Biggest Obstacle of Nuclear Fusion Overcome?

Yetihehe writes "Nuclear fusion could become a more viable energy solution with the discovery of way to prevent super-hot gases from causing damage within reactors. The potential solution, tested at an experimental reactor in San Diego, US, could make the next generation of fusion reactors more efficient, saving hundreds of millions of euros a year."

summary is wrong

[aadvancedGIR]

The technique is not about preventing the gas from causing damages, but just to avoid the magnetic field leaking it in the first place. Kinda cool improvement anyway.

Re:1:1.2784

[Fordiman]

NST is a european web magazine. Of course they're talking euros.

Bad Headline

[pavon]

Hemos, Where did you get this "Biggest Obstacle" from? The researcher didn't claim it in the article, and it isn't true. IANANP, but from what I've heard, the biggest obstacle to nuclear fusion is maintaining the reaction for long periods of time, and doing so with relativly low energy input.

This is a cool development, but unless I read incorrectly it doesn't solve those problems.

Re:summary is wrong

[Fordiman]

Actually, it is about causing damage. The mag field does not 'leak' (implying that the magnetic field becomes somehow compromised); instead, it's overcome. The technique doesn't incerease the mag field's strength, but draws off the cause of the 'bursts'. The end result is that the fusion reactor is damaged less, loses less heat/plasma density, gets better efficiencies, and has to be shut down less often.

Thus saving millions of dollarpounds each year.

Not quite Mr. Fusion yet

[Overzeetop]

FTFA: Curiously, however, Evans notes that the theory behind the effect does not precisely match the results. According to their calculations, the perturbations should have released both particles and heat from the plasma. Instead, the heat was not bled off with the plasma but remained mostly contained within the magnetic field.

So it works, but they're not sure it works for the reasons that caused them to create the effect in the first place. Sort of a scientific shrug. Good news, but they're going to figure out why it really works (not just that it works) before they put it into practice.

Kind of frustrating to think that for the cost of the military action in Iraq, we could have built 8 Tokamac reactors. (I know, you could say the same about welfare...it doesn't make the money thrown at Iraq any less irritating)

Re:Err...

[Wooster_UK]

Depends what the new method does, exactly. I skimmed the article, but it wasn't quite heavy enough on detail. If it saves millions of euros/dollars/pounds/whatever, then you've just increased profit per MWh, a small step towards profitability. And if any of that saving is in terms of the energy input required, then you've just pushed it towards being energetically-favourable, too. If the new technique makes it safe to run the reactor at a higher temperature, then it's pushed even further towards a net energy gain.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[QuantumPion]

Technically, you can fuse any element lighter then iron (so that the final product is at most iron). However, the heavier you go, the higher temperatures you need and the less efficient the process. This is because iron has the highest binding energy of any element. Past iron, you have to use fission.

Re:hmmm..

[richdun]

Actually, it's the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor [wikipedia.org] . It'll service no one with power (just science), and is being paid for by a lot of different countries.

TFA used euros because it was written from a European perspective. It's generally customary to quote price in the local currency of the audience you are writing for.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[b1t r0t]

If you have more complex elements, work your way down to Hydrogen with Fusion.

Actually, you work your way toward iron from either direction. The farther away from iron that you start, the easier it is to get a net gain in energy. Fusion is best with hydrogen and helium, and fission is best with heavy elements like uranium, plutonium, and thorium.

You can do fission with light elements (except for hydrogen-1 of course) and fusion with heavier elements, but you have to put in more energy than you get out. This is why stars die out.

Fe Fusion

[WinPimp2K]

Technically you can fuse iron - ask an astrophysicist for the gory details.

But it takes more energy to fuse than is released. So iron fusion is pretty much the last fusion reaction to be expected from an end-of-life reactor (of the thermostellar variety)

Re:Bad Headline

[eldavojohn]

Hemos, Where did you get this "Biggest Obstacle" from? The researcher didn't claim it in the article, and it isn't true. IANANP, but from what I've heard, the biggest obstacle to nuclear fusion is maintaining the reaction for long periods of time, and doing so with relativly low energy input.

This is a cool development, but unless I read incorrectly it doesn't solve those problems.

So there was a lot of talk of lighter elements being used (easier to force together) and devising a way to create self sustaining reactions. That is, the first nuclear reactions create enough energy to spur the next reactions and a little more energy on top of that.

I'm not a nuclear physicist either and your same questions came to me when I saw the headline. In actuality, there are ways to accomplish this. It doesn't matter how much energy was your start-up cost because you have a self sustaining system with some output--eventually you recoup your losses. Although I've heard much talk of this, has it ever been proven that it can be done? I think so, but you'll have to read the wikipedia entry on it.

On top of that, there is the issue of the forces acting against the atoms [wikipedia.org]:

A substantial energy barrier must be overcome for fusion to occur. Nuclei repel one another because of the electrostatic force between their positively charged protons. If two nuclei can be brought close enough together, however, the electrostatic force is overwhelmed by the more powerful strong nuclear force which only operates over short distances.

To answer your question in short, I think there have been some very clever ways of continually inputting a little more of a hydrogen isotope into the system and then clearing out the resulting product while feeding a little energy back into the system to maintain its temperatures. The whole while, you are tapping some of the heat to produce the energy.

You raise a valid point and this initially plagued models but now we are concerned with how we control and divert the energy (heat) of the system. It's been shown the return on this nuclear process can be slightly greater than the input. We're not "creating" energy, we're merely changing the molecules and harvesting the byproduct of that reaction so the laws of thermodynamics are adhered to in these models.

Re:Biggest obstacle?

[LnxAddct]

Nuclear fusion in the states has always had the necessary backing and funding. In fact the Department of Energy just recently announced its latest budgets and gave the nuclear fusion folks every penny requested. Billions every year are invested by the government, and even more so recently because there is a huge push to get off of our oil dependance. The government is also dumping a good chunk of change into an international reactor called ITER (latin for "the way"). ITER will be a stepping stone to commercial reactors. It is under construction and will finish being built in 2015. It is already going to have a net gain in energy production, now scientists are more focused on getting more bang for their buck. ITER will not be used for producing electricity, but it is a good prototype for a reactor being built after it that is designed to create about 6 to 8 times as much energy and will be used commercially to produce electricity. So, even though scientists have been saying that we are 10 years away from viable fusion for 50 years now... we really are this time, and the reactor is being built. Within 2 decades the first commercial reactor should be finished, and within 3 to 4 decades, nuclear fusion should start becoming pretty widespread. And this is all assuming a pretty much worst case scenario with no major unpredicted advances being made in the field.
Regards,
Steve

Seven links

[Kobun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_flux [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle [wikipedia.org]

The above links, read in order, should step through nicely outlining the fusion process, and some of the major challanges that are to be overcome in making it a viable power source for use on Earth.

Today, I will have understanding of fusion. Tommorrow I will understand Subscriber trunk dialing, and then, computers. Once I have an understanding of computers, I will rule the world!

My apologies, Terry.

Article that doesn't suck.

[Kadin2048]

Too bad the link on their front page is broken (and requires giving zip code + age before you can get to the "Oops! Page not found" result).

I Googled and found this, it's got some links to some cool amateur photos of the implosion:
http://laughingsquid.com/2006/05/11/trojan-nuclear -power-plant-demolition/ [laughingsquid.com]

Re:crap!

[Jeremi]

Fisson is easy to create. A team of boy scouts can do it in their own back yard.

Dude isn't exaggerating [boyscouttrail.com]

Re:crap!

[kidtexas]

While the neutrons created in a D-T fusion reaction can and will activate the surrounding structure, the byproducts from fission have a much longer half life than the neutron activated structure of a fusion reactor. Think tens of years instead of thousands - all the sudden a much more manageable problem if we could get the damn things to work.

You are however correct that a lot of thought needs to go into how to correctly manage and extract the energy from the flux of neutrons in a fusion reactor.

Re:And still people will complain...

[dhovis]

Although the fusion process itself may not make any alpha or beta radiation the high energy neutron flux will make the metal reactor parts radioactive.

This is an important point. I remember reading some time ago that there was interest in using Vanadium alloys for fusion reactors. I used to wonder why this was. I am a Materials Scientist, and Vanadium is usually used as an alloying element, but not as the basis for an alloy. I think I finally figured it out. The most common isotope of Vanadium is V51. If V51 absorbs a Neutron, it quickly beta-decays into Cr52. From there, Cr52, Cr53, and Cr54 are all stable. Further neutron absorption will eventually convert atoms to Mn, Fe, and eventually get to Co59. All of the beta-decays involved are relatively short lived, IIRC. From a materials science prospective, V, Cr, Mn, and Fe are all Body Centered Cubic (bcc), whereas Co is hexagonal close packed (hcp). If you produce too much Co, you could start getting phase transformations in the alloy, which would probably degrade the strength. Fortunately, if you start with V51, then it can absorb 8 neutrons before it gets to an element that has a high probablity of degrading the alloy strength.

Disclaimer: This is just speculation on my part, but it makes a lot of sense. If anybody knows more than I do, I'd love to hear it. I suspect maybe there are also concerns about the magnetic behavior of Fe and Co in the presence of the high magnetic fields used for fusion.

Re:1:1.2784

[MrNaz]

Completely offtopic, but meh:

I'd like to point out that the absolute exchange rate ofa currency means exactly diddly. Take the Japanese Yen for instance. 1 USD = 111 JPY Does that mean its a weak currency?

The strength of a currency is related to the price stability relative to average prices in the zones it is most heavily used in. As the Euro currency has maintained excellent parity with the price of goods and services globally, it is considered a strong currency.

Really, the word "strong" is a misnomer. The correct word for describing a currency's merit relative to others is "stable". One could say that the Euro is taking over from the US currency not because it is becoming stronger, but because it is becoming more stable.

It is for this reason that the strongest currency and the only truly stable currency, is gold. Well sort of. After all, you can't eat the stuff. Nonetheless, it is about the only thing that has carried value throughout the ages and survived the rise and fall of empires. So, if you're worried about your piggy bank being made worthless by economic collapse associated with runaway inflation, buy gold. Not some high markup crappy necklace or ring, but bullion. Buy it at the market price, about $660US / ounce at the moment. 1 ounce is about 31g, with a small 1% or so margin for casting and your savings will be, well, worth their weight in gold.

Reality check on bad science.

[styryx]

This is too far down for anyone to really see...pity.

Disclaimer: I am a fusion scientist.

The result mentioned in the article has been around for about a year in the fusion community. It is very good work, and opens up further areas of study. However, it is specific to a single Tokamak, and so far has not yet been repeated. Furthermore, the result has not yet been fully understood. (This is linked to it not being repeated.)

This may be sensational news, but it shouldn't be, due to claiming to solve a problem, which so far they haven't fully done. Don't take anything away from the guys who did this. Like I said, excellent work. But until the result is confirmed and understood it should stay out of mainstream media.

There are many big problems for fusion, like plasma instabilites [wikipedia.org], neo-classical tearing modes, ELMs (as mentioned), ohmic heating in transformer coils. The list goes on, it's a complex subject. Thankfully with all countries signed up, and more than enough money for ITER's budget (even if America pulls out again), the politics can be minimised and the physics can continue.

Re:I just want a Mr. Fusion in my car

[pnewhook]

They claimed nuclear power would make electricity "too cheap to meter". I'm wondering what claims they're making for fusion that will turn out to be completely bogus?

The "they" you are talking about was one moronic U.S. bureaucrat: From the Canadian Nuclear FAQ:

It is a common perception that early nuclear power proponents boasted of electricity from nuclear reactors becoming "too cheap to meter" in the near future. In fact, while nuclear reactors have become one of the cheapest large-scale options for base-load electricity, it was never the expectation of earlier nuclear engineers that costs would come down low enough to render metering irrelevant.

In fact, the oft-quoted prediction, "too cheap to meter", was made in 1954 by an American bureaucrat, Lewis Strauss, in a speech that very much reflects the public's post-war euphoria over nuclear technology (and technology in general), galvanized by President Eisenhower's vaunted "Atoms for Peace" program launched in December 1953. Strauss' comments predated the first nuclear power plants by three years, and included other optimistic references to wiping out world hunger and extending human life expectancy.

Re:Bad Headline

[swelke]

Hemos, Where did you get this "Biggest Obstacle" from? The researcher didn't claim it in the article, and it isn't true. IANANP, but from what I've heard, the biggest obstacle to nuclear fusion is maintaining the reaction for long periods of time, and doing so with relativly low energy input.

Well, IAAP (not nuclear, though) and the biggest obstacle to sustained fusion is indeed maintaining the reaction for long periods of time (minutes would be nice). The trouble is that the reaction quits when too much of the energy gets lost by - get this - hot particles escaping the magnetic field, taking heat with them (thus cooling the reaction and stopping it) and incidentally damaging the machinery. If you read the article, they're claiming (we'll see if they're correct about it...) that the new method removes a few particles from the field (but without cooling the remaining gas much), and manages to stabilize the rest of the material (in some mystical, poorly explained way).

If this pans out, it could make tokomak-style fusion a much more promising option. If they manage to figure out the physics behind why it works, then they might be able to refine the technique, which could eventually make fusion practical. But only if this works as advertised. It's been my experience that approximately 107% of all nuclear fusion press releases are either badly exaggerated or pure fiction.

Re:Biggest obstacle?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Given the above scenario, you'll run out of fuel for your fission reactors in half a century or so (give or take a few decades), unless you start using breeder reactors, which aren't really a widescale-proven technology, and pose some nuclear proliferation issues. If you're going to pour research money into breeder reactors, why not spend it instead on fusion, which is pretty much the ultimate terrestrial power source?

That timeline is for Uranium at current market rates using non breeder reactors. Breeder reactors using Thorium could potentially last 1000 years or more - there's lots more Thorium laying around, and a breeder setup will make the stuff last up to 20 times as long.