Slashdot Mirror


Two-Laser Boron Fusion Lights the Way To Radiation-Free Energy

ananyo writes "Fusion unleashes vast amounts of energy that might one day be used to power giant electrical grids. But the laboratory systems that seem most promising produce radiation in the form of fast-moving neutrons, and these present a health hazard that requires heavy shielding and even degrades the walls of the fusion reactor. Physicists have now produced fusion at an accelerated rate in the laboratory without generating harmful neutrons (abstract). A team led by Christine Labaune, research director of the CNRS Laboratory for the Use of Intense Lasers at the Ecole Polytechnique in Palaiseau, France, used a two-laser system to fuse protons and boron-11 nuclei. One laser created a short-lived plasma, or highly ionized gas of boron nuclei, by heating boron atoms; the other laser generated a beam of protons that smashed into the boron nuclei, releasing slow-moving helium particles but no neutrons. Previous laser experiments that generated boron fusion aimed the laser at a boron target to initiate the reaction. In the new experiment, the laser-generated proton beam produces a tenfold increase of boron fusion because protons and boron nuclei are instead collided together directly."

38 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Hooray for fusion! by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hooray! Fusion power is now only 20 years in the future! The absence of fast neutrons really is a breakthrough, though: the less radioactive a reactor itself becomes over time, the easier the cleanup at the end of its life.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    1. Re:Hooray for fusion! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hooray! Fusion power is now only 20 years in the future!

      They're planning to build the first reactor in Brazil. It's the country of the future, you know.

    2. Re:Hooray for fusion! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as we don't run out of the other stuff, anyway. The Earth's crust contains about 5x as much Boron as Uranium, but we already use quite a lot of it for other applications and are extracting it at almost seventy times the rate.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re: Hooray for fusion! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. It has nothing to do with heavy medium half-life isotopes.

    4. Re:Hooray for fusion! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too bad we can't get fusion energy from morons instead, we would have unlimited energy...

    5. Re:Hooray for fusion! by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can just imagine the Mad Max-style wars of the future when Boron is scarce and armies of scientists with makeshift weapons battle: should the boron go to the fusion reactors, or to make Pyrex glassware? Two scientists enter, one scientist leaves (with borax).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Hooray for fusion! by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Earth's crust contains about 5x as much Boron as Uranium, but we already use quite a lot of it for other applications and are extracting it at almost seventy times the rate.

      However, 80% of extracted Boron is B-11, whereas only 0.7% of naturally occurring Uranium is U-235.

    7. Re:Hooray for fusion! by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I'm crunching the numbers correctly, 1 gram of Boron produces 25,000 kWh of electricity - assuming perfect capture, 100% boron-11 and no other loses. (Granted, all unrealistic assumptions, but it's a starting point.)

      If we replaced all electric generation on the planet (about 20 trillion kWh / year) it would take 800 tonnes of boron per year.

      Turkey has the largest known Boron deposits at over a million tonnes or 1,200 years worth. And there are several other countries with large (thousands of tonnes) deposits as well, and that's just the Boron we know about.

      All really rough estimates, but I don't think will run out of Boron fuel any time soon.

    8. Re: Hooray for fusion! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. It has nothing to do with heavy medium half-life isotopes.

      They prefer to be called "somewhat big boned semi-long lived isotopes", you insensitive clod!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    9. Re:Hooray for fusion! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No but we get some confusion energy.

    10. Re:Hooray for fusion! by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      That's easy. Use filtration and centrifuges to separate out the short and long life products from the medium life products. Short half-life products are nasty, but you only have to store them for a few years, so no one cares. Long half-life products have too slow a decay rate to worry about, and some of them are useful as fuel. Whatever is left, just bombard it with more neutrons, or protons, whatever would be appropriate for transmuting it into something with a more convenient decay path.

      The trouble is energy, and this kind of reprocessing takes a fuckton of it.

    11. Re:Hooray for fusion! by bdwebb · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Another poster above you mentioned that 80% of extracted Boron is B-11 so ~1,000 years worth is more accurate if all the Boron in the Turkey mines were used for energy generation only...nevertheless, your post shows exactly why this technology is pretty enticing. B-11 is much, much easier to obtain than U-235 and, if the technology doesn't go the way of vapor, has the potential to change everything. Looking at this article, it appears that your estimate may be a bit off, though, regarding Turkey's Boron reserves:

      Although having 72 percent of the world's known boron reserves and being the biggest producer of boron in the world, Turkey has no monopoly on the global boron market. Total boron reserves in the world amount to as much as 4 billion tons. But the amount of boron minerals used as chemicals in industry is no more than 4 million tons a year. This means boron reserves, even when excluding Turkey's supply, are adequate to provide the world with enough boron minerals for almost 300 years.

      Going a step further, it looks like Turkey's deposits account for at least 2.88 billion tons of the total 4 billion tons in reserves around the world...definitely enough to keep us running for a while. Considering that we're already using 4 million tons a year for other industry and accounting for future growth (let's throw a random number at it and say 150% for a total of 10 million tons a year), then adding the current power requirements of the world, we get 10.0008 million tons a year of usage. Even using those numbers (and the 80% extraction rate), we're at 319.97 years of boron resources left.

      And shitballs...looking at Eti Maden's site, I just found the following that makes me wonder about my previous source:

      In the world, Turkey, USA and Russia have the important boron mines. In terms of total reserve basis, Turkey has a share of %72.20, the other important country USA is %6.8.
      Total world boron reserves on the basis of B2O3 content are 369 million tons proven. 807 million tones probable and possible, as a total of 1,176 million tons. With a share of %72.20, Turkey has a total boron reserves of 851 million tons on the basis of B2O3 content .

      I don't know if the first article is believable or not so I'll just say that we have between 94.07 and 319.97 years of power and industry in Boron...which isn't amazing but it isn't bad either.

    12. Re:Hooray for fusion! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      That was Argentina. Poor Buenos Aires.

    13. Re:Hooray for fusion! by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

      We're talking mechs powered by mini two-laser fusion reactors blasting each other with plasma rifles and missile volleys to weaken the energy shield around the Borax mine's defenses.

      It ain't called Death Valley for nothing... now that's a forward thinking name.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    14. Re:Hooray for fusion! by delt0r · · Score: 2

      Thing is the amount of power we use is going up, not remaining constant. And its going up exponentially, at like a few % we are talking about using more energy than the sun in a few 1000 years. Even DD fusion won't last long if we don't adopt a more physically realistic economic model. Perpetual growth just does not work. There is a very strong argument to correlate energy use with economic growth and production.

      Of course this "invention" is 99.9% bullshit. They like fused a few million *atoms*. 10 fold is not much of an improvement when you consider that they are another 9 orders of magnitude away from anything useful. Compare this to traditional fusion research that has made gains faster than More's law over the last few decades.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    15. Re:Hooray for fusion! by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      As far as I know, the only reprocessing being done is refining, to separate out that small portion of mid-life product. No one is further transmuting that into something more desirable, because it simply doesn't make sense with respect to the energy requirements.

    16. Re:Hooray for fusion! by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too bad we can't get fusion energy from morons instead, we would have unlimited energy...

      Scientists have tried moron-moron fusion, but it simply takes more energy to fuse two morons than the reaction produces. Worse, moron fusion by-products are inherently unstable and result in dangerous moronic radiation. There is no known shielding that can prevent moronic radiation from escaping into the environment. At best, you can only hope to slow it down. But eventually, it finds a way to break out of even the most solid, fool-proof containment.

      If your unfamiliar with what moronic radiation is capable of, there are some well-known cases. These days though we have better equipment and facilities to ascertain and study this form of radiation. In fact, there is an ongoing experiment at the Washington, D.C's Large Moron Collider inside the Capitol Building Research Facility. There they often collide long lived moronic particles called Senators and short lived moronic particles called Representatives, producing all kinds of particles ranging from the softer ignorance particles to the elusive yet massive stupid particles.

      The unique rotunda design of the top shield was supposed to contain reactions and radiation from the moronic collisions. Unfortunately it seems that despite their best efforts moronic radiation still escapes into the environment.

      Some scientists have apparently found a way to at least channel and control the radiation. The research group at the Fox Institute of Truth, for example, has found that they can channel the moronic radiation from the LMC by converting it into electromagnetic radiation in the television spectrum where it harmlessly dissipates into the environment.

      However, new research indicates moronic radiation is not so easily defeated. A growing body of research shows that even though you convert moronic radiation into another form, it still retains it's dangerous properties. This hints at deeper mysteries behind the nature of moronic energy.

      --
      ~X~
  2. small is beautiful by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2

    This experiment sounds like the first step in the practical small scale direction since Farnesworth's fusor was developed into a commercial neutron source for hospitals and oilwells.

  3. Re:Er, wait, what? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, nuclear reactions that we can turn off like laser-initiated fusion are a lot nicer than the alternatives. The inside of your car engine is a raging inferno shot with electric sparks and compressed with inexorable steel cylinders. That doesn't keep you from going on a nice drive with your sweetie.

  4. Proton-Boron Fusion is what Bussard was working on by syukton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Robert Bussard's fusion project at Energy Matter Conversion Corporation was aimed at investigating Proton-Boron fusion, because it is clean and produces no high-energy neutrons. I was really hoping this was a follow-on to that work. The device Bussard called a Polywell actually shows some serious potential to revolutionize nuclear power globally. It even shows enough promise that the US Navy has been funding some small-scale experiments. It's unfortunate that Bussard died before he could see the potential of the Polywell realized, but it would be nice to see it succeed none the less.

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  5. New "traditional" energy source by boorack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was something called "focus fusion" that utilized boron-hygrogen fusion but I'm not sure it did work out well. Regardless, I'm less and less confident if it makes sense. Solar cells and wind turbines are becoming cheaper every year and have passed nuclear energy cost (in $/kWh) some time ago (was it 2010? I don't remember...). Like computers, those devices are becoming cheap commodity and are on their way to take carbon in terms of dollars per kWh. In other worlds, renewables (along with smart grids and energy conservation techniques) are on their way to become new "traditional" energy sources. Bucky Fuller was right after all: nuclear energy (in all its forms) is only marginally better than fossil fuels, renewables take the play to whole new level. We've just missed it for some time because fossil was too cheap (to be frank - partly thanks to stealing fossil fuels from 3-rd world countries by western powers)

    Having said that, it does not mean we shouldn't do any research in this area. Basic research is THE basis of achievements of our civilization but please call spades the spades. Don't think it will magically solve our energy problems but there is a chance it will become breakthrough in many ways we don't expect.

    1. Re:New "traditional" energy source by QuasiEvil · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'll take fusion any day over "renewables" - fusion should be able to pack a few GWe into a few hundred or thousand acres of space. Renewables, because of their inherent low energy density, will force us either to conserve or use most of our available open land for energy production. The promise of fusion is really low cost energy without limits. Given that everything we do and everything we aspire to requires more and more energy, I'd much prefer a pure fusion-driven future where conserving energy was a quaint notion.

      Also, which fossil fuels exactly have we stolen from third world countries? Most of our power generation in the US comes from coal, which we produce almost exclusively domestically. Most of our natural gas comes from Canada, which isn't exactly a third world country. The only thing we import in scads in oil, and I guarantee, those who control the oil aren't getting stolen from. They're being paid very well. The wealth may not be very evenly distributed in the destination country, but that's hardly because the West "stole it".

    2. Re:New "traditional" energy source by jbengt · · Score: 2

      Most of our power generation in the US comes from coal . . .

      Coal accounts for significantly less than half of current US electricity production - natural gas is a close second & closing.

      Most of our natural gas comes from Canada. . .

      Most of our natural gas comes from fracking in places like Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania.

      The only thing we import in scads in oil, and I guarantee, those who control the oil aren't getting stolen from.

      "Those who control the oil" being the operative words here. Historically, western powers have tried to control those in power in oil rich states. (right now, that's not working out so great in Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc.)

    3. Re:New "traditional" energy source by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You need a translation not a citation..

      'After huge effort to drown nuclear energy in red tape, escalating build costs to many times their real cost - while at the same time
      stopping any form on innovation in cleaner/safer/more efficient forms, we have finally achieved the point where its price/performance
      does not wipe the floor with everything else'
      And for bonus points throw in a little 'while of course ignoring the actual ecological and human damage of competing generation methods
      as those are OBVIOUSLY clean, since they dont use evil nasty RADIATION (and where they do, we will ignore it)'

      Make a little more sense now?

    4. Re:New "traditional" energy source by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      If Wind, solar or geothermal could do it, we would be using it. Unfortunately they only make sense in unique areas. Also, production of all 3 cause great ecological damage. The amount of silver needed in solar panels is significant and silver mining is VERY toxic and produces a lot of CO2. Wind turbines are made from exotic alloys that, while not as bad as solar panels, again produce a lot of CO2 and toxins during mining. Both Wind and Solar would have a significant impact on the environment if they were used on a scale large enough to power a modern country. Lastly, geothermal has all the downsides of fracking and there are actual documented cases of geothermal plants causing earthquakes and having to be shut down.

      MODERN nuclear power is extremely safe. Every failure we've had has been on 1st gen reactor designs and most have involved incredibly stupid mistakes by humans. There ARE melt-down proof reactor designs. There are even reactors that produce very little waste at all. The carbon footprint of uranium mining is smaller than all other forms of energy production other than fosil fuels (which then produce far more when you actually use them) So if your goal is less CO2, Nuclear power is the clear winner.

      The current problem with 40 year old reactor designs and their waste is real, but we shouldn't get that problem confused with modern reactors which are entirely different. If we could move beyond nuclear to Fusion safely, that would be incredible and revolutionize the world. We could likely even reverse Global Warming if we so chose given how cheap energy could end up being.

    5. Re:New "traditional" energy source by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 2

      There's one area where renewables can win out, and the space they take up doesn't make any difference.
      If a law were to be passed where every new house had to have, say, a 5kW photovoltaic system on the roof, it would take up zero additional space, would be cheaper to implement at the design stage of a new house and all new houses would be largely self-sufficient for power, with the ability to feed extra power into the grid.
      As a bonus, on those really hot (and, coincidentally, sunny) days where everyone has their AC on, they are the kinds of days where a distributed power generation system like this will easily be able to cope with the additional load.

  6. Isn't that fision? by Mysund · · Score: 2

    When Boron releases a helium nuclei, isnt it fision then?

    1. Re:Isn't that fision? by mhotchin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Although similar in concept, that particular nuclear mechanism is always refered to as alpha particle decay. Fission is typically used when
      a) a heavy nucleus
      b) splits into two similar sized pieces, plus some detritus.

    2. Re:Isn't that fision? by jbengt · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. Boron first absorbs a proton (fusion) and becomes an unstable isotope of carbon, which then splits (fission) and gives off X-rays, gamma radiation, and alpha particles, and a few neutrons.

    3. Re:Isn't that fision? by russotto · · Score: 2

      It's not a carbon-12 nucleus at ground state. However, it could decay to that by emitting a gamma (instead of breaking apart), or it could spit out a neutron (oops) and become a carbon-11, which then spits out a positron to give you boron-11 back.

  7. Still have to solve the big problems by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

    The lack of neutrons in this reactions is nice, but the protons and boron nuclei still need to overcome the Coulombe barrier. Generating practical fusion power still needs a combination of pressure, temperatures and containment times that have not yet been achieved in fusion machines. Accelerator base fusion works (for p-B, or hydrogen, but too many of the particles scatter rather than reacting so you can't reach break even.

    This scheme sounds nice for R&D, but not at all clear that it can lead to break-even

  8. Re:no "radiation"? by mhotchin · · Score: 2

    Almost certainly what the summary/title is trying to say is that the new technique does not make its surrounding radioactive, i.e. that once the fusion reaction stops, so does the radiation.

    This is the popular / layman's idea of 'radiation' - an inimical influence that cannot be removed from its host material.

  9. Re:Proton-Boron Fusion is what Bussard was working by mdielmann · · Score: 2

    I thought collecting interstellar hydrogen atoms with giant magnetic scoops while accelerating to near lightspeed and using them in a fusion ramjet was what Bussard was working on...

    The guy was profligate! He had at least two ideas over the span of his career!

    [End sarcasm] I wish I didn't believe that was needed.

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  10. Re:Er, wait, what? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    ... then its even higher pressures involved, where the fuel explodes instead of burns.

  11. Research director at CNRS by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Informative

    For anyone that wonders: french research agency CNRS has thousands of small research teams, which are each commonly led by a research director. A CNRS research director is like a university professor, except he/she is not in charge of any teaching.

  12. Re:So, um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not a problem, it's an advantage.

    You get a 3X +2 Helium nucleus (aka alpha) at 8.7 GeV. Since the particles are charged, you can convert their energy to a usable electrical current directly. (Think field windings of a generator, except there is no winding, just a moving charge.) Neutrons have the disadvantage of _requiring_ a thermalization process to capture their energy.

    The disadvantage of the alpha is that it is _easily_ thermalized. You need to keep everything out of it's way until you can extract its energy. This implies super deep vacuum, or a super tiny machine so that the energy conversion device is within the slowing down length of the alpha. The slowing down length of an alpha in air is on the order of a centimeter, IIRC.

    Of course, I'm assuming that direct conversion is superior to thermal conversion. If thermal conversion is superior, then just thermalize the alpha just like a neutron, in a big tub of water. Just make sure your tub is grounded to prevent charge buildup.

  13. Re:no "radiation"? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    Almost certainly what the summary/title is trying to say is that the new technique does not make its surrounding radioactive

    I agree, but it's worth mentioning that it's not that huge of a problem with the existing systems. If you've ever been to a tokamak, the inside is lined with copper. The neutrons do make the copper radioactive, but just a little bit, and it's back to normal copper in a few decades.

    It's more of a maintenance downside than it is one of nuclear waste - if the copper gets too radioactive, it becomes harder to maintain the plasma.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  14. Re:Er, wait, what? by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 3, Funny

    That doesn't keep you from going on a nice drive with your sweetie

    To be fair, it's fairly difficult to drive one handed.