kilojoules worth of energy, all signs point to NIF being able to reach an order of magnitude higher (PDF) than that in the coming year."

25 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. indeed by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because energy is a useless fiat commodity, while you can eat cold, hard dollar bills.

    1. Re:indeed by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right, we should just give up now. Obviously the fact that it's not ready for commercialization now is indicative of it's future potential as a technology.

      Excuse me while I go reload my coal plant.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    2. Re:indeed by StaticEngine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, you have a plant that grows coal? Are you selling seed packets?

    3. Re:indeed by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope. It's pure science. They have no other goals except "study the ignition of nuclear fusion". It's a bit hard to do that inside a nuclear reactor (or bomb) and thus the big freakin' lasers.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:indeed by quantaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, you have a plant that grows coal? Are you selling seed packets?

      You should be forewarned that it takes a little while after planting the seeds before you can start digging out coal.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're a fucking idiot. The time from the earliest nuclear experiments and commercial nuclear plants was almost a century. The time between finding out that black liquid from the ground burns and oil refineries was a thousand years. The time between fire and steam power was longer than all of recorded history.

      The time it takes an idiot to turn a random brain firing into an unthought out Slashdot posting, however, is obviously much, much shorter.

    6. Re:indeed by idiot900 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to your post, the time between initial observation and commercialization of major energy producing methods has been decreasing by orders of magnitude as history marches on. Maybe it's not so stupid to ask about commercialization of the technology within a single generation.

  2. Re:Energy Independence by icepick72 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, I saw that Star Trek episode too.

  3. Re:Energy Independence by fishinatree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think we've moved past the old Cold War era modus operandi: nuclear weapons are no longer necessary nor considered as an indicator of power. Military spending in that area has decreased drastically since the Reagan era. Essentially, we've reached a point where "kick[ing] each others ass as best as we can afford" is no longer a profitable venture and is, in fact, a great way to lose the economic support and favor of the international community. What we need is some CERN-scale collaboration on this so that we can possibly help to alleviate the energy strains on the global populace.

  4. Re:Energy Independence by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There will always be limited resources, and those who would deny those resources to others as leverage against their fellow man. It's about power, not scarcity of resources.

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  5. Re:Energy Independence by 14erCleaner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what I keep hearing from people in the field of nuclear physics is that Fusion will be realized by the mid 2020s.

    Commercial fusion reactors have been 20 years away for at least the last 40 years. It's good to hear that we're now only 15 years away.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  6. Re:Energy Independence by Hao+Wu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When we have energy in surplus, at the (general) expense of no one, the world may move much more easily to peaceful respect and cooperation.

    Ultra-cheap energy will create devices that require materials and technology which yield other shortages. Wars will continue over those items.

    War itself will be cheaper to wage due to the low energy costs, removing a major incentive not to wage it.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  7. Re:Energy Independence by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > When we have energy in surplus, at the (general) expense of no one, the world
    > may move much more easily to peaceful respect and cooperation.

    ROFLMAO! Energy abundance will more likely just shift the resource wars to different places. We won't need oil any more but we will need all sorts of rare minerals just like we do now, only with limitless energy we will develop all sorts of new exotic manufacturing processes. But telling the House of Saud to go pound sand will still be priceless.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  8. Inertial confinement vs. magnetic confinement by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's be clear here. The purpose of the NIF is not to achieve fusion for energy production purposes. They just sell it that way. Its main goal isn't even simulations of the interior of Jupiter, or whatever they're hyping up this week.

    You just need to look at the operating agency to see what its goal is: the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). That is, the people who make and control the H-bombs. See, the U.S. doesn't detonate H-bombs anymore, and needs to figure out whether the old warheads are still reliable. Instead, giant simulations of H-bomb detonations are used: hence the 20-petaflop Sequoia being installed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).

    But these simulations are no good if the physics model being used isn't accurate. How do you get an equation of state for deuterium at a billion atmospheres of pressure and 10 million kelvin temperature? You do an experiment: NIF. (And also the Z-Machine at Sandia.)

    I get annoyed that the DOE sells NIF as a fusion energy machine. It's not, and it was never meant to be, and when people realize that target implosion fusion is never going to put a watt onto the grid, they're going to get even more annoyed at broken promises from fusion. It's basically avoiding the hard marketing problem of H-bombs by selling the machine as energy research.

    (disclaimer: I work in a magnetic fusion lab and while I'm not a pacifist, I don't generally like H-bombs and don't like that my field is associated with them)

    --

    Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    1. Re:Inertial confinement vs. magnetic confinement by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well we (meaning humanity, not the United States) have achieved plasma discharges several hours long in the TRIAM-1M tokamak in Japan.

      We have also achieved plasma conditions in pure deuterium plasmas in which, had the reactors been fueled with "live" fuel (50% deuterium, 50% tritium), the Q-value (energy out / energy in) would have been greater than one.

      There have also been two experiments in which 50%D/50%T "live" fuel has been used. One is the Joint European Torus (JET) in Culham, England, near Oxford. It's still operating today, albeit on "inert" fuel (100% D). Even with 100%D, some amount of fusion still goes on, so it's not totally "inert", but it's far less than with 50%D/50%T. The other experiment was the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) in the United States at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL). That's now disassembled.

      The problem is that we haven't done all of these things at the same time, yet. That's why we're building ITER

      ITER, the big reactor being built in Cadarache, France, will achieve Q=10. It was supposed to achieve "ignition", in which self-heating of the plasma is enough to keep it hot, and you can turn off the external heating (corresponding to Q=infinity), but the ITER consortium had to cut the budget when the U.S. pulled out of the project in 1998. Of course, then the U.S. rejoined in 2003, but by then the plan was set on "ITER Lite". It's not supposed to be done construction until 2018, though, and there's a chance of further schedule slippage approaching 100%. It's going to run for 25 years.

      If you go to slide #25 of this presentation by Chris Llewellyn-Smith, you can see that the current "fast-track" plan for a commercial fusion plant has the first plants operating in 2048. Of course, that presentation was in 2005, and the ITER schedule has slipped by about four years since then, so we can say that if we somehow manage to stick to the "fast-track" plan from now on (we won't), there could be operating fusion power plants in the 2050s.

      Yes, it's a long-term plan. That doesn't mean it's not worth funding. There still is no other energy source that can compete with its theoretical benefit. The only ones that come close in ability to provide a large amount of energy are fission and solar, and they have the disadvantages, respectively, of long-lived actinide waste, and massive land use.

      --

      Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    2. Re:Inertial confinement vs. magnetic confinement by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did my BSc thesis on the laser plasma interaction in NIF and my impression was that while inertial confinement fusion is extremely unlikely to be practical as a power plant, it may be used as an exceptionally intense neutron source for various experiments. Spallation sources can generally achieve high neutron fluxes and neutron energies, but an inertial confinement fusion device would generate orders of magnitude higher neutron intensities still. Moreover the fusion neutrons are virtually mono energetic, and this is impossible to achieve with most present spallation designs without drastically reducing the number of available neutrons. Essentially the only way to do it is to use some criteria like time-of-flight or neutron diffraction to select for only neutrons of a given energy, thus wasting all other neutrons, and this is only practical at low energies. At higher energies you would likely need to exploit the kinematics of some form of knockout reaction, like Li(D,n)Be, and since the large yield requirement would likely cause you to ionize your target, such a scheme would have challenges similar to those faced by inertial confinement devices. It also seems to me that it would be tricky to generate such a powerful deuterium pulse, if it is at all possible.

    3. Re:Inertial confinement vs. magnetic confinement by Goldsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nice comments on this thread! I totally agree with you about the need in physics to separate basic and weapons research.

      I used to work in fusion (DIII-D), but I don't believe the "40 years away" mark. My feeling is that the materials to build a commercial grade reactor are still too expensive and that there is some non-trivial materials work still to be done with the reactor walls and gathering energy. I realize this is what the ITER people tell the grant reviewers they're going to look at, but it has been my experience that plasma physicists are not really interested in materials research when it comes down to who gets to pay postdocs and grad students. In the end, the monolithic grant structuring in fusion will need to integrate or approximate the smaller scale, more distributed materials research community (lots of small, cheap experiments) for fusion to have a chance to work commercially in 40 years. I doubt the handful of experiments around now will be able solve the materials problems quickly. Oddly, this is not an opinion I got from studying materials physics, but from the plasma physicists I used to work with who thought ITER was trying to sell something it couldn't deliver prior to being changed into "ITER lite" and cutting back on the expectations.

      NIF could do some materials research, and I'm sure they'll run a few test, but it's still the wrong kind of experiment. The money would have been better spent developing a tool which could be sold to ~50 research universities for materials testing for fusion.

  9. close but not quite by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a society is as rich as its values. this is the reason the west is so powerful, not because it has nike sweatshops in indonesia. the usa, in 250 years, has eclipsed civilizations thousands of years older, because its foundational values from the enlightenment are simply superior ways of organizing society in productivity and happiness, and valuing progress and tolerance

    however, in its need for energy, the west rewards places like saudi arabia. therefore, saudi arabia has no incentive to get better values, or evolve, and remains a stultified insanity exporting (wahabbi islam) country. when soccer mom fills up her SUV, she funds ultraconservative madrassas in pakistan and indonesia via saudi arabia that teach the west is the devil and should be destroyed

    if oil never existed on the arabian penninsula, the insane ultraconservative religious ideas would remain the enclave of the few tribes who remained in the desert, and the cities would be full of young progressive thinking muslims, modern-looking and clamoring for change, and achieving it. simply because there would be no artificially propped up old guard preserving medieval values that simply don't work, and keeping their young from having a society they can envision themselves as better than the one they have

    oil money, petrodollars, it keeps saudi arabia frozen in time, without any need or desire to adapt better values, and it allows it to export social values which are toxic to progress and prosperity. it exports these backwards values, and funds the evangelizing of ultraconservative wahabbi islam throughout the muslim world. so when we have fusion, and the value of oil drops to squat, only then will saudi arabia begin to modernize, because only then will it have to modernize for the first time since the penninsula was united in the early 20th century and oil was discovered

    but right now, saudi arabia doesn't have to modernize its value system, because it is rewarded insane amounts of cash simply for sitting on a lot of oil. to the detriment of saudi society, the detriment of poor muslim societies that are recipients of the evangelizing of well-funded ultraconservative thinking, and the detriment of the west, which is vilified by the people it pays to give them oil to run their gas guzzling cars

    in this way will fusion promote peace: by stop rewarding feeble, backwards societies and their unhuman values, simply because they sit on a lot of oil

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  10. Re:Still problems? by daknapp · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's the problem with magnetically confined fusion. NIF will be inertially confined.

  11. Re:Still problems? by DBHolder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Inertial confinement fusion does not rely on having a stable plasma for any extended period of time as magnetic confinement does. Instead, think of it as a series of small bombs. Each is fired into the center of the chamber and ignited with the laser system. In a commercial plant this would have occur 5-8 times a second. Meaning you have what is essentially machine gun speed firing of DT pellets into the center of the chamber with equavalent speed lasers. Thus one of the large problems remaining in ICF fusion is the development of the laser components that can fire in this way for extended periods of time. Additionally, first wall materials are needed that can handle the neutron and ion flux that is generated in extended operation. The major US project that was actually addressing the laser and material tech side was HAPL, which got zeroed out on the FY 2009 budget.

  12. Re:Energy Independence by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we need is some CERN-scale collaboration on this so that we can possibly help to alleviate the energy strains on the global populace.

    That's great and all, but not very helpful when you have religious radical factions tearing nations apart from the inside out.

    What governs humanity's motivation often goes beyond just the quest of plentiful resources.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  13. Re:Still problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't see anything in the article about Helium removal. I thought that was the biggest remaining problem with nuclear fusion -- removing the Helium-4 "waste" from the reaction before the Helium "poisons" it and shuts down. Someone please correct me. I'm sure that's not entirely accurate.

    They've already started on an adjoining balloon factory. If they can break even on the energy production the Helium balloon animals sales will drive them into profits.

  14. Re:Energy Independence by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But a nuclear fission plant had an accident 20 years ago.. Sorry but we'll just have to wait for fusion and use coal in the meantime.

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  15. Re:Energy Independence by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess you don't read the literature. Tokamak "advanced modes" are practically a breakthrough and thats from the actual data not simulations. ITER will produce sustained fusion burn. DEMO will go one step further. At the cost of 20 billion for 5+ year program its not bad since a plain old fashion nuclear reactor can cost upwards of 10 billion. In fact if they got the budget of say federal roading (about 40Billion per year) it would have been done by now.

    I find it amusing that you assume that we are still in the 60s with plasma and fusion technology without reading up on any of it first.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  16. Re:Energy Independence by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you have effectively free and infinite energy, practically any other resource problem can be solved with today's technology.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.