Slashdot Mirror


Could a Helium-Resistant Material Usher In an Age of Nuclear Fusion? (sciencealert.com)

Researchers working with a team at the Los Alamos National Lab tested a new way to build material for nuclear fusion reactors, "and found that it could eliminate one of the obstacles preventing humanity from harnessing the power of fusion energy." schwit1 quotes Science Alert: A collaboration of engineers and researchers has found a way to prevent helium, a byproduct of the fusion reaction, from weakening nuclear fusion reactors. The secret is in building the reactors using nanocomposite solids that create channels through which the helium can escape... Not only does the fusion process expose reactors to extreme pressure and temperatures, helium -- the byproduct of fusion between hydrogen atoms -- adds to the strain placed on reactors by bubbling out into the materials and eventually weakening them...

In a study published in the journal Science Advances, the researchers overview how they tested the behavior of helium in nanocomposite solids, materials made from thick metal layer stacks. They found that the helium didn't form bubbles in these nanocomposite solids like it did in traditionally used materials. Instead, it formed long, vein-like tunnels. "We were blown away by what we saw," said Demkowicz. "As you put more and more helium inside these nanocomposites, rather than destroying the material, the veins actually start to interconnect, resulting in kind of a vascular system."

The article points out that nuclear fusion generates four times the energy of nuclear fission.

7 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. So fusion power in 20 years, right? by BLToday · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I’m been hearing fusion is only 20 years away for at least 30 years now. One of these days it will come true just like the year of Linux on the desktop. Wake me up when either one happens. You probably can’t because I’ll be old and dead by then.

    1. Re:So fusion power in 20 years, right? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's why. The projections in 1976 seem to have been overly optimistic regarding our minimum commitment to research, but possibly overly pessimistic regarding our ability to perform in the worse-than-worst-case scenario.

      https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i...

    2. Re:So fusion power in 20 years, right? by blindseer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is some other new fusion design going suddenly break us out of this pattern?

      I think so. These magnetic confinement designs have a toroid shape to the plasma, making the volume of plasma needed for breakeven much larger than if it was a sphere. Spherical containment using a magnetic field is not likely possible. What would be possible for spherical containment is an electrostatic force. There's been some research in this funded by the US Navy but they've always been very secretive and underfunded because the Navy suspects that if the project got too large then it'd be taken over by the Department of Energy and killed, as it competes with their magnetic confinement projects.

      Another interesting confinement is to use a magnetic field but on a molten metal, the fusion fuel is contained in this molten metal "bottle". By using powerful rams to move the metal inward the fuel is compressed inside this collapsing bottle. The heat and pressure would, theoretically at least, fuse portions of the fuel and keep the metal hot. Repeated ramming would keep fusing the fuel and the excess heat is extracted to produce power.

      These are far less expensive experiments in fusion compared to the tokamak designs that so many people (or nations rather, I don't think the people have much say on this) are dumping money into. I believe these other designs are also far more likely to be energy positive at a reasonable scale. Any fusion project can be energy positive if scaled large enough, we have ample evidence of that in the universe. The reason the US Navy is funding their own fusion project is that they believe it can be used to power a future aircraft carrier or submarine. I suspect that they will not find that feasible, but even then they must see value in this as a source of energy for military strategic reasons.

      I recall reading some articles on these alternative fusion reactor designs and it was something like the power input required grew on the square of the diameter but the power output grew by the cube. Their early experiments required X watts of power in, gave Y watts of power out for a given diameter Z. For X to be larger than Y meant Z had to be, again as I recall, much larger than the size of a typical fission reactor. For this to be practical means the capital expense would be much larger than any fission project attempted so far. Who is going to spend that kind of money when fission is already a proven technology?

      One thing that determines the size of the reactor is the fuel. Some fuels are better than others and, of course, the best fuels are rare and expensive. If we are going to use a lower quality fuel then the size increases even more.

      What's going to break us out of this pattern of fusion always being 30 years in the future is the Department of Energy getting off the idea that magnetic fusion is the only path to take. They need to get serious on this and invest in, or at least issue licenses for, competing fusion technologies. If these competing technologies actually prove successful though then the Department of Energy would look really stupid for investing so much money into something that didn't work AND they'd actually solve the problem that they were set to solve, therefore making the future existence of the department unnecessary.

      The Department of Energy isn't going to solve our energy problems because it would not be in their best interests to do so. So long as energy scarcity is a problem they have a mission. I say dissolve the Department of Energy and roll over much of its people, assets, and mission into the Department of Defense. What does not fit into the likes of energy development, nuclear weapons, research, and such, can be rolled into the Department of Commerce or some other government entity. The Department of Energy needs to go away. If we can't make it go away then we should put people in charge that are actually motivated to have the department pursue it's mission.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:So fusion power in 20 years, right? by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There will never be a "Year of Linux on the desktop" because the desktop is dying.

      That doesn't make any sense at all. First, you are confused about the term "desktop"... it means a particular kind of GUI, not the form factor of the machine. The desktop will never will never die because it is the most productive interface for people who actually need to do desktop kinds of work. So, at the moment, many people use a desktop for something else entirely, e.g., consuming media. Those will migrate away, but have you ever tried to write an essay on a phone? You can do it, but it's painful. You don't want to do a whole hell of a lot of software development on a phone either. So there always will be a core constituency of desktop users, even if diminished from today's numbers. With the desktop shrinking, and Linux's absolute numbers of desktop users growing, the net effect is to hasten the day when Linux desktop usage increases beyond a sliver of the pie chart, exactly the opposite of the result you suggest. Meanwhile... writing this on a Linux desktop and liking it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  2. What is this bologna? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > helium -- the byproduct of fusion between hydrogen atoms -- adds to the strain placed on reactors by
    > bubbling out into the materials and eventually weakening them

    The problem with fusion is that it generates relativistic neutrons that displace atoms in metals and cause them to become brittle. This not only weakens the materials but makes some critical materials like the superconducting magnets rapidly turn into scrap.

    While the helium -alphas actually- also present problems, they are not the same thing at all. The damage rate from such events is orders of magnitude lower than the neutron damage. And the idea that letting them just bubble out will remove them from the fuel at a fast enough rate makes me LOL.

    The idea that this somehow fixes anything is so utterly ridiculous that it simply puts the black hole that is modern fusion research into stark perspective.

  3. Re:First You Need Fusion by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You seem a little bit confused about the technology and the science behind it.

    There is no difficulty in using fusion to generate more electricity than you put in. That is actually easy.

    The reactors being built aren't designed to do that. They're designed to be useful to the engineers figuring out how to build all the parts to be durable and find out exactly which configurations give the best efficiency.

    The reason it would not yet be cost effective isn't about net energy, it is about net money; making it last long enough to turn a profit! There are huge capital costs involved in construction.

  4. Re:Betteridge's Law Applies Here by careysub · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good summary. Nuclear power is simply uneconomical compared with the newest, and rapidly developing, renewable technologies. There is a reason that world nuclear power production (not just in the US) has been nearly level for about 30 years. The era of nuclear power plant construction has passed, and super-expensive fusion ain't bringing it back when (and if) it becomes available.

    A 21st Century electrical grid looks like this: high voltage DC power lines that ship electricity across an entire continent (800 KV lines can transport electricity from one U.S. coast to the other with losses under 5%), solar and wind power deployed in excess capacity (but still cheaper than the nuclear "base load"), pumped water storage to provide additional power leveling which, again, serves the entire continent. No need for expensive batteries, but you can build them too, and the technology continues to improve there as well.

    The larger the grid the better because local conditions will average out, and you can take advantage of peak solar production in one place when evening demand peaks elsewhere, and so forth.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj