Slashdot Mirror


National Ignition Facility Fails To Ignite Support In Congress

Hugh Pickens writes "For more than 50 years, physicists have been eager to achieve controlled fusion, an elusive goal that could potentially offer a boundless and inexpensive source of energy. Now Bill Sweet writes in IEEE Spectrum that the National Ignition Facility (NIF), now five billion dollars over its original budget and years behind schedule, deserves to be recognized as perhaps the biggest and fattest white elephant of all time. With the total tab for NIF now running to an estimated $7 billion, the laboratory has been pulling out all the stops to claim success is just around the corner. 'We didn't achieve the goal,' said Donald L. Cook, an official at the National Nuclear Security Administration who oversees the laser project but rather than predicting when it might succeed, he added in an interview, 'we're going to settle into a serious investigation' of what caused the unforeseen snags. On one hand, the laser's defenders point out, hard science is by definition risky, and no serious progress is possible without occasional failures. On the other, federal science initiatives seldom disappoint on such a gargantuan scale, and the setback comes in an era of tough fiscal choices and skepticism about science among some lawmakers. 'If the main goal is to achieve a power source that could replace fossil fuels, we suspect the money would be better spent on renewable sources of energy that are likely to be cheaper and quicker to put into wide use,' editorializes the NY Times. 'Congress will need to look hard at whether these "stockpile stewardship" and long-term energy goals can be pursued on a smaller budget.'"

190 comments

  1. Just tell Mitt Romney it's part of the military. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then he'll never cut it, no matter how much waste it is.

    Either that, or find a way to spin it as a cut to Medicare.

    Just make sure he knows it's got nothing to do with PBS, that massive drain on the federal budget that never produces anything of value. Why I can't count the ways it hasn't helped me!

  2. Wait.. by thej1nx · · Score: 1

    ...They had a schedule for achieving controlled fusion? Do they have a schedule for warp drive as well?

    1. Re:Wait.. by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      They had a schedule for achieving controlled fusion?

      Yes, it's current date + 50 years.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  3. Fusion is needed, maybe not this tech though by tomhath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the long run fusion will be the best source of energy. I don't mind having spent the money attempting to make this technology work but apparently it isn't the right solution. Time to move on.

    1. Re:Fusion is needed, maybe not this tech though by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Depends how long you're thinking. In the long run it's still fusion, but one has to imagine that between asteroid mining and the cheap launch capability we might gain from fusion-powered rockets, we could assemble a Dyson-sphere like construct of satellites to harvest power off the big reactor above us.

  4. Maybe not irresponsible by mattr · · Score: 0

    Totally without any basis, say it needs another 3 billion to get to market.
    Instead, spend 1 billion more on education, 1 billion on solar power satellites, and 1 billion reduction of the budget..

    1. Re:Maybe not irresponsible by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, you know, spend 1T less on whacking tin-pot dicatooar, put $50B into the NIF to make it actually work, another $50B at ITER as a backup and enjoy the $900B savings...

      1 billion on solar power satellites,

      Also, seriously, since one speculative tech hit a snag and didn't work, your solution is to invest in another that is evel less likely to work eith current tech at a level which will ensure that it will never get aronud to be working.

      £1b is orders of magnitude too low to get anywhere with solar power satellites. $100b _might_ cut it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Maybe not irresponsible by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There was the article on /. a while back where MIT was answering questions about fusion and it was pointed out that based on the historical cutting of fusion research investment, fusion power is about $80 billion away, and has always been 25 years away because it's budget has been progressively cut.

    3. Re:Maybe not irresponsible by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      , and has always been 25 years away because it's budget has been progressively cut

      ISTR tht the current level of funding it will basically never end up working.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Maybe not irresponsible by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The thing is this is applied research with a defined goal that's kinda far out there. So a clear forecast of how long it will take and how much it will cost isn't possible. But this is a potentially a multi trillion dollar payout project. So a large expenditure for a low probability it will work may be justified.

    5. Re:Maybe not irresponsible by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, spend 1T less on whacking tin-pot dicatooar, put $50B into the NIF to make it actually work, another $50B at ITER as a backup and enjoy the $900B savings...

      To give some more specific numbers...

      All direct military spending to date for the war in Afghanistan alone amounts to roughly $500 billion. What's worse is that the cost has been steadily rising ever since it began - right now we're wasting about $7 billion every month on it.

    6. Re:Maybe not irresponsible by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      It really does need to stuck under the purview of the department of defense. I mean DARPA has had a long term interest in cold-fusion, simply because if it's at all possible they want to know about it - just in case. You'd think the benefits of hot fusion to powering submarines and aircraft carriers would warrant similar interest.

    7. Re:Maybe not irresponsible by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      All direct military spending to date for the war in Afghanistan alone amounts to roughly $500 billion.

      But that's a small price to pay for establishing a peaceful democracy with its people friendly towards the West.. Oh, wait...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. 7 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's it? This is what they claim is the biggest white elephant in our budget?

    It isn't the 700 billion spent on Defense, or the 400 billion we spend on medicare, it's the god damn 7 billion spent on trying to obtain controlled fusion. Don't misunderstand me, it sounds like this project is wasting a ton of money, and something should be done about it. But claiming it is the single biggest flop in our budget, even as hyperbole, is laughable at best, and ill informed at worst.

    1. Re:7 billion? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well... the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology thinks the Big Bang is lie from hell so why is this surprising?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:7 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A white elephant isn't just expensive, its cost is more than its worth. High amounts of dollars spent are a necessary condition, but not sufficient; you also need a lack of results or value. You may disagree, but many people think we're getting essential value from the money we spend on defense and Medicare. So what you have a disagreement about values, which doesn't make the opposing view "laughable at best, and ill informed at worst."

    3. Re:7 billion? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's 7 billion over the lifetime of the project. The 700 Billion to the military is per year. In fact, I would honestly assert that those costs could be controlled by doing more in-house and less using contractors, but reversing the privatization of government jobs is really unpopular with congress for some reason.

    4. Re:7 billion? by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or just for science the International Space Station. Every four years or so, they burn the equivalent of a NIF.

    5. Re:7 billion? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      This comes from people who bang only to reproduce, they've never had a proper big bang so I'm not surprised they don't believe in one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:7 billion? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      No, Big Bird is funneling the money to the Colombians. THAT's why it has to be cut off.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:7 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some reason like those private contractors provide kickbacks in the form of SuperPACs.

    8. Re:7 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, big bird is, in fact, the 1%. He's rolling in benjamins thanks to licensing deals. Of course, that does jack shit for PBS since they don't get any of that money.

    9. Re:7 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're really suggesting the Medicare and defense are both entirely useless white elephants that could be entirely dismantled without any impact?

    10. Re:7 billion? by gtall · · Score: 1

      The other $2.7 Trillion goes for the rest of the discretionary budget (roughly $400-500 Billion). The remaining $2.3-2.2 Trillion goes for SS and the rest of the entitlements. Defense is now at one of its lowest points with respect to GDP since WW2. You won't be balancing anything by taking it out of Defense. That isn't saying Defense could not be streamlined, it could, but it won't solve the budget problem.

    11. Re:7 billion? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      You are trying to compare a $100 hooker that gives you a good professional job and some guy charging you $20 to rub one out your self. Which one is the bigger waste?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    12. Re:7 billion? by DCFusor · · Score: 2

      And the money spent on DHS and TSA isn't a white elephant? Oh, I forgot they now have all the dirt on their source of funding, and are sooo important in the creation of the police state we're heading towards in headlong fashion.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    13. Re:7 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you see the military has identifiable positive outcomes. If you are not in the military and have you been attacked by a foreigner today then all that money spent to 'defend America' paid off.

      You're welcome, citizen.

    14. Re:7 billion? by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      Basic research of any kind is a white elephant. That doesn't mean we need to cut all basic research.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    15. Re:7 billion? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, problem is people don't like the answer to the budget problems. The only solution is halving social services (at least), and reducing it further as population increases. And that assessment is dated - it doesn't include the Obamacare extra expenditures.

      For obvious reasons, this is really unpopular.

    16. Re:7 billion? by tibman · · Score: 1

      A lot of "in-house" work in the US Army was outsourced to contractors to convert people sitting at desks into trigger pullers. They had to be converted because Congress would not expand the size of the military and kept it peace-time sized.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    17. Re:7 billion? by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why Defense spending needs to be linked to GDP. Why is this some important metric?

    18. Re:7 billion? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      many people think we're getting essential value from the money we spend on defense

      Well, certainly all the people in the military and the defence industry do. And there are quite a lot of them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:7 billion? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, problem is people don't like the answer to the budget problems. The only solution is halving social services (at least), and reducing it further as population increases. And that assessment is dated - it doesn't include the Obamacare extra expenditures.

      For obvious reasons, this is really unpopular.

      The answer is to get more people working and to tax the high earners progressively higher. But of course that's just fucking socialism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:7 billion? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      well, first those are per year expenditures you are considering, and this project is 7 bio life to date. So you are obviously comparing apples and oranges

      but in reality, no one brings up the fact we have spent nearly 70 billion dollars on the f22 raptor and isn't even in service. sure, they delivered us a plane, but that just means we now have to pay for upkeep for a fighter we can't even use.

    21. Re:7 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez, that $7B should be going to rich people! This could fund five whole days of Romney's feed-the-rich plan.

    22. Re:7 billion? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Only in reference for historical purposes. The point is that as a drag on the economy, it isn't. I do not mean to imply that it necessarily need be kept to historical percentages. That would be silly.

  6. Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There needs to be a very detailed account of what these people have been doing with public funds. Renewable energy in the form of wind, solar, tidal and geothermal generation cannot replace fossil fuels fast enough to keep Global Warming within reasonable limits, but all show promise.

    We've already wasted too much time, and now we need some kind of generation technology to bridge the gap. Imagine what that money could have done helping develop a small, safe, easy-to-build thorium reactor, or overcoming the issues delaying wholesale change to LED lighting.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      renewable energy in the form of wind, solar, tidal and geothermal generation cannot replace fossil fuels fast enough to keep Global Warming within reasonable limits

      That completely ignores what should be near the top of the energy agenda, namely conservation. The US, for instance, uses about twice as much energy per capita as Germany, and yet there isn't a significant difference in quality of life.

      And it's interesting that when somebody who knows what they're talking about proposes a cheap and effective measure, like painting rooftops white so they absorb less heat, they are mostly made fun of and/or ignored.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Take a week of the Defense budget. Spread it out across 10 projects to fund for a year.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd probably laugh them out of the room because the last time I painted my roof at all was... never. That's because of all the shingles on it.

      That said, there are white shingles out there, and there's even a tax credit for it.

      On the other hand, white roofs eventually looks like ass after being exposed to nature for awhile. You gain a marginally cooler roof, but your property values plummet because your roof looks like its twice as old as the black one next door because you can see every blotch and bit of dirt on it. And it's even worse of you have a tree over it, or God-forbid, anything at all rusting up there.

      Now, if you are talking about insulating the crap out of your attic and installing venting, you're starting to make sense.

    4. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by tibit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because you call some nonexisting tech, wishfully, "small, safe, easy-to-build", doesn't make it so. Unless it's demonstrated to be having those properties, I file it under pink unicorns :(

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    5. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by tibit · · Score: 2

      For typical US suburban single family construction, painting roofs white doesn't make any sense. Homes have attics, and those attics are ventilated. The more sunlight the roof absorbs, the more air gets pumped through the attic. In my home, the attic is reasonably comfortable even in 30C weather with clear skies -- the air temperature right above the insulation is perhaps 2 C above ambient -- and that's a pretty run-of-the-mill house from 1979. Sure it higher if you measure it elsewhere, but only temperature at the bottom of the attic matters here. Painting the roof white won't any practical difference there. What will make difference is proper insulation in the attic, and that, demonstrably, is quite lacking in most U.S. homes!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    6. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by hyades1 · · Score: 0

      It would really help if you made even the slightest effort to inform yourself about the subject at hand before shooting off your mouth.

      Google "thorium" or "thorium reactor" and see what pops up. Then think about what throwing a few billion dollars at the situation could do.

      I'm going to take it on faith you aren't such a complete twit you commented without being aware five out of seven types of thorium reactor under development have already been in service at some point.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone who has done research in nuclear engineering and is very supportive of thorium based power, even I would think it is a stretch to say "small, safe, easy-to-build" at the moment. There is potential, but part of the reason I think it needs government funding is so that can actually be developed and demonstrated. In the meantime, there are a lot of hurdles still to address, which should be addressable, but still would take some work to be sure.

    8. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I guess we're in violent agreement, then.

      Yes, there's a lot of work to be done, but my point was that spending several billions of dollars on improving something that has actually been proved to work offers a bit more chance of short-term payoff than fusion. I think we're now at the point where technology to produce a fusion reaction that might be useful for power generation is about 50 years away. Thirty years ago it was also 50 years away, and from the way these guys are going, it will still be 50 years away in another couple or three decades.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by tibit · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly by presuming I don't know about the, um, promise of thorium reactors. Yet you can't put the cart in front of the horses. Throw the money, and if you're lucky, after 20-30 years of operation in actual, you know, utility companies, it'll be demonstrated that it's small, safe and easy to build. So far it's wishful thinking. It may be true, but given lack of, you know, the damned things in operation, you can't really say much about their size, cost or safety record. All I know is that conventional nuclear plants have a pretty damn exceptional safety record. Even if you include Fukushima and Chernobyl in the calculations.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The "paint your roof white" suggestion was meant more for office parks, skyscrapers, and other taller flat-roofed buildings where there is no attic.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    11. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your property values plummet because your roof looks like its twice as old as the black one next door

      And here's another crazy European idea: you buy or mortgage a house to live in it, not to sit and worry about what it's "worth" to someone else.

    12. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by tibit · · Score: 1

      Yep, and you'd think those buildings have better insulation systems than generally slipshod-made residential buildings :/

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    13. Re:Holding the fort 'til Alt Energy gets here by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      A house is a substantial investment, sometimes a family's only investment. I don't think a European would ignore that, but I could be wrong.

      In any event, I don't intend to retire in my current house, which is in the middle of an urban area, so the eventual value of my house matters. Many people only have certain habitations for as long as they need to raise children in them, so selling your house is probably the best way to go for most people. Not to mention a lot more energy efficient than heating and maintaining a larger house for only one or two people.

      If you fully intend to live in your house for the next 50 years, perhaps you don't care, but even if you are just there to "live in it", do you want to live in a dirty looking house for what comes out to a miniscule amount of energy savings that is more efficiently dealt with by other methods?

  7. That is it by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Informative

    With the total tab for NIF now running to an estimated $7 billion

    That is it, only $7 billion. To put that number into perspective that is about 2 days of deficit spending (not total spending for those 2 days just the deficit) for the US government.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:That is it by Elder+Entropist · · Score: 4, Informative

      The YEARLY amount spent on missile defense with really bad results is more than the total $7 billion here.

    2. Re:That is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To put that in another perspective, since it started being built in 1997, the cost of the project distributed over all American citizens (population size @ 311,591,917 as of July 2011) is just under half a cent per day. Or about $1.82 per year per citizen. That's less than the amount you can opt to put into the presidential election campaign fund when filing your taxes.

    3. Re:That is it by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      The monthly amount spent on the war in Afghanistan - with zero net value to the United States or, really, anyone else - is $7 billion.

    4. Re:That is it by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      That is it, only $7 billion. To put that number into perspective ...

      I hate it when people claim to be "putting something into perspective" but are really "spinning something marginally related."

      If tax revenue were to decline.. or if the deficit were to increase.. your "perspective" makes this spending look better and better.. thats only 1 day of deficit spending.. thats only half a day of deficit spending.. thats only an hour of deficit spending..

      Your "perspective" is actually the opposite of the way we should think about it.. Its just spin.

      In perspective, its about $52 for each federal tax return filed. About $1/week for each federal tax payer.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:That is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7 billion over how long? Big Bird gets 1/2 billion each year.

  8. Re:Just tell Mitt Romney it's part of the military by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Informative

    The NIF is part of the military essentially. While it has the side-benefit of allowing us to investigate inertial confined fusion, I thought the whole point of places like that was as a way to test nuclear weapons without actually setting them off?

  9. Money well spent by zill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The experiment was a success. The outcome a failure.

    There are two proposed approaches for fusion power generation: tokamak and ICF. ITER tests the tokamak approach and the National Ignition Facility tests the ICF approach. Thanks to the NIF we now know exactly what ICF is and isn't capable of. I'd call that an excellent return on investment.

    1. Re:Money well spent by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      In addition, one of ICF's main goals was to understand the behavior of matter undergoing fusion, which it has contributed extensively to. That's useful scientific knowledge there on its own, but perhaps more relevant to NIF's not-so-secret secondary purpose, it's also been used to improve simulations used in nuclear weapon design and maintenance (since tests are banned, data from experiments like the NIF is very important).

      Now you may or may not think improving our nuclear weapon stockpile is a great use of taxpayer money, but then the debate should be over that.

    2. Re:Money well spent by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      The experiment was a success. The outcome a failure.

      There are two proposed approaches for fusion power generation: tokamak and ICF. ITER tests the tokamak approach and the National Ignition Facility tests the ICF approach. Thanks to the NIF we now know exactly what ICF is and isn't capable of. I'd call that an excellent return on investment.

      You're obviously stuck back in the mid 20th Century when every research project didn't have to show immediate quarterly payback. We don't do that anymore. It's not "efficient".

    3. Re:Money well spent by H-Bomba · · Score: 1

      Like NIF, ITER is also on the road to dismal failure, for the same reason: built before the physics are fully understood. In the case of NIF it is well understood that 10MJ are required i.e. NIF is underpowered by at least a factor 10 (despite its 192 lasers). In the case of ITER it will self-destruct as soon as fired at full power because disruptions cannot be controlled. Now there is another avenue, which has demonstrated fusion and is expectd to break even before end 2013: Sandia's Z-machine and Baikal, its russian equivalent. Both very inexpensive compared to either NIF or ITER.

    4. Re:Money well spent by khallow · · Score: 1

      There are two proposed approaches

      There are at least three. The "Polywell" (which uses a form of inertial electrostatic confinement fusion) is yet another approach.

      There's also some ways to generate extremely inefficient table top fusion (eg, the Farnsworth fusor). Some day we might figure out how to make those efficient enough to generate power.

      Thanks to the NIF we now know exactly what ICF is and isn't capable of. I'd call that an excellent return on investment.

      Nonsense. ROI only makes sense if you consider both the investment and the return. Some vague, fluffy statement that we "know" what ICF can do, isn't a return. And you just blissfully ignored that at least $7 billion dollars was spent so you could blather about ROI on the internet.

    5. Re:Money well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a long list of other fusion concepts that show promise, and can be demonstrated to not have the same problems as the current forerunners. This is especially so on the magnetic confinement side, although there are a few novel ICF and MTF designs around too. They can vary in size and development from table top units up to some large national lab facilities. The problem is, while avoiding the problems of say a tokamak, they end up with their own new problems, some of which might not be evident until larger units are tested. So while they show promise, there is a long road of research ahead for several designs, much of which is slowly progressing now, and this is from someone who has worked on several non-tokamak MCF designs.

    6. Re:Money well spent by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that the Z-Machine apparently does ICF for lower cost than the NIC.

    7. Re:Money well spent by tibit · · Score: 1

      The Z-machine has not demonstrated fusion. They demonstrated, quite successfully, that their simulations of imploding tubes match the experiment. They are hoping that the imploding tube will contain fusion. That will be shown in early 2014 AFAICT. Yeah, they say "by the close of 2013". Uh huh, and I've got a bridge to sell.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:Money well spent by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Right. Because I'll trust some random /. poster over a bunch of respected physicists and engineers on how to build a fusion reactor that won't self-destruct.

    9. Re:Money well spent by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      The Z-machine, even if it does produce fusion, is hardly an easily repeatable or scalable device itself either.

    10. Re:Money well spent by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      There are two proposed approaches

      There are at least three. The "Polywell" (which uses a form of inertial electrostatic confinement fusion) is yet another approach.

      There's also some ways to generate extremely inefficient table top fusion (eg, the Farnsworth fusor). Some day we might figure out how to make those efficient enough to generate power.

      Farnsworth fusor's are physically due to losses due to material escaping confinement or slamming into the electrical grid in the middle. No matter how you tweak one, the Farnsworth design won't make energy - too many loss processes. Great for desktop neutrons though.

      The Polywell was designed to fix the problems with Farnsworth fusor's by replacing the physical grid with a virtual one composed of focussed electrons. The problem is, the guy who did a lot of the work didn't keep great lab notes (and is now dead), so whether it can work or not is unknown - DARPA are funding some work on it though. The problem is you can't just build a big one - there's a lot of design and engineering and theory that needs to be developed to figure out what exactly we'd want to build, and whether that thing is likely to work (Polywell's have their own set of loss processes and competing issues which need to be balanced).

    11. Re:Money well spent by khallow · · Score: 1

      The problem is you can't just build a big one - there's a lot of design and engineering and theory that needs to be developed to figure out what exactly we'd want to build, and whether that thing is likely to work (Polywell's have their own set of loss processes and competing issues which need to be balanced).

      Indeed. I just wanted to point out that there's more than the top (by level of funding) two approaches.

    12. Re:Money well spent by khallow · · Score: 1

      You're obviously stuck back in the mid 20th Century when every research project didn't have to show immediate quarterly payback. We don't do that anymore. It's not "efficient".

      Well what sort of "return" has been shown? Looks like we have a rather expensive fusion bomb simulator and not much else. I really tire of people who just don't get that any expenditure of public funds should be accountable. If you don't like the accountability issue, then find another way to fund the research. Don't just belittle it as short sighted thinking, especially, when ignoring accountability is the real short-sighted thinking here.

    13. Re:Money well spent by tibit · · Score: 1

      It has the right scale, and as far as converting it to continuous process, well, all you need is an extruder. The Z-machine process is almost a dream to convert to continuous operation, heck, it's the only fusion process out there that has so far any chance at continuous operation IMHO. Every other technology out there is pulsed in its very principle. We know pretty darn well how to deal with tubes and putting stuff in tubes, in a continuous process, just as we know how to ensure that said tubes are strong, uniform and free of defects. Sure we could figure out how to blow thin glass bubbles with D-T mix in them, but you're messing with discrete units of stuff. With a tube, you set it all up and it can go on at a fixed, continuous energy output until an overhaul comes up. The process of making the tube, keeping it filled with fuel, squeezing it, can all be done in a continuous operation. The squeeze could be done in a flow-through fashion, with a conical transition under the squeeze. Hot metal and helium gets ejected on the other end, the metal can be recycled in a closed loop.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    14. Re:Money well spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Z machine is inherently a pulsed design, as there is a mess of instabilities that would come up if turned into a continuous operation that killed most "slow" pinch designs in the past as opposed to "fast" pinch designs (many of which died too..). It would have to achieve the same repetition rates as laser or magnetized target fusion designs, just might have the benefit of potentially being easier to make a high repetition power source instead of a high repetition laser. However, work is advancing steadily for both cases in the 10s of Hz regime, so there is still a bit of toss up about which will work better in the long run.

    15. Re:Money well spent by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      You're obviously stuck back in the mid 20th Century when every research project didn't have to show immediate quarterly payback. We don't do that anymore. It's not "efficient".

      Well what sort of "return" has been shown? Looks like we have a rather expensive fusion bomb simulator and not much else. I really tire of people who just don't get that any expenditure of public funds should be accountable. If you don't like the accountability issue, then find another way to fund the research. Don't just belittle it as short sighted thinking, especially, when ignoring accountability is the real short-sighted thinking here.

      We used to show returns in the form of transistors, lasers, stuff like that. Many of these items didn't actually find a profitable use until decades after their discovery.

      Not all R&D is expensive boondoggles, and who the $#%# said "public funds?" Bell Labs invented both the transistor and the laser and they came from pure research, not "payback-this-quarter".

    16. Re:Money well spent by khallow · · Score: 1

      We used to show returns in the form of transistors, lasers, stuff like that. Many of these items didn't actually find a profitable use until decades after their discovery.

      Well, give an example of such research first before you make such assertions. I'll warn you though, when you actually try that exercise, you'll find it's harder than it first looks. For example, transistors had immediate financially profitable application since they could replace a much larger vacuum tube triode. And they served as a stepping stone to the first integrated circuits which also had near immediate profitable applicaiton.

      And lasers started life as masers which served both as a frequency standard and low noise amplifiers. As lasers, the biggest application, fiber optics cables were quickly developed. For example, the first lasers, according to Wikipedia were active around the late 50s and early 60s (with solid state lasers developed in 1962). The first fiber optics cables were developed in 1966. They were first tried in telephone lines in the field in 1977.

      Sure, it's not next quarter thinking, but it happened pretty damn fast, just the same.

      Not all R&D is expensive boondoggles, and who the $#%# said "public funds?"

      Pay attention to the thread. The title was "Money well spent." That money was for publicly funded fusion projects, ITER and NIF which can reasonably be considered boondoggles as well due to their high costs.

  10. Because, like, science is hard and stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You know what would really make that science thing, like, happen?

    Brawndo!

    It's got what fusion reactors crave.

  11. Big budgets = big risks by sjbe · · Score: 1

    To put that number into perspective that is about 2 days of deficit spending (not total spending for those 2 days just the deficit) for the US government.

    ...for a project that few people really understand during tough economic times. While I'm very much in support of science projects like this, it should surprise no one that stuff like this is going to be first on the chopping block come budget time. Voters don't turn out because their favorite science project got the budgetary ax but they do turn out when medicare is threatened. Big budget science comes with big political risks. If it works, great but if it doesn't it is an easy target and it hurts the prospects of future science projects.

    I agree thought that we really could use a few less bombers and a few more fusion research projects. The world would be a better place for it.

  12. Re:Just tell Mitt Romney it's part of the military by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, in this case it isn't even some secret mission, but one of the reasons the program was set up. The NIF's goal is to improve our understanding of fusion. There are two stated applications for doing so: 1) improving designs for possible future fusion-power reactors; and 2) improving understanding of how matter behaves in a thermonuclear explosion.

    The news seems to mostly be about #1, but really #2 is a pretty key part of the reason it exists.

  13. They're Doing it Wrong by fearofcarpet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The scientists at NIF have it all wrong; if they want to save their hides they need to get someone from the military to claim they need fusion for... I don't know, fighting terrorists or whatever. Just look at the rail gun--what a spectacular failure. Sure, we can make heavy things go fast, but they still haven't solved basic problems like how keep plasma from electrical arcing from melting the rails. Or the non-lethal microwave device that doesn't work in a light rain. Hypersonic missiles? Or even the myriad "totally necessary" fighter jets with backup engines being developed, just in case. What about space-based missile defense? Maybe NIF could claim that they could retrain their lasers on ICBMs? Clearly, if the military is into something things like price and feasibility are not a problem.

    In all seriousness, how the f*ck can anyone take Congress seriously when it comes to spending? Here we have $7 billion spent trying to discover limitless sources of energy, but ohhhh, they're over budget and that sounds like a big number! The Big Dig (in Boston) was federally subsidized and cost around $8 billion and it was made so poorly (due to corruption and a lack of oversight) that some poor woman was crushed when a ceiling tile fell on her car. And what about the trillion dollar tax cuts enacted in the first term of W? Or the other trillion (give or take) spent on invading Iraq for no particular reason? I don't buy this "we have to start somewhere" nonsense of budget cuts when nothing defense-related is even questioned and just letting the Bush tax cuts expire as they were supposedly originally intended is a non-starter, not to mention the insanity of the blanket 15% capital gains rate (note: you don't tax money, it's fungible, you tax the actions of people and legal entities).

    If anything, Congress should be embarrassed by how little they appropriate to science and how many of its members are on the record as refusing to accept Darwinian evolution or anthropogenic global warming (which probably explains their willingness to cut funding for NIF.)

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    1. Re:They're Doing it Wrong by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Sure, we can make heavy things go fast, but they still haven't solved basic problems like how keep plasma from electrical arcing from melting the rails.

      Do the rails cost less than a cruise missile? I've heard the more recent versions can fire several shots before they need to be replaced; if you can fire your railgun 5 times for 10 hours of maintanence and $50000 worth of steel that easily replaces 5 cruise missiles (at a cost of $500,000 each).

    2. Re:They're Doing it Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then change congress,

      a hint: voting on democrats or republicans will not change congress!

    3. Re:They're Doing it Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is the purpose of firing your rail-gun, except for waving around your American dick? I am only saying this because nobody is actually interested in the US. The only reason why Americans need to wave around their dicks, is because they like interfering and meddling in every little corner of the world. Meanwhile you are a bankrupt country full of dumb asses as far as I can tell.

    4. Re:They're Doing it Wrong by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      Sure, we can make heavy things go fast, but they still haven't solved basic problems like how keep plasma from electrical arcing from melting the rails.

      Do the rails cost less than a cruise missile? I've heard the more recent versions can fire several shots before they need to be replaced; if you can fire your railgun 5 times for 10 hours of maintanence and $50000 worth of steel that easily replaces 5 cruise missiles (at a cost of $500,000 each).

      The cost of the usage is not the point; it's the investment in the research, which has not panned out as a viable weapon. The whole point is to mount these on ships to save space and weight on munitions; yes, you can replace the rails, but added to the weight and volume of the bank of capacitors, and the weight of the projectiles, you now have a weapon that is heavier, takes up more room, is much slower to operate, and requires much more maintenance than what you already have. Phase II of the current railgun program is to get the firing rate up to 10 projectiles per minute in proof-of-concept (ground-based) devices... The first working prototype of a railgun pre-dates the invention of the laser; I call that a demonstrable failure, yet it continues to receive funding along with dozens of other questionable projects while NIF is on the chopping block because Congress sets the bar so much higher for civillian than military research. Instead of launching projectiles at bad guys, NASA proposed using railgun technology to launch satellites and space vehicles--did they get the funding? How's their budget looking?

      My point is not that we should cut funding to military research, rather that it is ridiculous that Congress gives so much more leeway to military research and is willing to funding failing projects for far longer than any civilian projects. It is as if they measure the success of civilian research against the Apollo Program and that of military research against Star Wars. And it all boils down to political posturing and corruption (in the literal sense; they take money from defense contractors to win re-election) which are just terrible ways to make decision about research funding.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
  14. for comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    total cost of stealth bomer including development, engineering and testing, averaged US$2.1 billion per aircraft (in 1997 dollars), $2.87 billion today

    London olympics, 2 week sports event, cost £11 Billion, or US$17.7 billion.

    This is the largest, most complicated laser in history, give it a chance!

    1. Re:for comparison by maroberts · · Score: 1

      This is the largest, most complicated laser in history, give it a chance!

      If sharks were involved, I'm sure there would be no difficulty in obtaining funding...

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

  15. NIF never made much sense for power generation by sjbe · · Score: 1

    While it has the side-benefit of allowing us to investigate inertial confined fusion, I thought the whole point of places like that was as a way to test nuclear weapons without actually setting them off?

    I've wondered this myself. The design of it seems to make little sense (to me anyway) for use as a sustainable source of power. You blast the target and hopefully get a fusion reaction but then what? There's no turbine or continuous generation of power and the design of it pretty much seems to preclude such use. It makes sense a way to study fusion reactions (and related weapons) but not so much for power generation. Maybe there is hope for some spin-off technology if it was successful but really it seems like a pricey attempt to get around nuclear test ban treaties.

    1. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no turbine or continuous generation of power and the design of it pretty much seems to preclude such use.

      The walls heat up. That energy is going somewhere. Tell your local thermodynamics engineer, "You dump 10 MW of electricity into it, and magically the walls get 200 MW of heat at a million degrees or so, now do your Rankine/Carnot thing and generate 100 MW of electricity". Stand back and let the engineer work, and ta da !

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Except there's no way to reload the fuel after each shot (which lasts for a tiny fraction of a second), there's no way to recharge the lasers fast enough even if you could get the fuel in place, and there's no guarantee that the equipment can safely operate at temperatures that make extraction practical. So no, it's not that simple.

    3. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by gtall · · Score: 1

      Don't do many science experiments, do you? If you had to design a fusion reactor, for which you need to figure out how to make fusion self-sustaining, would you (a) build all the support structure of turbines, steam pipes, etc. as well as the design and build the fusion reactor, or (b) figure out how to make fusion self-sustaining and then worry later about the support structure? Hint, you rarely if ever build the engineering before figuring out the science since how the science comes out will indicate how the engineering should proceed. It's an experiment, not a finalized design.

    4. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their goal isn't to generate power. Their goal is to prove that it's possible to generate power.

    5. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is definitely not a simple problem to be solved, but certainly has had a lot of work put into it. While NIF's setup fires only about once a day, older laser setups ran several times an hour on par with magnetic fusion facility repetition rates. HiPER in Europe is supposed to be much more fusion power centered, and is being designed toward running at either 1 Hz or 10 Hz to be much more closer to what actual power plant conditions.

    6. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Whereas the major competition, tokamaks and ITER, simply require you to run -263 degrees pipes at less than 70 centimeters of a 1 million degrees plus fusion reaction. Those reactors have used over 10 times the "way over the top" budget of the NIF, is no closer to fusion than they are, and has been researched double as long ...

      I'm not joining the bandwagon of "ITER will never work", just pointing out that it's not exactly looking like a great investement at the moment.

      The renewables idea is not a very good suggestion, until the storage and transportation problems are worked out. Working fusion would provide continuous large scale power generation independant of pretty much anything. If we can ever get it to work, it would rock.

    7. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by vlm · · Score: 1

      It is definitely not a simple problem to be solved, but certainly has had a lot of work put into it. While NIF's setup fires only about once a day

      I can tell you based on EE smarty stuff that capacitor charge rates depend on power supply size and unfortunately scale much worse than linear.

      So if your data reduction takes "more than a day per experiment" it would be financially foolish to spend 1e3 times as much on the charging system to charge 1e2 times faster.

      There are probably experimental types and runs where blasting a million targets in a day would be "nice" but there's probably too many where they're still scratching their heads the next day such that on average, dropping megabucks into the charging system would not pay off.

      Also tradeoffs. Fixed budget, do you wanna do boring stuff over and over again real fast or something cool but it'll take a day to charge..

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The estimated $7 billion price for NIF would be about the same the US has spent on magnetic confinement of fusion over the last 20 years, which has been mostly about $300 million a year ($400M for the last couple, with the possibility of not increasing while paying for ITER). Of course there were previous ICF projects in the 90s and further back, and new ones being built in Europe and elsewhere now.

      Whereas the major competition, tokamaks and ITER, simply require you to run -263 degrees pipes at less than 70 centimeters of a 1 million degrees plus fusion reaction.

      And many people sit with their heads a few inches from 50,000 K plasma with only a thin layer of glass as protection. The temperature of the plasma is not so much an issue as the heat it produces (there is a different between something being hot because it is insulated and sits there, and being hot because it is producing a lot of heat). Even then, that is an issue for the first couple centimeters. The only difficulty with having superconducting magnets that close to the plasma is they are more sensitive to neutrons that most of the other materials being used, so a lot of effort has to be spent on shielding the magnets.

    9. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by rthille · · Score: 2

      I went to a talk by a guy who worked there. They don't "reload the fuel", they shoot the fuel out from the wall and the lasers hit it mid-flight.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    10. Re:NIF never made much sense for power generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the targets I've read or seen talks on were positioned in the chamber on the end of an arm. There are some example pictures on Wikipedia. The idea of dropping or shooting targets into the chamber is expected to be used by newer experiments, like HiPER that have high repetition rates in mind.

  16. Project Leads Say Otherwise by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The experiment was a success. The outcome a failure. There are two proposed approaches for fusion power generation: tokamak and ICF. ITER tests the tokamak approach and the National Ignition Facility tests the ICF approach. Thanks to the NIF we now know exactly what ICF is and isn't capable of. I'd call that an excellent return on investment.

    Weird, you seem to be at odds with much of the article:

    With the total tab for NIF now running to an estimated $7 billion, the laboratory has been pulling out all the stops to claim success is just around the corner. At the beginning of July, it announced that 15 years of work had paid off in "an historic record-breaking laser shot," in which 192 beams delivered more than 500 trillion watts of peak power and 1.85 megajoules (MJ) of ultraviolet laser light to its target." The lab's leaders predict that "ignition" -- the point where the 192 lasers actually deliver more energy than they consume -- could occur as early as next year.

    So help me out here, if we now know the outcome is a failure why are the project leads asking for more funding and trying to convince us it's just around the corner? Maybe next year, possibly almost sure that it might could happen if the possibilities are totally just almost there.

    Sounds more like "It's 20 years off. Wait, you're pulling our funding?! But it might happen as early as next year!"

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Project Leads Say Otherwise by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      The NIF has been inching closer and closer to ignition for a long time; it really is right around the corner from a scientific standpoint. And it would be an accomplishment, don't get me wrong, but the engineering to actually produce power with such a system would be another $10billion effort on top of what the NIF has spent. Those big lasers? They take a long time to recharge. The fuel doesn't enter the chamber automatically or quickly. And there's no way to actually harvest the energy produced by the fusion reaction.

      Reloading fuel is probably relatively trivial. Harvesting is a bit harder because to harvest efficiently you have to have high temperatures which your equipment needs to be able to tolerate in turn. But I've yet to hear any talk about how the heck your going to pulse those lasers at the rates that would be required to produce commercially viable amounts of power.

    2. Re:Project Leads Say Otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot more lasers that are all charged before the first one fires?

  17. Hi Bob! by srussia · · Score: 1

    That is it, only $7 billion. To put that number into perspective that is about 2 days of deficit spending (not total spending for those 2 days just the deficit) for the US government.

    Is that you? How's business doing in Reno, Mr. Mayor?

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Hi Bob! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      No but from what his bio looks like I kind of wish I was him, I would be way better off.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Hi Bob! by srussia · · Score: 1

      No but from what his bio looks like I kind of wish I was him, I would be way better off.

      Employees at Livermore know him well--it's just a 4-hour drive!

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
  18. Actually, 10 years. by MickLinux · · Score: 2

    When my father was defending his PhD in fusion physics at the University of Wisconsin (1974), he had some very impressive results: 2 data runs, zero standard deviation, date-stamped polaroid photos of every step in each. The zero standard deviation was challenged; the response was to pull out the photos.

    He got the PhD. But he didn't continue in the field. Partly why, may be that when he was asked about the future of practical nuclear fusion, he pointed out that for the last 40 years back then, practical nuclear fusion had been ten years away, and he figured it would be the same for the next 200 years. When asked why, he pointed out some standard feynmann estimates that showed that there isn't enough Lithium in the world to make nuclear fusion a practical power source, using the DT reaction.

    So when the ignition facility gets a better reaction than the DT, and has a way of making *that* practical, then knock again. Till then, I'll be counting off another 160 years....

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Actually, 10 years. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      you know in the early days of fission they said the same thing about uranium.

      The trick is to understand it enough to make it work, and then to understand it enough to make it stable, and then cheap.

      the real problem is the major jump in material sciences needed to control it. fission is easy as it wants to decay. Fusion will be a long way off but solar, and wind while necessary to augment and in a few isolated cases dominate aren't stable enough for the high energy demands of our society

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Actually, 10 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To replace the current world power usage of about 15 TW, I estimate about 2 metric tonnes of lithium would be needed each year for a 100% efficient process. Even if the process were 1% efficient, the 200 tonnes needed would be less than the 16,000 tonnes annually used for batteries. The actual consumption of lithium should be pretty efficient in terms of how much lithium is added to a machine versus how much tritium comes out (beyond maybe filling an initial reservoir, in other words the marginal usage should be pretty efficient). It is just a question of how efficient the electricity that is produced per gram of lithium converted to tritium. It might be an issue that factors into what the cost of fusion power would be, but I don't think it would prevent it.

    3. Re:Actually, 10 years. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      When asked why, he pointed out some standard feynmann estimates that showed that there isn't enough Lithium in the world to make nuclear fusion a practical power source, using the DT reaction.

      More lithium has been discovered since then. How much lithium does a fusion plant need, anyway?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Actually, 10 years. by demachina · · Score: 1

      The odd thing is uranium based fission for power generation never did become particularly stable and certainly isn't cheap.

      The only reason we did it was because we wanted to make bombs and dual use of Uranium and Plutonium mitigated some of the costs and provided some civilian cover for what was basically a weapons program to produce Plutonium and enriched Uranium. Probably exactly the same thing Iran is doing today.

      Japan, Germany and Canada are among the few countries that pursued fission purely as a power source using them to make bombs. Last time I checked Japan and Germany are both abandoning the concept because they've realized its not safe(stable) nor it is it very economical.

      If we were actually pursuing fission as a power source Thorium would have been a vastly better approach, but it has no value for making Plutonium or justifying Uranium enrichment infrastructure, so it got no R&D or funding until very recently.

      --
      @de_machina
    5. Re:Actually, 10 years. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      there isn't enough Lithium in the world to make nuclear fusion a practical power source, using the DT reaction.

      Yes there is. Most quotes of lithium reserves include only a few tens of millions of tonnes located in salt deposits, because these can be cheaply extracted. But the oceans contain another 230 billion tons . It costs much more to extract lithium from seawater, but that cost is still negligible compared to the value of the energy from a fusion reactor. The world has enough lithium to last for millenniums even if we use it for 100% of our power needs.

      .

    6. Re:Actually, 10 years. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Japan, Germany and Canada are among the few countries that pursued fission purely as a power source using them to make bombs. Last time I checked Japan and Germany are both abandoning the concept because they've realized its not safe(stable) nor it is it very economical.

      Last time I looked, Germany and Japan were getting NIMBYed on their nuclear plants. I've been expecting the Japanese peasants to grab torches and pitchforks ever since Fukushima got whammied.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    7. Re:Actually, 10 years. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      There's also the significant expectation that practical fusion reactors are likely to lead to more capable fusion processes once we have actually built applied, working examples of the technology. While it's not known, I would be amazed if once D-T fusion was viable, that was the end game of man-made fusion power (i.e. if it was not at all possible to step it up to D-D).

    8. Re:Actually, 10 years. by Lucractius · · Score: 1

      Would love to read the PhD thesis, that sounds like some quality work. Do you have a citation I can look up?

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    9. Re:Actually, 10 years. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Japan, Germany and Canada are among the few countries that pursued fission purely as a power source using them to make bombs. Last time I checked Japan and Germany are both abandoning the concept because they've realized its not safe(stable) nor it is it very economical.

      Last time I looked, Germany and Japan were getting NIMBYed on their nuclear plants. I've been expecting the Japanese peasants to grab torches and pitchforks ever since Fukushima got whammied.

      It's called democracy in action. If you think an elite of scientists and politicians must be right instead, why don't they go and live next door to one?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Actually, 10 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/ocm47673134

    11. Re:Actually, 10 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more to it. I was wrong about *when* he said it. I spoke with my Dad, and he cleared it up. It was rather that he was speaking to a guy named Hubbert (M. King Hubbert) with the DOE, and noted that their Lithium reserves figure was 10x too low. Hubbert said no, that the previous figure had been 10x too high. So there was a lot less Lithium in the world than they had thought. My Dad then did his back of the envelope calculation, and found that our Lithium reserves would meet the current energy needs, without growth, but just barely. Moreover, Hubbert pointed out that you'll never get it from the sea, because the energy to evaporate the water exceeds the energy the fusion would produce. My Dad also pointed out that the sea is Lithium-poor: the ratio of Li/Na is lower than it is on land.

      But Hubbert said we'd hit another wall far sooner than we'd hit the energy wall: phosphates [for food production]. That said, there subsequently was a huge flurry of activity at the DOE, looking for other reactions. They didn't find it, and the funding for fusion research basically dried up. That said, the limit of how much energy we want to produce is that we don't want to produce mroe than the Sun gives us, lest we bake the earth. But apperently the Connecticut Granite (??? or is that Conway Granite? I may be wrong) has enough Fissionable Thorium to last us 100000 years at that rate.

      Now, maybe fusion might be practical after all. There is something else my Dad points out: that both Li and Po4 are extremely water soluble. However, LiPO4 is not, and the oceans are Li-poor. Where does it go? Perhaps it preciptates out. Where? Well, our reserves of Lithium come from lava dikes that originated from subduction faults. So you might find it around the Ring of Fire. But it dissolves quickly.

      Arguably, if you were to look in some place, such as the trenches near subduction faults, you might find LiPO4 sands, more than anything we need, for both the Li and the Phosphates.

    12. Re:Actually, 10 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The oceans are lithium-depleted. That is, the ratio of Lithium to Sodium is lower in the oceans than it is on land.

      Further, the amount of energy needed to evaporate away the water [and get at the Lithium] is greater than what it would produce in fusion.

      Moreover, almost every compound of Lithium [except Lithium phosphate] is extremely soluble in water.

      That said, it may be possible that the oceans are Lithium depleted because the Lithium phosphate is precipitating out somewhere along the subducting trenches. I say this, because our Lithium ores come from volcanic dikes of subduction volcanos.
      So if you're lucky, you might find where that Lithium sand is.

      Doubly lucky, because we are well past peak phosphate, and phosphates are more critical to human life [through agriculture] and civilization, than energy.

      According to my father, he said that Hubbert claimed that there's enough energy to power our planet for 100k years alone, in the fissionable thorium of the -- forgive me, I think the connecticut granite is the term.

  19. In this rare case, I agree w/Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monies spend on fission are monies not spent on Thorium, an energy technology more likely to yield significant energy in a time frame that matters.

  20. It's a nuclear weapon test facility, period by tp1024 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It was clear from the start that this was the case, that this was the primary reason of building it.

    Why do people keep repeating the propaganda?

    Nothing about this project makes any sense at all from a nuclear power perspective. Be it the hugely inefficient, short-lifetime lasers that can be fired about once a day. Just 10% of the energy released from the lasing medium actually reaches the target. Even more energy is wasted creating the laser beam in the first place. Be it the miniscule amounts of *frozen* hydrogen, put into a GOLDEN, high precision capsule, put very precisely into a delicate assembly that needs to be rebuild after each successful shot ... while any significant power generation would need several shots per second, churning through the gold-plated fuel.

    Absolutely nothing at all makes sense if you want this to build a power plant. Yet, everybody seems to have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Nobody dared to mentioning the obvious:

    The whole assembly is a weapon test stand, with the sole purpose to simulate an environment of radiation pressure that can only be found centimeters away from the explosion of a nuclear bomb, compressing deuterium and tritium - freshly bred in-situ from lithium - for nuclear fusion to boost the fission-chain-reaction of the primary.

    I'm more afraid to go to the USA than to China ... there, at least, everybody knows the news are all about spreading propaganda. At least some people still think for themselves every once in a while.

    1. Re:It's a nuclear weapon test facility, period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse NIF with the total of the inertial confinement fusion concept. While the way NIF does things has no chance of generating net power, it does do a good job of validating and testing various models and computer simulations of such work. Because of their weapons work, they never were even thinking of making the design to test the net production of energy aspect.

      A crappy car analogy: NIF is like a facility built to test the chemical and thermodynamic properties of compressed air-gas mixtures. They didn't make an actual internal combustion engine, just some test stand that shows how much power and heat, etc., a single charge of fuel makes. Maybe that also work also doubles because military wanted to use the fuel for weapons too. Everyone involved is aware at some point they need to build an actual engine, but need to first make sure their estimates of power was reasonable.

      And there are other more power-centric projects in the works, like HiPER, that will be designed with lasers and other components that can fire multiple times a second.

    2. Re:It's a nuclear weapon test facility, period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the NIF is talking about is that they are close, they think, to creating a fusion reaction that puts out more energy then was put in. They don't claim to be about commercial power production only that they are on the verge of ignition. Even though they are a weapons facility achiveing an exothermic reaction is still a huge deal considering it hasn't been done before.

    3. Re:It's a nuclear weapon test facility, period by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone who knows anything about the NIF has swallowed anything. You're seeing a bunch of people who are reading about it for the first time and the article is talking about it's fusion power research side, which was stated, is only its secondary goal.

      What the NIF is there to do is to prove thermonuclear weapons will work without having to test them. Once we have a program to do that, we can ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty (CTBT). Well, that and a few other items on our list.

      The NIF did test an interesting idea for laser ignition for fusion plants, but that may well have not panned out. I think the major thrust of this point is that some people think that perhaps both efforts might be best pursued separately.

      And yes, people in the US never, ever think for themselves. China is definitely better because since they know it's all government propaganda, they would never be taken in by it and must always think for themselves. I've never, ever seen the Chinese watch their own children die in school collapses due to shoddy workmanship and bribed officials, but make it very clear that they are definitely not criticizing the Party, because the Party could not possibly be at fault. The US is definitely a lot scarier. Really.

    4. Re:It's a nuclear weapon test facility, period by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      that's a load of bullshit, we already can make functioning nuclear weapons and moreover can accurately model the behavior of our aging stockpile with supercomputers. The NIF does not replicate the conditions in a nuclear weapon, an H bomb uses lithium deuteride which is transmuted by neutrons from the fission trigger into tritium and deuterium, and then x-rays from the primary are used to make a plasma of hydrocarbon foam to put pressure on the TD mix.

    5. Re:It's a nuclear weapon test facility, period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on presentation I've seen for the last several years at plasma physics conferences, there is still room for improvement and kinks to work out for simulations of high energy density plasmas. The results of the Z-machine has contributed a lot to this as is (people are quick to mention NIF's link to weapon stewardship... but not the Z-machine's). In both cases it is related to studying the compression aspect of fuel, to understand how it compresses, what instabilities limit the effectiveness, how much practical limits and asymmetries limit the compression, etc. Even with not duplicated the exact situation, it ties into some of the areas the simulation code needs more validation. And software validation is a growing focus of a lot of plasma physics work at the moment.

    6. Re:It's a nuclear weapon test facility, period by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it actually has in a bunch of different Tokamak devices, just not sustainably (and with no conversion). That said you are right in that finding out how to do ignition with inertial confinement is kind of a big deal, since we can take that data and say - for example - this is the exact specifications we need to aim for to build ourselves a fusion powered rocket engine.

  21. Re:Just tell Mitt Romney it's part of the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it doesn't have Defense in the name.

    Let's make it the National Defense Ignition Facility, then no Republican will ever oppose it.

  22. Remind me again... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    How much did we spend to buy GM to satisfy the UAW? But we don't have enough $ to fundamentally transform the nature of energy creation for the human race?

    Holy shit humans can be stupid sometimes.

    I'm a libertarian who believes that government should be as small as possible and do only those things that are best done communally. Like the GPS system. Or figuring out how to harness fusion energy. We cannot do this "commercially" as the cost is too high. But compared to the other stuff that we spend federal money on (like $1T to turn Iraq into a pseudo-democracy) this is cheap and the benefit is incalculable.

    We know what we need to do, let's do it.

    1. Re:Remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " But we don't have enough $ to fundamentally transform the nature of energy creation for the human race?"

      Remember what they said about fission energy? Too cheap to meter!

      "Holy shit humans can be stupid sometimes."

      You're a human, and you are correct.

    2. Re:Remind me again... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      How much did we spend to buy GM to satisfy the UAW? But we don't have enough $ to fundamentally transform the nature of energy creation for the human race?

      Do you want us to get the money from the same place?

      We got the money to bail out GM from your children, their children, and their children's children.

      Its not that people dont understand that two wrongs don't make a right, its that they don't quite understand that their pet favorite shit is also wrong.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  23. Support?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress Fails To Ignite Support In America!!!!

  24. Perspective by zugmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Meanwhile, we're throwing away $ 40 billion every month "until the economy improves". For me, that puts many things in perspective.
    If we're going to flush money down the toilet, this seems like a much more potentially constructive way to do it.

    1. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QE3 isn't throwing money away. It's printing that much money to pump up the economy before the election.

  25. ColdFusion/AnomalousHeatEffects/LowEnergyNuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting developments on cold fusion (aka Anomalous Heat Effects aka Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). Valid?

    -LENR Presentation in NiWeek.
    Dr. Duncan, Vice-Chancellor for Research, University of Missouri
    Greg Morrow, Principal Software Architect at National Instruments
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4HG9raN_2U

    -Open demonstration by Francesco Celani(Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics) of Nickel-Hydrogen based LENR reactor at the National Instruments NIWeek 2012. “As soon as we applied the electrical power to the internal nichrome-wire heater (48 Watts DC), we began to see excess heat. There was no incubation period. Celani has eight thermocouples in the reactor, and he measured between 58 and 68 Watts heat output. So, conservatively, it produced an average of 10 Watts of excess heat continuously from the time we started, at 1 p.m., until we left, at 7 p.m. – for six hours.”s of excess heat continuously from the time we started, at 1 p.m., until we left, at 7 p.m. – for six hours.”
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/celani-demonstrates-excess-heat-from-nickel-hydrogen-reactor-at-niweek/

    -SGS Certificate issued for machine with maximum electric power in of 200 kW, and potential power out as 1 MW.
    http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EFA-rep-1107.pdf

    Hmmmm.....

  26. 50years and Billions wasted on this kind of fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet room temperature fusion attempts which can be run on a college science department budget get nothing but mockery and derision. Unbelievable.

    One would think after failing for decades and needing to exert so much effort the physics community would realize that attempting to try other pathways to fusion would be the logical choice, but their close mindedness is at this point costing the human race decades of progress in this field.

    So perhaps it'll be up to a billionaire to do for fusion what's already been done in the field of private space travel. And they wouldn't be beholden to any "authorities" in physics to tell them it's impossible and they'd also be be able to find flexible physicists to do some real work in this area.

  27. Controlled fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We achieved that decades ago. H-bombs are controlled but dangerous. You can put windmills around the explosion I guess. A fusor is controlled fusion but can't get over unity.

  28. A billion here, a billion there... by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    Pretty soon you're talking about real money.

  29. Throw more money at it by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    There. I fixed it. #sarcasm

  30. Whtever was, it is now PORK, period by slew · · Score: 1

    The NIF started out attempting to research the tech needed to make a ICF powerplant, but over time they haven't had much success. After a few major rearchitectures and funding shifts across other national labs, they decided to latch on to Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program as their reason for existance. Unfortunatlly, their current direction isn't very helpful to either the original charter, or their new SSMP charter.

    One might argue that based on its initial charter, it should have been canceled a long time ago, but when a government program is threatened, they attempt to latch on to whatever funding is available and basically that is what happened. As with most goverment pork programs, the managment was a mess and there was no oversight. In 2000, the whole project was rebaselined and new management was brought in. Initally, they thought they could theoretically achieve ignition with only a 1MJ or so. Now they have 500TW laser capable of 2MJ, and they acknowledge that the current design won't really work. Not blaming the science or the scientists, but just to clearly illustrate that they really aren't on the cusp of anything...

    The SSMP stuff is just a ruse, the facility does whatever they want. The nuclear weapons test stuff was really the previous benefactor that was selected to be the source of funds for the pork. The lastest round of funding (the so-called National Ignition Campaign), was basically a pork-barrel earmark for Diane Feinstein. Their public schedule to achieve ignition was top down made to match the NIC funding duration. Since now they admit that it still doesn't work, it's not clear how long they can keep this house of cards funding up.

    I suppose the military is up next, but if Obama wins re-election, they might have to go the PBS funding route ;^) National Ignition Nest Egg? (apologies to big bird)

    1. Re:Whtever was, it is now PORK, period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was the other way around, it was the SSMP people that came to ICF. Originally the ICF program was just going to upgrade the Nova system and reuse a lot of their equipment as much as possible. But the SSMP people thought the upgraded Nova facility would not be enough for their own needs, and told they should scrap the Nova upgrade plans which were pretty fleshed out, and build a new facility.

    2. Re:Whtever was, it is now PORK, period by slew · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the other way around, it was the SSMP people that came to ICF. Originally the ICF program was just going to upgrade the Nova system and reuse a lot of their equipment as much as possible. But the SSMP people thought the upgraded Nova facility would not be enough for their own needs, and told they should scrap the Nova upgrade plans which were pretty fleshed out, and build a new facility.

      AFAIK, the SSMP was the "golden" grant of $4.5B that came out the the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty efforts. All the national labs wanted a piece of it and a deal was struck. LLNL used their negotiated "piece-of-the-pie" to upgrade their originally proposed upgrade of the NOVA under the guise of closing the loop on the warhead simulation (I think that was part of the ASC Initiative). Basically the LLNL got the money when the getting was good to supercharge their ignition work. Of course the getting is no longer so good and they haven't had much positive to show for their efforts so far (except for 192 big frickin lasers).

      Now that the NI Campaign funding is coming to a close, they seemed to be *forced* to say that they will spend some time for SSMP support experiments (which apparently was being shelved for the NIC). I think this all supports my contention that they basically did whatever they wanted (continue with their ignition experiments), even though they were taking money from SSMP. Of course since they weren't successful, they now have to grovel for their continued existance (by tossing some bones to the SSMP folks) or perhaps hope for someone else to take up the banner (e.g., the military)...

  31. Bury it with a shovel ready project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama tossed more that that away buying votes with "shovel ready" projects. And Obamacare will dwarf both.

  32. Science increasingly doomed by "failure" by swb · · Score: 1

    I've read this in a number of places, but science, especially publicly funded science, seems increasingly doomed by "failure" -- ie, when scientists run a study to prove a link between A and B and the science tells them "A and B are not linked".

    The headline is "Scientists fail to prove A and B" and the public opinion is that the scientists failed, as if it was a failure of effort, ability or character. It's never explained that the failure to link A and B *isn't* a failure really, it's a success of science because a theory was posited linking A and B and the relationship could not be scientifically proven.

    It's further corrupted, especially in the case of the NIF, in that politicians and the general public (to the extent that the general public even comprehends what the NIF does...) has this kind of "profit motive" mindset where scientific endeavors are expected to provide some kind of return on investment to justify their existence, and the *science* and engineering they do provide isn't enough if their "mission" isn't a quick success.

    And this will only get worse if Romney is elected. In the case of NIF, I'm not sure Obama/Dems are any better given the inherent anti-nuclear bias of the Democrats.

    1. Re:Science increasingly doomed by "failure" by lbbros · · Score: 1

      it's a success of science

      Sadly, even scientific journals frown upon "negative results" nowadays (at least in my field, the life sciences). And few if any bother to publish them.

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    2. Re:Science increasingly doomed by "failure" by swb · · Score: 1

      Why is this?

      The only thing I can think of that seems halfway rational (not right, but rational) is that its some way of finding "good" scientists whose working theories are more right than wrong. The guy whose theory proves unprovable is "going down the wrong road" and it would be pointless to continue supporting him, if you follow that line of reasoning.

      But my understanding was that this kind of vetting was done BEFORE the experiment or study was done. You didn't fund studies with sketchy theories whose proof wasn't meaningful or were on paper very likely to fail to prove them.

  33. GS Conversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... because the GS conversion has gone so well so far? Take people paid market rate by contractors, offer them 30% less for a government job? You get what you pay for, which in this case is the middle finger.

  34. NIF isn't "getting around" anything by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    NIF has three missions:

    - National security (stockpile stewardship
    - Basic fusion science
    - Understanding the origins of the basic building blocks of the universe

    That's it.

    I hate to break it you you, but much of what we do in basic science research is dual-use. It can be used for military applications, or purely scientific applications. Doing stockpile stewardship without nuclear tests is not "getting around" nuclear test ban treaties. It's maintaining the integrity of our increasingly smaller nuclear stockpile as a credible deterrent.

    This overwhelming deterrent capability is part of the reason why the world has seen no major global conflict for seven decades, and has had the longest period of peace without global conflict for over five centuries. Tens of millions of people died in WWI and WWII.

    We maintain a credible deterrent so it's clear that no one can ever strike us first without the certainty of themselves also being destroyed -- and if our principles and ideals and those of our allies are something you care about, then that should be important to you.

    The world is changing, and some might say that the general "cyber" and information threats will more important than nuclear. China certainly seems to think so. Then again, China is also building out its nuclear weapons capabilities and stockpiles as the rest of the world, including the US, disarms. No worries, right? Delivery systems that can rain down nuclear warheads on targets anywhere in the world is just for "peaceful regional defense", right?

    A world where the US doesn't maintain an overwhelming deterrent to forces which espouse principles and ideals counter to those of freedom and liberal democracy is not a pretty place.

    (Note to people who think that the US is what's wrong with the world: you are sorely in need of historical perspective -- or, any perspective. The US is not perfect, but the US and West has done far more for the benefit of human life and humanity, on the whole, than any other nation, especially those with Communist, Socialist, or totalitarian systems of government. Wake up.)

    1. Re:NIF isn't "getting around" anything by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A world where the US doesn't maintain an overwhelming deterrent to forces which espouse principles and ideals counter to those of freedom and liberal democracy is not a pretty place

      US did not maintain an overwhelming deterrent to opposing forces for a good half of 20th century - it was at parity. The world did not collapse.

    2. Re:NIF isn't "getting around" anything by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      A world where the US doesn't maintain an overwhelming deterrent to forces which espouse principles and ideals counter to those of freedom and liberal democracy is not a pretty place

      US did not maintain an overwhelming deterrent to opposing forces for a good half of 20th century - it was at parity. The world did not collapse.

      Military technology was also vastly different, and the period leading up to the establishment of the nuclear deterrent saw 2 of the bloodiest and largest wars ever fought occur.

      To think that we could happily go back to that age is to be naive.

    3. Re:NIF isn't "getting around" anything by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This overwhelming deterrent capability is part of the reason why the world has seen no major global conflict for seven decades [lanl.gov], and has had the longest period of peace without global conflict for over five centuries. Tens of millions of people died in WWI and WWII.

      WW1 was the first global conflict. I'm not sure what "global conflict" you are thinking of that happened 500 years ago.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:NIF isn't "getting around" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting about things like the Thirty Years' War and the Napoleonic Wars, which involved millions of lives and much of the world at the time.

  35. Not Quite the Biggest White Elephant by organgtool · · Score: 2

    biggest and fattest white elephant of all time

    Apparently the author is not familiar with the F-35. The estimated total cost of that project is $1 trillion dollars, or 142 NIF Controlled Fusion projects. But we can't cut the budget on military pet projects because that would just be evil.

    1. Re:Not Quite the Biggest White Elephant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame the military for selecting the mini-F22 instead of the much cheaper delta wing. Why any money is being invested in manned airplanes at this point is beyond me. They should tell Lockheed to cut the price of the F-22 by 90% or suck up their pride and reverse engineer/ steal the plans for the Russian sukhoi fighters as they obviously have a better deured by ROI. People forget that airplanes are just missile delivery platforms. The business case for their existance is the same one for a multistage rocket.

      There IS a price point where it's cheaper to use large hypersonic cruise missiles. Every military weapon system should be able to justify any additional cost relative to historic weapons systems and cheaper alternatives. If these justifications are pathos based appeals, they should be compared against the cost of malaria medication.

  36. Black world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people know what's happening with this.

    I know a guy.

    Black world stuff. Cold fusion is old, old news, works, (and hell, has been weaponized and then put on the shelf because there's bigger and better variations), and to put it mildly, is just a great big no no for the rest of us. Oil is a fabulous control method for the world, keeps the rich rich and the poor under thumb. Removing oil would be like yanking the carpet out from under everything. Try and you die.

    I don't know about this big NIF institute of money spending, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't "supervised" in some manner.

  37. Cold fusion? by Relayman · · Score: 1

    Just think if all that money had been spent developing cold fusion instead. We might have actual power plants by now.

    Here's an analogy: They're trying to build the most powerful vacuum tube amplifier of thinking about replacing the vacuum tube with transistors.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    1. Re:Cold fusion? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      nonsense, after four decades and billions of dollars of cold fusion research the only thing discovered is vague evidence of possible unaccounted for heat that has the most likely source in phase changes, galvonic action and absorption of gases in solids than any nuclear process. cold fusion, if it happens at all, won't be useful for powering anything but rather a curiosity like the occassional atom that gets transmuted in your body by neutrinos.

    2. Re:Cold fusion? by Relayman · · Score: 1

      Okay, if cold fusion is so limited, explain why NASA has applied for a cold fusion patent.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    3. Re:Cold fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the patent filed by a NASA employee for work done on his own time, which is not endorsed by NASA beyond its requirement to communicate invention work of employees, whether part of their duty or not? He himself has said the PR should not be interpreted as NASA's endorsement or support of the technology.

  38. Assumptions by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't do many science experiments, do you?

    Since you "asked", my first real job was as a research assistant in a laser and plasma physics lab working on an experiment to study hypersonic shock waves for fusion research. I also have an engineering degree with a minor in applied physics. But thanks for assuming I'm ignorant without actually knowing anything about me.

    It's an experiment, not a finalized design.

    I'm well aware that it is an experiment. However it also is an experiment that almost certainly cannot be translated into a working power plant. It is designed to study weapons and if we happen to learn something useful for fusion power along the way that is terrific. Don't get me wrong, I support research endeavors like the NIF. I think there will be some terrific engineering and scientific spin offs. I just don't think the sort of research they are doing is likely to lead to fusion as a power source. I'd be delighted to be wrong but I doubt I am.

    1. Re:Assumptions by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      I agree. I also support continued research at NIF. The problem with large government funded projects like this, however, are that they tend to draw funding away from a lot of other novel approaches. For example, we haven't funded any molten salt reactor research since the early 1970's. The point of research is to investigate all the most promising leads, but when congress chooses to run with a specific technology, it shuts down competing research. I'm not saying there's potential in the Bussard Polywell, but when a novel approach like that gets shut down to save a couple million a year, while we spend billions on NIF, there's something wrong.

      Now the guys on the House Science Committee really shouldn't be allowed to worry about things like NIF funding. They should leave that to smarter people, who just might know a thing or two about real science.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    2. Re:Assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have less experience with de3fense related grants, but they tend to be much more results orientated than other grants. Yet at the same time, projects can also go a long time with no results if they catch someones interest. It is like some sort of bimodal distribution of dragging on projects and projects pushing to practical designs. That said, you end up with a volatility that can have the wind change and projects pulled, not necessarily to save money, but because of a change in emphasis of research. It isn't really surprising that polywell would have difficulty with that type of grant. They got lucky to hold out this long, but without being the magic bullet that was promised, it is a matter of time, regardless of the long term viability.

      But that is not the only alternative fusion design being funded by the US. There is a long list of projects under the DOE with more science oriented grants. They could probably use more funding to scale a few of them up, but still are funded as is. Ones that have been dropped haven't been so much because they are trying to save money, but because they are trying to try new things with their limited, but so roughly flat budget.

  39. Re:50years and Billions wasted on this kind of fus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So perhaps it'll be up to a billionaire to do for fusion what's already been done in the field of private space travel. And they wouldn't be beholden to any "authorities" in physics to tell them it's impossible and they'd also be be able to find flexible physicists to do some real work in this area.

    There are a few companies doing private research of fusion without government funding. Everyone I've seen is doing some form of magnetic confinement or magnetized target fusion research... even without "authorities" telling them what to do, they are working on (and making a little progress) on hot fusion.

  40. Proof by doing by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Their goal isn't to generate power. Their goal is to prove that it's possible to generate power.

    The only way to truly prove that it is possible to generate power IS to generate power. There is no mechanism in this experiment by which a sustained fusion reaction will occur nor is there any effort I can discern by which they are attempting to actually generate electricity. It is a research experiment for nuclear weapons from which we might learn something useful down the road for fusion power.

    1. Re:Proof by doing by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      You really don't get it, do you?
      You can't generate electricity unless the energy coming out of the fusion reaction is greater than that used to generate the reaction.
      And nobody knows how to do that yet. Until we do, adding turbines and generators is like adding a spoiler to a car that doesn't have an engine.

    2. Re:Proof by doing by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Their goal isn't to generate power. Their goal is to prove that it's possible to generate power.

      The only way to truly prove that it is possible to generate power IS to generate power. There is no mechanism in this experiment by which a sustained fusion reaction will occur nor is there any effort I can discern by which they are attempting to actually generate electricity. It is a research experiment for nuclear weapons from which we might learn something useful down the road for fusion power.

      Actually, Step 1 is to figure a way to get a sustainable fusion reaction going without melting down the containment vessel. Once we get there, then we start adding the power generation side of things, and start tweaking the design a few (dozen? hundred? thousand?) times to get the last possible erg out of it.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Proof by doing by sjbe · · Score: 1

      You really don't get it, do you?

      Believe it or not I do get it. What I'm pointing out is that this facility can at most do basic research. Important stuff that and I'm a big proponent. But it isn't going to lead to a workable fusion power plant. That isn't what it is designed to study. I get that we still haven't generated a controlled sustained reaction. What I also get is that the NIF isn't going to get us one. It is designed with other goals in mind.

      You can't generate electricity unless the energy coming out of the fusion reaction is greater than that used to generate the reaction.

      No one is going to generate a SUSTAINABLE supply of power with the design of the the experiment at the NIF. The NIF is designed to research topics other than power generation. That is not a bad thing. It just means that if we learn something useful for power generation it will be incidental to the purpose of the facility. I genuinely hope that we do learn something useful for power generation but I'm not holding my breath.

  41. In perspective by Alioth · · Score: 1

    In perspective, 7bn is less than 1% of the direct cost of the Iraq war.

    1. Re:In perspective by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      This - times ten. A decade ago a low-level Bush administration appointee of my acquaintance argued that we should disengage entirely from the middle east and divert all the money spent there to research and development of sustainable alternative energy. Like half a trillion a year. A decade later you'd have wasted a bunch of money (there are not that many competent researchers around that you could effectively spend a half-trillion dollars in a year), but you'd probably be pretty close to eliminating our dependence on oil imports.

      It sounds a little nutty, but it is certainly a lot more sane than continuing to spend insane sums of money killing people in other countries for stupid reasons. Without the oil economy, who would really give a rat's tush what the leaders in the Persian Gulf think?

  42. Weapons testing by any other name by sjbe · · Score: 1

    NIF has three missions:

    - National security (stockpile stewardship [llnl.gov]
    - Basic fusion science [llnl.gov]
    - Understanding the origins of the basic building blocks of the universe [llnl.gov]

    I hate to break it you you, but much of what we do in basic science research is dual-use. It can be used for military applications, or purely scientific applications.

    So despite your condescending tone to someone you know nothing about, you acknowledge that the first purpose of this facility is weapons research. It also is useful for some basic research which is vitally important. We're on the same page.

    Doing stockpile stewardship without nuclear tests is not "getting around" nuclear test ban treaties. It's maintaining the integrity of our increasingly smaller nuclear stockpile as a credible deterrent.

    That's pretty much a fancy way to say it is a way to test nuclear fusion without setting off any actual bombs. Amaze me with how you think that is not a way to get around the test ban treaties. While I didn't bring it up, I don't think anyone is particularly worried that the US does not have a "credible deterrent" when it comes to nuclear weapons. We have more nukes than we will ever need and everyone knows it.

    Oh and the rest of your reply appears to be an off topic defense of maintaining mutually assured destruction. I wasn't addressing that nor did I make any comments about whether fusion weapons research was good or bad. I merely observed that the first purpose of this facility appears to be for researching fusion based weaponry.

    1. Re:Weapons testing by any other name by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      The "you" to which I was referring in my post is the royal or general "you", for what it's worth, not you personally.

      I'm also not saying that the only overwhelming deterrent is our nuclear deterrent, but it's part of our deterrent capability.

      Things which are simply not covered by test ban treaties are not "getting around" test bans. When you say "getting around", you make it seem as if it is somehow a shameful, underhanded, dirty trick to "get around" a treaty. Is using supercomputers to simulate nuclear detonations also "getting around" test bans? If not, why not? If so -- are you serious? Because that's why the DOE National Laboratories have some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world -- and which can be, and are, used for all other manner of science.

      US stockpile stewardship activities do not run counter to the letter, spirit, nor intent of any treaty relevant to nuclear weapons.

      I'm also not making a defense of MAD, but can you explain why we should not maintain the integrity of the weapons we do have, while China is arming with nuclear weapons when we are disarming? It's fine to wax philosophic about how there are more than enough nuclear weapons on Earth to destroy it, but the idea isn't to destroy it -- it's to have enough weapons distributed on enough platforms in enough places so that it's clear that even a surprise first strike cannot hope to disable our strategic forces. The best deterrent is one that never needs to be used.

  43. Re:Just tell Mitt Romney it's part of the military by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Given that the topic is Fussion, and the rhetoric from Congress is negative. One has to wonder who is the money backing this congressional outcry? Who would benefit from America not obtaining Fussion capability?

  44. I see a problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without actually setting them off?

    That'll contradict Mitt Romney's Belligerency First Policy.

  45. Lulz by metrometro · · Score: 1

    In America, reactor burns through funding. In Soviet Russia, funding burns through reactor!

    Ignite interest? Hell, the National Ignition Facility fails to ignite anything.

    I call that a fusion burn.

  46. Everyone is missing the point here... by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone is missing the point here... despite massive greenwashing, the NIF really has nothing to do with fusion power. It's meant to study the processes that produce fusion in nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:Everyone is missing the point here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one of its goals. Saying it has nothing to do with fusion power is just as misleading, if not more so, than the greenwashing.

    2. Re:Everyone is missing the point here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the NIF really has nothing to do with fusion power".

      Pffft. LOL. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

  47. No shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The millionaires need to keep paying the lowest tax rates since the inception of income tax. And they want to keep their capital gains at the 15% Rate.

    But where are all these jobs they're promising by keeping the rates this low?

    China and India.

  48. Re:Just tell Mitt Romney it's part of the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but he's both republican and religious. Those types don't believe in researching fancy technology for even military use - only soldiers on the ground; "dieing for our freedom." Because that sounds awesome, and thus gets more votes. Unless of course the money is going to one of their backers, in which case tanks and jets are great.

  49. And at the expense of Cold Fusion research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which the high energy physics establishment has succeeded in making everyone believe is bad science, falsified data. The result will be that the first Nobel Prize for cold fusion, or whatever name it has to use, will be won by the theoretician who explains it, not anyone who discovered or researched the phenomena. All of Western Civilizations institutions have been corrupted by flows of government money.

    1. Re:And at the expense of Cold Fusion research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The high energy physics community probably doesn't care... as high energy physics refers to those researching energies way beyond what is used in fusion and are working on particle physics via particle accelerators. The people you would want to charge with being in a conspiracy against cold fusion would be nuclear physics, not to be confused with the nuclear theory groups which are mostly doing computational and theoretical QCD work.

  50. NIF and ITER have a common characteristic: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both are mere science projects designed to provide work for physicists for decades. Cheap power generation was always the bait used to lure congress into supporting them. Neither has yet shown how the neutron flux of a successful device could be used to generate power without destroying the device itself.

    Lawrenceville Plasma Physics has used a Dense Plasma Focus device to reach D-D fusion for two years now. The maximum temperature they have achieved has been 1.8 Billion degrees. The Duterium fuel currently being used is just for test purposes since their goal is to fuse Boron-11 and Hydrogen. This will produce a stream of alpha particles which can be used to induce the direct generation of electricity.

    Anyone who wants to follow a project which has a high chance of success, this may be the one.

    1. Re:NIF and ITER have a common characteristic: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And government funded researchers have achieved much higher temperatures long before they did. There is a lot more to fusion than just reaching a certain temperature. How to deal with neutron flux, which would happen to some, lesser degree in a H+B setup, has been pretty heavily studied and is included in most designs, dealt with by careful material choice to either be easy to replace or shielded if not (e.g. for magnetic coils). There are projects underway now to double check expectations meet reality with those materials.

  51. Mod parent up by chebucto · · Score: 1

    It's a DOE project with the express goal of nuclear weapons research.

    From Wiki's 2nd paragraph about NIF:

    "NIF's mission is to achieve fusion with high energy gain, and to support nuclear weapon maintenance and design by studying the behavior of matter under the conditions found within nuclear weapons.[2]"

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  52. That's a doomsday scenario by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    You know, doomsday Cassandras who say that the peak oil will cause a lot of troubles are usually shut down by the argument that "we will find something". Renewables do not cut it (too irregular, unable to absorb nightly peaks even if you are very optimist on efficiency improvements) so it had to be fusion.

    If NIF fails, that is one out of three fusion ways that failed. Now we have to put our hopes on ITER (which should not produce any energy before 2030, optimist, on schedule estimation) or Z-pinch machines, which are awesome but do not come with a predictable schedule.

    If both fail or if the peak oil hits us hard early (One day, Arabia's oil production will begin to decrease and things will get pretty nasty) we have no backup plans.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  53. Re:Cold fusion? Perhaps more than a curiosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Francesco Celani of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics has been presenting a Nickel-Hydrogen based LENR reactor at the National Instruments NIWeek in Austin Texas.... reactor had been running continuously for over 55 hours and that National Instruments measuring tools showed that the peak of excess heat was 22W with a stable excess heat measurement of 14W." - Jul 2012

    Certificate from SGS:
    "Voluntary Certificate of Compliance With Safety of Directive 2006/42/EC (Annex 1)...
    It is listed as having a maximum electric power in of 200 kW, and potential power out as 1 MW, and states that “The voluntary verification has occurred by means of inspection visit carried out from the manufacturer with a satisfactory outcome. The results of the visit are on Technical Reports RVV.DM.MI12.003 and RVV.DM.MI12.004." - Sep 2012

  54. Re:Cold fusion? Perhaps more than a curiosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, does the safety compliance have any relation to testing if it works or not? Looks more like they certified the construction meets codes for such power levels, not that it actually produces those in real working conditions.

  55. Re:50years and Billions wasted on this kind of fus by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's right, it's the normal cabal of government scientists who rule the world that are preventing honest entrepreneurs from getting a nice simple cold fusion reactor to the market. Of course.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  56. People need to wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spend money instead on "sources of energy that are likely to be cheaper and quicker to put into wide use"?

    All you people need to be patient. Everybody wants a 'quick fix' these days.

    Be patient, everyone. It's only been 7 years. It took ten years just to get to the moon, which involved relatively simple physics.

    Everyone needs to calm down and be patient. The scientists at NIF are progressing quite successfully given they are attempting to solve the world's energy problems for THE NEXT MILLENNIUM.