By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Moving from fission to fusion is the Holy Grail of nuclear energy

Here's hoping that Nif gets America on the track to reliable fusion energy. God knows we need it now more than ever.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
highwaystar101 said:
gurglesletch said:
What's wrong with fossil fuels?

Not to get all hippyish, but...

 

What's wrong with that? That's how the world is now and we are all fine.



highwaystar101 said:

An interesting short article on nuclear fusion. I thought it might be worth posting.

 

Source

Moving from fission to fusion is the Holy Grail of nuclear energy

 

WILLIAM REVILLE

 

NUCLEAR FUSION, which promises the clean production of virtually limitless energy from readily available raw materials, is the Holy Grail of research that hopes to find a viable successor to the generation of energy from fossil fuels. However, developing a fusion reactor is proving to be a tough nut to crack and may take much longer than originally expected. The current state of play in nuclear fusion is described by Michael Moyer in the March edition of Scientific American.

 

Conventional nuclear power, nuclear fission, is based on the break-up (fission) of the heaviest naturally occurring element – uranium atoms. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, means the joining together (fusion) of atoms of the lightest natural element – hydrogen.

Nuclear fusion is the process that takes place in our sun when hydrogen atoms fuse together to produce helium, releasing enormous amounts of energy in the process. In order to build a nuclear fusion power plant, therefore we must reproduce the enormously high temperature and pressure that exist in the interior of the sun, and these conditions must be safely maintained over long periods in the nuclear fusion power plant.

Two approaches are being used to achieve fusion. One relies on lasers and the other relies on heating a magnetically contained plasma.

The National Ignition Facility (Nif), a 13-year, $4 billion enterprise at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, will start fusion experiments later this year. The Nif will bombard pellets containing two heavy varieties of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) with the world’s most powerful laser beam.

The laser energy will crush the pellet so forcefully that hydrogen fusion will occur, releasing much energy.

Fusion has been achieved before, but more energy was used to generate the lasers than was released during fusion. It is confidently expected that Nif will reach the point where fusion energy output exceeds the input energy.

The second major fusion facility, a $14 billion project in southern France, named Iter, is scheduled to be built in 2018, and to start deuterium-tritium fusion tests in 2026. Iter will heat hydrogen, using microwave radiation, to 150 million degrees, creating a highly mobile state of matter called a plasma (a sea of electrically charged atoms). Electrically charged particles are affected by a magnetic field.

The hot plasma will be contained by a magnetic field generated by superconducting magnets, and fusion will occur.

Unlike the intermittent laser bursts in Nif, it is hoped that the magnetic field will hold the plasma together for up to hundreds of seconds, producing a sustained burst of fusion.

So, that’s where we are now – trying to ignite the fusion process and k eep it going for a short while.

But, remember, in a working nuclear fusion plant the fusion must be maintained continuously, year in year out. The core of the fusion plant must also be able to withstand extremely high temperatures year after year, and to withstand long-term bombardment from high-energy neutrons generated in the fusion process (this bombardment turns ordinary material brittle).

Another problem is to source a continuous supply of tritium, one of the two reactants in the fusion process. The other reactant, deuterium is available in limitless supply from sea-water. Tritium can be made in a conventional fission nuclear power plant at a rate of 2-3kg per year and at a cost of about $100 million (€74m) per kg.

However, a fusion plant will consume a kg of tritium per week, so to supply tritium from a fission plant is not a practical proposition.

The fusion plant must be designed to automatically generate a sufficient supply of its own tritium. In theory, this will be done by allowing the high-energy neutrons generated in fusion to bombard a surrounding blanket containing lithium. The neutrons will induce lithium to split into helium and tritium, and this tritium will replace the tritium used up in the fusion reaction.

Tritium generation must proceed with the greatest efficiency, otherwise the fusion process will wind down and stop. The formidable technicalities of tritium supply have yet to be worked out. We are surely a long way from building a fusion power plant.

At current rates of progress, the construction of the first demonstration nuclear fusion plant may not begin until around 2100.

But Nif director Edward Moses has proposed a compromise plan to develop a hybrid fission-fusion plant that could be connected to the national grid in 20 years – a laser inertial fusion engine (Life).

Only 5 per cent of the uranium that goes into a fission nuclear power plant gets used up before the fuel is withdrawn and stored as high level radioactive waste. Life would use neutrons from laser powered fusion to bombard this spent fission fuel, causing fission reactions and producing heat that would be used to generate electricity.

This post is making my brain hurt.



I always love the term "May take longer to figure out then we thought."

How does one put an expectation on technological research when it's "figuring stuff out."

"Oh we should be able to figure out how to make Dark Energy in a lab in 15 years or so."

"How?"

"I dunno we haven't figured it out yet!"

 

I know they have a good idea, but nobody knows how long it will take to solve the problems.



gurglesletch said:

What's wrong with that? That's how the world is now and we are all fine.

Are you serious?

Even if you don't believe climate change exists, you must know fossil fuels are non-renewable and will run out soon.



Around the Network
Soleron said:
gurglesletch said:
 

What's wrong with that? That's how the world is now and we are all fine.

Are you serious?

Even if you don't believe climate change exists, you must know fossil fuels are non-renewable and will run out soon.

They just found some new rock which holds a lot of Natural Gas so i don't think that we will run out anytime soon.



Soleron said:
gurglesletch said:
 

What's wrong with that? That's how the world is now and we are all fine.

Are you serious?

Even if you don't believe climate change exists, you must know fossil fuels are non-renewable and will run out soon.

Define 'soon'.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball said:
Soleron said:
gurglesletch said:
 

What's wrong with that? That's how the world is now and we are all fine.

Are you serious?

Even if you don't believe climate change exists, you must know fossil fuels are non-renewable and will run out soon.

Define 'soon'.

at current rates of consumption and reasonable projects of growth, most estimates put reserves of oil that is easily obtainable using current tech (by this I mean ~$3-$4/gallon to the consumer) as lasting about 15-20 years at the absolute extreme longest possibilty though advances in tech will probably extend this for at least a few more decades, especially if we can figure out how to get more oil from oil shale like the massive deposits in Western Canada. (if you read books about this from from the 70s, they all say oil will run out by the mid-1990s, so obviously its not an easy thing to answer)

Natural gas will probably last 80-100 years although this figure depends largely on how long the oil reserves hold up it is by far the easiest fuel to convert exisiting engines to burn. Coal should easily last 250-300 years or maybe even more so that's probably not an issue.

The main problem with fossil fuels is even if we don't run out of them in the near future or even for 100 years or so, they are going to and will keep getting harder and harder to obtain and this will increase at an exponential rate as the percentage of people living in developed countries continues to skyrocket. This means that the increasingly few countries that do have significant reserves of fossil fuels will see their power and influence increase quite rapidly. Although it is obvious that Canada will not be retarded about this and most likely Russia won't either, many countries will definitely use this to their advantage and they will increasingly hold the rest of the world in a quasi-hostage position. This is clearly not a good situation, regardless of who is holding the good end of the rope. I mean, why do you think Japan wanted to take over East Asia in WWII? And that was despite the fact that they were dependent on two very stable countries for their fuel: the US didn't give a damn as long as they paid us a fair price and the UK didn't care what the hell happened as long as the Japanese paid them and stayed away from India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, etc.

Nuclear fusion avoids all these problems because any country that has access to an ocean has an effectively limitless fuel supply and you can only stop them from accessing this by blatently invading them and siezing their territory. (Also, their are only about 35 countries that are completely landlocked) Nuclear fusion is also much more efficient than any other even theorectial means of power generation other than a matter-antimatter annihilation reactor (which is clearly far beyond anything our current technology can build). This means you could easily generate enough power for a large US state or a European country with less than 10 power plants. In addition, regardless of your opinion on climate change, it is fairly obvious that reducing pollution is a good thing and nuclear fusion would really help in this area.



Not trying to be a fanboy. Of course, it's hard when you own the best console eve... dang it

It's still 20 - 40 years away, just like it has been since the 1950's.

You just can't underestimate the problems of containing a continuously exploding fusion bomb in a tiny electromagnetic containment bubble. The Sun has it easy, as it’s crushing gravity contains it.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

I didn't think it was possible to contain a nuclear fusion. If so, the biggest thing is to be able to harness all the energy produced by it. That would solve all the problems of energy and may even create new opportunities in the future, like using it for fuel.

What are the side effects for using nuclear fusion?