ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



How far away is fusion?

Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:26 PM by Alan Boyle


Alan Boyle / MSNBC.com
A bare spot amid forested land in the distance shows where ITER's nuclear fusion
facility will be built in the French countryside. Construction is slated to begin in
2009. The tallest building on the complex will rise 160 feet (50 meters) high.

Right now, the site of the ITER experimental nuclear fusion plant is literally just a bare spot on the ground in the south of France. But the grand energy vision is gradually taking shape on the computers and whiteboards at the ITER organization's temporary quarters nearby - and Gary Johnson is already worried about getting everything ready in time for the big reveal in 2016.

"A 10-year cycle to do all this is very tight from our standpoint," Johnson told me in his very temporary office, set up in a prefab building at CEA Cadarache, one of France's nuclear research centers.

"All this" refers to the long list of tasks that Johnson, one of the top-ranking Americans in ITER's hierarchy, will have to oversee. During this week's visit to Cadarache, I saw firsthand how the international effort to develop commercially viable fusion reactors is only now beginning to gather critical mass.

ITER is an acronym for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, but it also refers to the Latin word for "the way." ITER's seven partners, or "parties" - China, Europe, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States - believe the effort will show the way toward the long-held but elusive dream of harnessing the power behind the sun's glow and an H-bomb's blast. Agreement on the ITER framework was announced two years ago today, and the treaty setting up the organization was signed last November.


ITER

An artist's conception shows what the ITER fusion
facility would look like from the air, in the center
of the picture, after completion in 2016.


Scheduled for startup in 2016, ITER's 15-story-tall facility would combine two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, amid temperatures of tens of millions of degrees to create helium and a neutron - releasing a burst of energy in the process. The chief challenge will be to contain all that power inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field, generated by a superconducting contraption called a tokamak.

As one of ITER's seven acting deputy directors-general, Johnson is in charge of building the tokamak, in cooperation with all the parties backing the effort.

"It's definitely a big challenge," said Johnson, a veteran of nuclear research programs at the Oak Ridge and Lawrence Livermore national labs. "We're going to have bumps in the road, but I go to a lot of meetings with various parties, and they're motivated just as much as we are to make this successful."

Kaname Ikeda, ITER's acting director-general (and Johnson's boss), is convinced that his nascent organization is taking the right way. "I feel quite comfortable," Ikeda told me. "It's just a question of investment and commitment by the parties. ... It's not something you can do alone."

If ITER is successful, the project could open the way to a new source of power - one that is arguably safer and cleaner than nuclear fission, potentially better for large-scale power generation than wind or solar, and less problematic than fossil fuels when it comes to the issue of global warming.

"Not to argue the impact, but I do think that nuclear energy is very essential to solve the living quality of the environment, and also to save many communities from the question of resources, and also to raise the supply of energy," Ikeda said.

Exploring all the inner workings of nuclear fusion research in general - and ITER in particular - will have to wait for a later time. It's just too much information to digest at once, even during this month's Big Science Tour.

For now, I'll just list some of the reasons why 2016 doesn't look that far away for Johnson. They aren't the reasons that you might think would apply. Sure, some people are doubtful whether ITER will actually show the way - but not Johnson. He believes commercial fusion is at least theoretically possible, even though it may take until 2040 to get all the way there.

"Basically, we know how to design this machine," he told me. "It's just a complicated, integrated package with a lot of different players, that's what makes it challenging for us."

The first challenge is to ramp up the ITER organization, while at the same time respecting the contributions of the seven parties. Although ITER has been decades in the making, the legal and administrative foundation for operations is only now being established.

ITER has to lay out the specifications for all of the facility's components, which are to be supplied by the parties under the terms of a complicated procurement formula. All this will take years to thrash out. Then, under the watchful eye of French nuclear regulators, ITER will be charged with making sure that the components do the job safely and according to the specs.

"It's going to be quite an interesting time when these things start coming in," Johnson said.

Materials science will be a big issue for the ITER facility. The cryogenically cooled tokamak will have to weather the radiation thrown off by the fusion plasma, as well as electromagnetic loads created by the magnetic containment system. All this will likely require the use of exotic metals such as beryllium, niobium and tungsten.

"In some cases, we're going to put a big dent in the world supply of some of these things," Johnson said. "We're going to be buying 23,000 tons of some high-tech stuff."

ITER's reactor will have to use radioactive tritium, and that means the components will degrade over time. The best workers for the job of maintaining the reactor will be robots, operating autonomously as well as under remote control, Johnson said. All this will require rock-solid systems for the remote handling of radioactive materials.

"We're going to actually test those out during our assembly activities," Johnson said.

Every day brings new issues to deal with. On Wednesday, the day we spoke, Johnson had at least three major meetings to attend - focusing on the plans for the tokamak's vacuum vessel, the superconducting coils and the building plans. France hasn't yet signed off on the permits for the actual fusion facility, so crews have just been clearing the trees off the main site and working on secondary buildings (like the prefab office space). Plant construction is due to begin in earnest in 2009.

Plenty of organizational matters as well as engineering challenges still have to be addressed. For example, Europe's procurement agency, Fusion for Energy, was inaugurated just today in Barcelona - and the agency's director has yet to be named. (The designated U.S. procurement agency is hosted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in partnership with the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and the Savannah River National Laboratory.) These domestic agencies will play a key role in making sure Johnson and other ITER officials have the hardware they'll need to make the reactor a reality.

And then there's the issue of public sentiment, which is often tinged with suspicion of all things nuclear. ITER officials have been conducting a series of public forums to reassure local residents in Provence about the facility's safety, and they say the project has been well-received. But not everyone is convinced. One sign painted on a hillside along the road to ITER's headquarters proclaims in French: "Non a ITER."

Check out the ITER Web site and review this discussion of ITER's pros and cons on the journal Nature's Weblog. Then put on your thinking cap and let me know whether you vote "oui" or "non" by adding your comments below. You can also register your opinion and find out what others think by taking this unscientific Live Vote.

I'm heading back home from Europe today, but I'll start passing along what you have to say as soon as I touch down in Seattle.

Previously from the Big Science Tour: The science behind the tour ... Living in the Web's cradle ... Inside the big-bang machine ... Toiling in the fields of physics ... Inside the antimatter factory ... First, the Web ... now, the Grid ... Suspense on a subatomic scale ... Inside fusion's fortress

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Fusion will be the answer, but since it will likely take 30 years, we can't just continue using fossil fuels assuming it will happen. We need to continue to invest in solar and wind energies, and continue to do research on how to make those processes more efficient. Hopefully by the time fusion comes out, the burning of fossil fuels will have already been replaced, and the only advantage of fusion will be using less land for more energy.
WHY ARE WE BUILDING A NEW FACILITY IN FRANCE WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE ONE 40% COMPLETE IN TEXAS.
I am most interested in Electrostatic Fussion, however, break-even does not seem possible when you look at the math. No one has of yet created a viable virtual cathode - and the non-virtual version simply can not work. Firstly, it interferes due to its physical presence, and secondly, making it smaller makes it non-viable in the plasma heat.

One last thing in response to "You mean kind of like how we should thank the French for saving our hide in the Revolutionary War and again in 1812?  They don't owe us squat."

The US lost the war of 1812 due to the pluck of the Canadians, natives and some English troops to hold their ground in the face of numerically superior odds. The US attacked Canada simply because England was busy with Napoleon, and used the pretex of immpressment as their spin to implement their concept of 'manifest destiny'. Once Napoleon was defeated and England's troops were free to fight in North America (burning Washington), the US ended the war as it was no longer viable. I am not sure how the French 'saved' the US in this war.



Why don't we just do what Doc Oc did on Spiderman two?  All we need are stronger robotic arms to hold in the radiation.
Just what is going on here?? I can't believe fusion energy is still sucking 10's, 100's and billions of dollars out of the public. They make trillion watt lasers to compress and fuse hydrogen pellets GIVE ME A BREAK....

It's a dead end.
Gravity is the only force that allows stars to work as far as we know. God musta screwed up or is having a big laugh watching himans trying to do this.
A pity to think that all that pretty French countryside will be laid waste for what is really little more than a physicists-and-engineers welfare program. --PS
I'm just wondering if radiation will really reduce the body odor of the French?  If this doesn't work, we may have to try more radical means.  Perhaps a giant solar mirror in space directed towards that pretty French countryside? The bigger the better.
Because ITER is the subject 'du jour' and is located in France there seems to be a lot of anti-french attitude on display. A few comments:  the French are intelligent despite their superior demeanor, or maybe because of it.  They are the ones who set the example of revolution for  the betterment of the common man, among many other fundamental concepts.  They are also cognizant of the part the Allies played during WW11 and if you went there you would see the cemeteries of the many 'foreigners' carefully and lovingly tended, kept green and well-maintained with flowers and tears.  Unfortunately, many Americans can't see anything of value beyond their borders.  Pity.  
""American blood still oozes from the ground there and the French people should give thanks everyday for the Americans that gave their all for them."

You mean kind of like how we should thank the French for saving our hide in the Revolutionary War and again in 1812?  They don't owe us squat.
Frank, Dallas, TX
"

"The US lost the war of 1812 due to the pluck of the Canadians, natives and some English troops to hold their ground in the face of numerically superior odds. The US attacked Canada simply because England was busy with Napoleon, and used the pretex of immpressment as their spin to implement their concept of 'manifest destiny'. Once Napoleon was defeated and England's troops were free to fight in North America (burning Washington), the US ended the war as it was no longer viable. I am not sure how the French 'saved' the US in this war.
David Russell, Halifax, Nova Scotia (Sent Sunday, July 01, 2007 10:31 PM)

"

The British through the Canadians were arming and supporting Indian raids on US Pioneers before the War broke out, After Idians defeated a relatively small force that had attempted to capture a couple of key towns the British betrayed them and the Indian Warbands were virtually anihilated by US forces. This accomplished the purpose of the American mission to Canada by way of British and Canadian treachery towards their Indian allies who'd done the vast majority of the fighting.

The British Troops that burned a large part of washington fled when US troops counter attacked.
American Navy Frigates sank or captured many British vessels, the British only suceeding in capturing a large number of privateers.
One American frigate captured enough British gold on her voyage to almost pay for the entire campaign.
The French were already the enemy of the British, their battles were their own.

I have never heard of Americans dishonoring French Dead, but the French certainly did desecrate and dishonor the graves of American war dead.

I've visited the Palace of the Legion of Honor in San Francisco, a tribute to American Volunteers who fought in WW2 built by a French Field Marshall with contributions of grateful French Citizens, they don't make 'em like that any more.

As for Fusion VS Fission, Thorium enhancement is probably the best way to go, it burns up the remaining Uranium fuel reducing waste and not leaving bomb grade plutonium or Uranium waste in a form that can be easily processed into weapons grade materials.

Fusion is still pie in the sky.
sigh... just go google and search out "emc2fusion"
ITER is way too expensive and way too big. An operating plant is projected to produce 17 GW of electricity. The largest coal and nuclear plants produce 1 GW and most plants being built today are under 100 MW.

There is an answer IEC Fusion and the Navy is funding it.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/
2007/08/bussard-reactor-funded.html
 

I have inside info that is very reliable and multiply confirmed that validates the above story. I am not at liberty to say more. Expect a public announcement from the Navy in the coming weeks.

The above reactor can burn Deuterium which is very abundant and produces lots of neutrons or it can burn a mixture of Hydrogen and Boron 11 which does not

The implication of it is that we will know in 6 to 9 months if the small reactors of that design are feasible.

If they are we could have fusion plants generating electricity in 10 years or less depending on how much we want to spend to compress the time frame. A much better investment that CO2 sequestration.

BTW Bussard is not the only thing going on in IEC. There are a few government programs at the University of Wisconsin and at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana among others.
Those of you who think Bussard has the answer with IEC Fusion are suckers.  His presentation at Google was a complete pitch for $$$.  Watch the talk and you find all the elements of pathological science at work:
1) Inventor has great invention
2) Greedy establishment scientists hate great invention (and/or inventor) and want to quash it, fearless inventor battles odds and gets money from true believers (often in the Navy for some weird reason).
3)Years go by, millions are spent. Inventor, having not saved the world, loses funding, which he attributes to enemies subverting him.
4)World is screwed.

Welcome to the world of pathological science!
General Fusion says they have the technology to build a safe, economically viable, modified MTF fusion reactor by 2010.

http://generalfusion.com/
If Nuclear Fusion can help us to maintain our planet and our future, then how can we question such a pearl? In truth, in our hearts, we must know that nothing can have a greater priority than that of looking after the very place where we all live. If Nuclear Fusion can promise, (even if with some questioning, ok, at the moment, but nevertheless,)  the offer of some hope for the catastrophical forecast for the future of our world if we do not 'clean up our act' and sort out our pollution and global warming problems, then I feel we should go down that road, with hope, and just as fast as we can.
M. Chatterton you may be wrong about Bussard - the money he got from funding did not go into his own pocket.  And pls analyse situations a little closer next time...  eg - if you are correct and Bussard is a gold digger what the heck is an 85 yr old man gonna do with money... buy himself some more time on this earth?  come on man you know better.  And if you are skeptical about IEC fusion look at these publications(which are very recent).. they all point to the IEC fusion having much higher chance of success  than previously thought.

http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/theses/PhD-2007-McGuireThomas.pdf
http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/theses/PhD-2007-DietrichCarl.pdf
http://ssl.mit.edu/research/Posters/FPPG_Poster_2006.pdf


PS - keep an eye out at http://www.talk-polywell.org between march-may 2008 because you`ll have positive, reviewed results from the WB-7 prototype which is currently being built and set up at a new mexico facility under a renewed US Navy contract....

When the heck r u ever gonna see a working prototype from ITER... i`m sorry but it`s taking way too long.  Its just dragging on.
USA will not allow ITER construction within it's property, being the sole of N.Americas moreover due to leftover ideology from the manhattan proj. and all to do with the unknowns, destructive force of the test and knowledge curves. Think, National Security or best, Preservation. Fusion is a core central of events however, as previously stated, there is something more. Yes, indeed...in the meantime, visit europe while you're still able...and remember, man's present mental ability is 1/10th of potential. Science finds it impossible to exist with God, while mans only definition to God's ability would be science...and when they have no definition, it is paranormal ? what is normal...Only one has the answer...mankinds limits coming to a planet near you...  
If not an American company, then who? It might suprise you to know that American built heavy equipment is in greate demand all over the world despite it's high price, simply because it's the best.
Seems to me that a lot of people are missing the point. Forget the anti French sentiment and concentrate on the issue which is that Fusion must replace fission! We know its possible...ie..the sun...but to produce and harness, well there is the issue. As a question, how long can we continue with carbon fuels? How long can we continue with fission and its by-products and waste? Fusion has to be an answer, perhaps not the final answer but certainly in the mid term, meaning for the naxt 100yrs or so to relieve our forthcoming energy crisis!Without being nationalistic I suggest in the short term the Yanks extract their heads from their arseholes and look beyond their borders.They are responsible for the consumption of approx 70% of the worlds energy resources and still will not sign up to the KYOTO AGREEMENT which in itself is trying to contain the effects of energy consumption! Fusion...not fission will at least give us breathing space to calculate what to do next!!!
It's been awhile since anything was posted, and it may be that no one reads this anymore, but I have one comment.  40 years is too long.  We need fusion reators asap... as a matter of national security.  I believe that a new Manhattan Project... is the answer.  A focused government project in the desert with absolute top priority and funding... properly staffed... would probably solve the problem in less than 5 years.  The criticality of the need... is every bit as elevated... (if not more so) than the need which drove the original Manhattan Project.  Ending our dependence on Middle Easter Oil... removes 90% of the new wealth of those nations... and, thereby their ability to threaten the west militarily, terroristically, or economically.  Removes 90% of the risks of Military conflict that we face today... removes the chokehold that the cost of energy has on our national economy... and on our standard of living.... what has been overlooked in most of the posts above... is that fusion promises to not only be safer (and cleaner) than fission, but also will generate dramatically more energy... really, nothing more should need to be said.
I think that this is a great idear that can reduce so much wasted energy, Ie the joke about turning on a light globe, I would also support a facility being built in costal Australia, but only on the west coast though.
my sister was one of the top three fusion scientists in the world and has a lot of respect for this area as a solution to energy crises alternatives to the manufacture of oil, etc. I feel that this area is still overidden with scientific dominance and that theorists may have not listened to a less agressive form of energy production which does not support particle bombardment, but another form of work to produce this. the location of such reactors is a very delicate and non public space and the work that is going on should be supported by all people irrespective of politics or religious space.
Much better to spend billions on power sources for the future of mankind than on wars. Much better to behave like homo sapiens than like neocons.
how can i invest in this vision of a green future
I am a current grad student studying fusion at General Atomics DIII D tokamak in San Diego, CA.  This power now more then ever needs to be explored.  God willing ITER will be on-line on time.  I have made a short fusion movie advocating fusion energy on youtube. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-3LmTzZHAo

P.S. I was going for an Al Gore riff.  :)
Rod Blurr- You must be an angel sent from heaven.  I could not agree with you more.  Please keep spreading the good word.
When fusion is developed it won't be the "property" of any single country, It could be the work of, say, german scientists, in a country like say, peru, and we in the U.S. will have to either buy the technoligy or steal it. Most lkely it will be published in a standard publication, so it won't really matter, It's science, not politics ..  Ray
Instead of a centralized power plant we should be focusing our time, talent and money on de-centralized power, i.e. hydrogen. In harnessing hydrogen we are using the most abundant resource in the universe to power our needs. We should get off the oil teat asap and design our systems (vehicular and otherwise) to use this resource and quit making mega-companies rich off the general populace.
I agree that the sun is already up and running and will last for more than humankind's time on Earth.  There has been great strides in solar panels.  If the government would give everyone in the USA the panels for their homes and business roof tops and hook them to the grids, it probably wouldn't cost nearly as much as what we will eventually spend trying to duplicate the sun.  
I believe that we still need to discover whatever we can, but at this point in time, solar, wind, nuclear, oil and coal is the only thing we have to power our lives.  Oil and Coal can be cleaned up to the point of satisfying most people in the environmental groups if they would just let if happen.  Most of them are too self centered to allow it. I think they like to see their names on lawsuits.
Much like a lot of scientists are self centered on the fusion front.  
We need to understand fusion and whatever else we can find out, it is only human nature, but to think we can't do anything other than fusion to power the world is grandiose at best.
when we talk about the time frame it seems a long way off.  2040 to determine if commercial fusion is practical.  thats 32 years.  but dont forget that the first oil embargo was 30 years ago and look where we are now. nowhere.  i think its the greatest technological undertaking the scientific community and the world has undertaken.  i hope it comes to fruition and in 50 years we can have a real energy solution.  and 50 years ago the us launched its first satelite into space. and perhaps in 50 years we will be running of out oil and natural gas. its not that far back or that far ahead.  
dan w


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=245828

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google