NIF Aims For the Ultimate Green Energy Source

theodp writes "Edward Moses and his team of 500 scientists and engineers at Lawrence Livermore's National Ignition Facility are betting $3.5B in taxpayer money on a tiny pellet they hope could produce an endless supply of safe, clean energy. By the fall of 2010, the team aims to start blasting capsules containing deuterium-tritium fuel with 1.4 megajoules of laser power, a first step towards the holy grail of controlled nuclear fusion. Not all are convinced that Moses will lead us to the promised land. 'They're snake-oil salesmen,' says Thomas Cochran, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Moses, for his part, seems unfazed by the skepticism, saying he's confident that his team will succeed."

Comments

Mirror of the mirror

[Geoffrey.landis]

What bothers me is that, back in the 70s, LIvermore built the Mirror Fusion Test Facility, at a cost of somewhat over a billion dollars, to test a fusion concept. The project was cancelled by the Reagan administration the day the facility was finished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_Fusion_Test_Facility

Do we have more stick-to-it spirit these days? Or is this another few billion dollars spent with no other purpose than to improve the economy of Livermore, California?

Re:Mirror of the mirror

[WaywardGeek]

Bush Jr also canceled all the funding for fusion experiments. It's the only reason we ever even heard of the Bussard Polywell, since the scientists were free to talk about it after their contract with the Navy ended. Of course, now that the Navy funding is back, we're not allowed to hear how development is going.

The obvious conspiracy theory is Big Oil doesn't like the threat of an alternative energy source, and they have a lot of clout at the White House when Republicans are in power. Other Bush Jr decisions included halting nearly all new permits for solar array power stations. So, the conspiracy theory has legs.

Re:Mirror of the mirror

[tgd]

If you're looking for conspiracy theories, there's a better one that is actually backed by better facts.

Its a common activity of the federal government (and arguably not an unreasonable one) to spend billions of dollars on projects that are not intended to ever succeed in the role they are sold to the public as, but rather to support industries that are deemed critical to national interest or security.

The ISS/Space Shuttle is probably the best and most widely known example. This was hundreds of billions spent to keep engineers and, more importantly, defense contractors, employed and solvent between DoD contracts, and to ensure that the skills they collectively had weren't lost through retirement or otherwise.

The US has the same problem with the skills around nuclear (fission and fusion) research and engineering, particularly since we stopped building and testing nuclear weapons. The argument has been made before, because the scientific justification is so bad, that many of these projects like the NIF are done for the same reason, and focus deliberately shifts around projects as the need for the project to actually produce something starts to come to a head.

IMO, the NIF alone is a giant waste of money, but if it serves as an act of corporate welfare to keep the scientists and contractors involved in the project active and up to date, then perhaps its not a bad investment.

But I don't think any experts who aren't getting a paycheck related to it really expect a viable solution to fusion power to come from it.

synchronizing nearly 200 lasers

[gordona]

Has anyone wondered how to synchronize these lasers to less than a microsecond? Sure one could measure the path lengths and calculate the delays at approx 9 ns per foot. However, about 12 years ago I wrote the software for a system that sync'd a remote quartz clock to a local cesium clock to within a nanosecond over 10 -100 km of fiber. Changes in path length we automatically compensated. It was fun to write this code and put the system together. A prototype was delivered to the Lawrence Livermore Lab for just this purpose.

Re:synchronizing nearly 200 lasers

[joe_frisch]

These days synchronizing lasers to microseconds is easy. At LCLS/SLAC we synchronize our conventional and X-ray laser to 100 femtoseconds. We've also done 40 km of fiber to about 1 picosecond (and I think other labs have done better)

Three points

[cmowire]

Point one: Not spending money on fusion research is incredibly dumb. It's not likely to pan out in the near-term future, but there's plenty of ancillary science to be done on the subject. For example, the VASMIR space drive built on fusion research, it's just not hot enough to provoke fusion

Point two: Relying on fusion power to make for a short-term fix is also dumb. Especially if you think it's going to be safe and clean. The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits. Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons, you produce a good amount. The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core. And even if you get to a "Breakeven" point, that doesn't mean that you'll be price-competitive with other forms of power.

Fusion is easy. Just take a GIANT ball of gas, let it collapse into a star, and put solar panels around the star.

Point three: Calling it the Ultimate Green Energy Source is a cover story. A 2007 report by the National Research Council's Plasma Science Committee concluded that "NIF is crucial to the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will be able to create the extreme conditions of temperature and pressure that exist on Earth only in exploding nuclear weapons and that are therefore relevant to understanding the operation of our modern nuclear weapons."

In other words, the NIF will be used, at least some of the time, to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.

Re:Three points

[vlm]

The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core.

Why? Other than an appeal to authority, or FUD, I don't see it. And I'm fairly well educated in this area.

The inherent problem with "spent" fission fuel, is we have very little control over how the atoms fission. Generally you get about 1/3 and 2/3 chunks but a graph of the relative weights shows two wide peaks. The stuff thats stable for millions of years is harmless, because, well, its stable for millions of years before it does anything. Likewise for the stuff with a half life of a few seconds, like the silver isotopes, because an hour after shutdown its all reacted. But there are plenty of icky cobalt and strontium and other isotopes that have an annoying half life "around a human generation long" that are really hazardous biologically. So there is no way to run a fission reactor without accumulating icky radioactive waste. Don't want a fission reactor full of cobalt and strontium isotopes? Well, tough luck, that is an inherent byproduct of the fuel itself.

On the other hand, fusion doesn't use "stuff" that inherently involves bad half lives. Don't want a fusion reactor full of cobalt and strontium isotopes? Well then don't build the reactor out of it.

... solar panels ...

Ah I see it was all just astroturfing or something.

Re:Three points

[vlm]

Look up neutron activation. When neutrons are flying around in a nuclear (of any type) reactor core, some of them hit the material in the walls, causing the atoms to absorb a neutron and change isotopes. Which tends to result in a reactor core that is radioactive, even though it wasn't made of radioactive materials and didn't absorb any isotopes.

I know a lot about that topic. Lets make our reactor vessel out of iron. Nice and strong. We need a table of nuclides, but wikipedia is an adequate substitute. So, lets see what horrible long term waste results from neutron activation of iron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_iron

Most of the half lives are in the ms range. If you manage to strike the same atom simultaneously with five neutrons, you get a 44 day halflife, this is irrelevant in practice. Overall, neutron activation of iron is not a significant issue.

Some materials can be neutron activated, some simply cannot. Don't worry about distilled water, or lead.

The important point, is you choose the structural material so neutron activation is simply, inherently irrelevant. Hence the intense interest in material science in fusion reactors.

You could intentionally make a fusion reactors walls out of U-235 and generate tons of contamination, but why?

Re:Three points

[cmowire]

You do realize that iron would become brittle as steel from the neutron flux if you built your reactor vessel out of it, right? It's a vague problem with fission reactors that required some procedural adjustments once neutron embrittlement was better understood, but with orders of magnitude greater neutron flux...

Nor can you rely on a isotope chart of a single element to predict what's going to occur in a high neutron flux environment.

For example, Fe 58 is stable. Capture a neutron it becomes Fe 59, with a 44 day halflife to Co 59. If Co 59 captures a neutron, it becomes Co 60, which is a long-lived radioisotope.

So I guess you do get a reactor vessel with a certain amount of cobalt isotopes, no?

I wouldn't classify this as an "unsolvable problem" but you can't magically wave your hands and make them go away.

For all the "oh my god radioactivity" crap that's going around, the simple fact of the matter is that you can access the core of a fission reactor while it's online whereas you cannot access the core of a fusion reactor while it's online.

Re:Three points

[cmowire]

Fusion that does not produce neutrons.

Eg, D + He 3 -> He 4 + p vs. D + T -> He 4 + n. The first, deuterium and helium-3 produces helium 4 and a proton. No neutrons. But deuterium and tritium produces helium 4 and a neutron.

The problem is, not perfect. With the deuterium hanging around in a reactor, you'd get some degree of neutron-producing reactions anyway.

Re:Three points

[dkf]

The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits. Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons, you produce a good amount. The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core.

That's not actually necessarily a problem, you know. It all depends really on two factors.

1. How much do the neutrons disrupt the atomic-level structure of the reactor. Different materials respond to this sort of insult in different ways; some become brittle or degrade, yes, but others do not. Guess which ones are used in reactors? In fact, fusion reactors actually rely on the neutron flux to create tritium from deuterium, so it's actually useful.
2. How "hot" are the reactor parts afterwards. In fact, "hot" (i.e., highly radioactive) is good because it means that the radioactivity is decaying more rapidly. We can easily store materials safely for a few decades while they become safe to handle. Even a century isn't much of a problem; there most certainly are industrial sites that have been left alone for that long and maintaining continuity of protection of the public for that long isn't too big an issue. The problem is when you've got long-lived isotopes that decay into short-lived isotopes. Alas, I'm no radiophysicist, so I don't know how likely this is with radioisotopes from the lighter parts of the periodic table, but it might well be so. (The other point is that if something really is "hot", it's self-protecting. "You mess with this, you die" signs do discourage all but the most strongly inclined toward collecting a Darwin Award.)

In any case, the neutrons aren't a big problem. We know they're there. We can engineer to deal with the consequences. I believe we do not anticipate having to deal with problematic long-lived radioisotopes. What's the issue?

Re:Did slashdot just got slashdotted?

[tyroneking]

speaking for myself, I was deeply disturbed - I'm well used to my clients' mission-critical clustered systems becoming unavailable for days because of databases issues (no free space, someone forgot to trunc the logs, the db monitor says the db is running but it isn't, someone changed a password, the new DBA went into the server room with the db manufacturer's manual in hand and is now missing, the DBA finally applies a year-old patch, etc.) - hell, even Google goes down relatively often (usually when they try to re-route something?) but when it happens to Slashdot, then I really get surprised ;)

Waste of money ...

[tgd]

There is big physics that is a good place to sink money, and big physics that is not.

Only the physicists and engineers who are payed by grants in this area seem to think its a good use of money.

And unfortunately projects like this pull billions of taxpayer money from research projects that may actually benefit society.

The NIF is the ISS of the physics world.

Re:Proof of Concept

[Vellmont]

Proof of concept devices area always oversized and more costly than the production versions.

Uhh.. maybe for electronics, but usually for power generation you start small scale and build much larger versions.

Here's some scale. The article says this thing will produce just over a mega-joule of energy per-fire. They fire the thing a few times a day. 6 GIGA-joules is the amount of chemical energy in a barrel of oil. That means that per-fire, this thing produces the about the same amount of energy as is in a fluid Oz. of oil.

I still think we should be doing it, but I sure wouldn't bet on the thing becoming smaller and cheaper.

Re:Deuterium is hardly "endless"

[vlm]

deuterium refinement is still only done with stunningly high energy costs

A buck per liter of pure D is not all that "stunning". In insulated liquid tanker car loads, you could probably buy it somewhat cheaper. True, there is an inherent lower limit regardless of bulk purchase or whatever, I'm guessing probably around 50 cents per liter wholesale. The manufacturers are not operating as a charity, they probably use 100% electrically operated machinery, and probably most of their costs are labor and capital, so I feel confident that a liter of D takes only a couple KWh at most. Perhaps you know so little about the topic that you're confusing stunningly high U-235 fission fuel refining costs with D refining costs? I'm thinking the fuel cost is not going to be an issue, like a rounding error in the budget.

http://www.isotope.com/cil/products/displayproduct.cfm?prod_id=8827&cat_id=35&market=research

Another way to put it, by volume, retail gasoline is about as expensive as D, but the same volume of D when fused generates exactly one zillion times more energy than burning gasoline.

Re:A better alternative

[hedwards]

Not really, people people get outraged over having to pay extra taxes. And without the extra taxes you wind up in the paradox of efficiency, where there's no net gain. As energy gets cheaper, people drive more and development tends to get spread out more. Which leads in nearly all cases to the efficiencies being overshadowed by greater use.

Seattle has the some of the greatest fuel efficiency in the US largely because it resides in a part of the country with a high gas tax. We've got the same vehicles available to us that are in most parts of the country, but because of the gas taxes we tend to consider more carefully whether we drive and how far and what we drive.

Cheap clean energy will utterly destroy the planet

[Colin Smith]

Or rather.

What will happen is it will allow the economy, unlimited growth. With that goes consumption. Humans will literally build, eat and fuck the planet into a desolate wasteland.

 

Dense Plasma Focus is more promising.

[John Sokol]

Dense Plasma Focus technology is the next best thing to what cold fusion had promised. Best of all it's real and doesn't use any questionable physics.

Safe, small, low cost, low maintenance and efficient. It looks like it will be small enough that it could be ran from inside a rail car or truck.

It's far ,more likely to work then blasting deuterium-tritium with lasers, but they can't get funding!

Slashdot's reported this several times.
A-Step-Closer-To-Cheap-Nuclear-Fusion

And I have posting my research in to this too.
green ideas thinktank

Re:NIF not the only or even best technology

[mako1138]

The history of fusion energy research is marked by concepts that have not worked as their designers anticipated them to. In the first half of the 20th century, they built pinches, only to discover MHD instabilities. They built tokamaks, only to discover more and different kinds of MHD instabilities. They built spheromaks, only to find that the energy density couldn't go high enough. They built pinches of various kinds, only to find that the particle leakage was too high. They built inertial confinement devices, only to find that the ions would lose their energy rapidly.

So you see, I am skeptical that these "new" concepts will be successful anytime soon. Economical generation of fusion energy is a hard problem. I wish the small-scale guys luck, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:A better alternative

[shaitand]

No, there would just be new banks.