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.



Fusion we can believe in?

Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:30 PM by Alan Boyle


EMC2 Fusion
A test plasma in the WB-7
experimental reactor.

Working on a shoestring budget, researchers have found no reason why a low-cost approach to nuclear fusion won't work.

President-elect Barack Obama's pick for energy secretary has said he's aware of the approach, known as inertial electrostatic confinement fusion or Polywell fusion - and although it's probably not on his radar screen right now, it just might show up in the future.

For decades, scientists have been trying to figure out how to harness the power of the nuclear reaction that sets the sun ablaze. Fusion involves smashing the nuclei of lighter elements together to produce heavier elements, plus an excess burst of energy. The sun turns hydrogen into helium. Thermonuclear bombs do something similar with different isotopes of hydrogen.

The mainstream approaches to commercial fusion would involve heating up plasma inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic bottle known as a tokamak, or using lasers to blast tiny bits of deuterium and tritium. The former approach is being followed for the $13 billion international ITER project, and the latter would be used by multibillion-dollar experiments such as the National Ignition Facility in the U.S. or HiPER in Britain.

Then there's the $1.8 million (yes, million) project that's just been wrapped up at EMC2 Fusion Development Corp. in Santa Fe, N.M. The experiment, funded by the U.S. Navy, was aimed at verifying some interesting results that the late physicist Robert Bussard coaxed out of a high-voltage inertial electrostatic contraption known as WB-6. (The "WB" stands for Wiffle Ball, which describes the shape of the device and its magnetic field.)

An EMC2 team headed by Los Alamos researcher Richard Nebel (who's on leave from his federal lab job) picked up the baton from Bussard and tried to duplicate the results. The team has turned in its final report, and it's been double-checked by a peer-review panel, Nebel told me today. Although he couldn't go into the details, he said the verdict was positive.

"There's nothing in there that suggests this will not work," Nebel said. "That's a very different statement from saying that it will work."

By and large, the EMC2 results fit Bussard's theoretical predictions, Nebel said. That could mean Polywell fusion would actually lead to a power-generating reaction. But based on the 10-month, shoestring-budget experiment, the team can't rule out the possibility that a different phenomenon is causing the observed effects.

"If you want to say something absolutely, you have to say there's no other explanation," Nebel said. The review board agreed with that conservative assessment, he said.

The good news, from Nebel's standpoint, is that the WB-7 experiment hasn't ruled out the possibility that Polywell fusion could actually serve as a low-cost, long-term energy solution. "If this thing was absolutely dead in the water, we would have found out," he said.

If Polywell pans out, nuclear fusion could be done more cheaply and more safely than it could ever be done in a tokamak or a laser blaster. The process might be able to produce power without throwing off loads of radioactive byproducts. It might even use helium-3 mined from the moon. "We don't want to oversell this," Nebel said, "but this is pretty interesting stuff, and if it works, it's huge."

The idea is still way out of the mainstream, however. In his new book about the frustrating fusion quest, "Sun in a Bottle," Charles Seife says that WB-7 and similar contraptions, known generically as fusors, aren't good candidates for power-generating fusion - even though they've attracted "something of a cult following."

"The equations of plasma physics strongly imply that fusorlike devices are very unlikely ever to produce more energy than they consume," Seife writes. "Nature's inexorable energy-draining powers are too hard to overcome."

Nebel is well aware of the naysayers. In fact, that's one reason why he's being so circumspect about the results of the WB-7 experiment. When I mentioned that he'd probably like to avoid the kind of controversy and embarrassment that came in the wake of 1989's notorious cold-fusion claims, Nebel laughed and added, "That's well-put."

Despite the skepticism, Nebel and his colleagues have already drawn up a plan for the next step: an 18-month program to build and test a larger fusor prototype. "We're shopping that around inside the DOD [Department of Defense], and we'll see what happens," he said.

Nebel said some private-sector ventures are also interested in what EMC2 is up to, and that may suggest a backup plan in case the Pentagon isn't interesting in following up on WB-7.

For the time being, Nebel said his five-person team is getting by on some small-scale contracts from the Defense Department (including these three). "I've got enough to cover the people we've got, and that's about it," he said. "What we're doing with these contracts is trying to get prepared for the next step."

He's also waiting to see what the Obama administration will bring. Will the White House support EMC2's low-cost, under-the-radar fusion research program alongside ITER and the National Ignition Facility? "We just don't know," Nebel said.

Physicist Steven Chu discusses "The Energy Problem and What We Can Do
to Solve It" in a Google Tech Talk on Feb. 28, 2007. He was asked about
Robert Bussard's fusion research at the 1:01:30 mark. This month
President-elect Barack Obama selected Chu to become energy secretary.

Obama's team has at least one person who knows about Polywell fusion: Nobel-winning physicist Steven Chu, who will be taking over the Energy Department. A year and a half ago, Chu gave a talk at Google about future power sources and was asked about the technology (about 61 minutes into the YouTube video).

Chu responded that he had been discussing the concept with the folks at Google. "So far, there's not enough information so [that] I can give an evaluation of the probability that it might work or not," he said. "But I'm trying to get more information."

If Chu is still interested in more information, Nebel is in a position to tell him about it.


For even more information, check out the Talk-Polywell discussion forum and M. Simon's IEC Fusion Technology blog. Special thanks to Simon and his Polywell pals for pointing to Chu's YouTube video and the online book "Amateur Nuclear Fusion." Here are previous Cosmic Log items about the fusion quest:

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Peak oil will occur LONG before fusion power is realized (which may be never even IF peak oil were not going to happen).

Don't hold your breath waiting to drive a battery-powered car charged by a fusion-energized power-grid... you might as well count on riding a pink unicorn to work.
I can see you're a purist.  I think in this "new age" of what we call "magnetism" for lack of a better word, the particular type of containments and acceleration isn't the really important issue, at least not on this blog.

In Texas, they say, your friend will ask if you want a coke.  If you do he'll next ask what kind.  A Dr. Pepper?

But good info and point taken.
ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.
In spite of my english trouale,I am trying to read and understand your writing.
And ı am following frequently.I hope that you will be with us together with much more scharings.
I hope that your success will go on.
I worked in the Air Force Systems Command's Advanced Plans office with scientists such as Dr. Robert Forward and Max Hunter. I've seen innovations like Bussards fusion work sit for decades because it wasn't a part of the mainstream thinking. My own support staff seemed fine with giving me their opinion of projects rather than their analysis. I believe we as a nation have failed to implement innovation because we have come to rely on government to carry it out and with the deep pockets of government we tend to throw money at a problem instead of finding the best way of solving the problem.  Success seems to be a matter of finding a person with a vision, a small group who believe in the vision, a lean budget that can't afford bureaucracy, and a government official who can keep the "government experts" from ruining the mix.
Alan:
I read Seife's book over Christmas.  It's an interesting read.  However, on the Polywell he is shooting from the hip.  The physics is very different from the physics of fusors.  The densities are orders of magnitude higher as are the effective grid transparencies in a Polywell compared to a fusor.  The standard fusor objections of excessive grid losses and low average density aren't major issues for the Polywell.
All of the fusion energy we could ever want will not help, as electric power is not what we need.

The top story of the year is that global crude oil production peaked in 2008.

The media, governments, world leaders, and public should focus on this issue.

Global crude oil production had been rising briskly until 2004, then plateaued for four years. Because oil producers were extracting at maximum effort to profit from high oil prices, this plateau is a clear indication of Peak Oil.

Then in July and August of 2008 while oil prices were still very high, global crude oil production fell nearly one million barrels per day, clear evidence of Peak Oil (See Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of "Oil Watch Monthly," December 2008, page 1) http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_december_oilwatch_monthly.pdf.

Peak Oil is now.

Credit for accurate Peak Oil predictions (within a few years) goes to the following (projected year for peak given in parentheses):

* Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)

* Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of “Oil Watch Monthly” (2008)

* Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst and Samuel Foucher, oil analyst (2008)

* Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)

* T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)

* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)

* Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell geologist (2005)

* Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)

* Chris Skrebowski, Editor of “Petroleum Review” (2010)

* Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)

* Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)

Oil production will now begin to decline terminally.

Within a year or two, it is likely that oil prices will skyrocket as supply falls below demand. OPEC cuts could exacerbate the gap between supply and demand and drive prices even higher.

Independent studies indicate that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. represents one fourth of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.

Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. There is no plan nor capital for a so-called electric economy. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The independent scientists of the Energy Watch Group conclude in a 2007 report titled: “Peak Oil Could Trigger Meltdown of Society:”

"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."

With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.

It is time to focus on Peak Oil preparation and surviving Peak Oil.
http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
Clifford J. Wirth,
You forgot to say we'll never reach the moon.  But if you had you would have been 40 years too late.  There are many alternatives in the works that show more than just promise.  Advances are slow as we have oil.  Pinch oil supply and efforts in alternative fields come to the fore.  Cars that burn gas will become the fossils.  Bio-diesel can be made from even scrub crops now.  The cars and trucks you will continue to see on our roads will be electric for short travel and bio for long hauls.  I'm sure our lifestyles will change, but no way it's back to horse and buggy.  Cost for everything will go up.  Especially fresh goods in the city.  More gardens.  It'll really suck to be in the third world.

All that *IF* we've even come close to Peak Oil.  As I understand it, Peak Oil is an oil thing.  The current crisis has nothing to do with oil.  This is a financial crisis based more on bad loaning practices.  It's *possible* to have hit Peak Oil coincendent with an unrelated financial crisis, but not likely.  Of course you can see it if you put your Peak Oil Doom and Gloom glasses on.
I've invested $ in KMSI (KMS Fusion, Inc., part of KMS Industries) back in the 1970s.  Back then, they were working with inertial-confinement (using glass pellets containing Deuterium/Tritium mixture) for nuclear fusion via lasers.

I believe the company eventually went into bankrupcy.  Nevertheless, I still have my shares and still hope for fusion success.  The potential benefits are HUGE.

Thank about it!
It kills me that we spend something like 400 million on a satellite, strap it to a rocket and hope that it doesn't blow up.   Why are we not taking the same risk with Polywell Fusion research when the potential benefits of success are far greater than any science we'll achieve with a satellite.  All this money on NASA is putting the cart before the horse.  In fact, why wouldn't NASA have an interest in this.  The cost of fuel, production, etc. drops when you have limitless energy.  It's time for Obama to make the same kind of commitment Kennedy did to go to the moon but for fusion.  As an engineering problem primarily, the various components can be worked on in parallel and distributed throughout the country.  The only way we're going to bring money into this economy is to develop new products that everyone wants, and who wouldn't want fusion.  If we can build the A-bomb and go to the moon in 6-8 years, I see no reason why, with the proper commitment, we cannot do the same thing with fusion energy.
The polywell device is an adaptation of the Farnsworth(TV)-Hirsch fusor which is a commercial source for neutrons. Net energy production is not yet possible for any form of fusion. When fusion is more available it will make neutrons less expensive and lead to the easy production of Plutonium bombs.

Some proposed fusion reactions rely upon the capture of neutrons in lithium to continue the cycle. If this neutron were captured in U235 for fission instead it would result in five to ten times the energy production and two more neutrons.

The radiation from fusion devices is no less dangerous than that from fission devices. Since the earth is naturally covered already with long term radioactive materials, the radioactive materials produced by fusion or fission reactors do not represent any real problem in control. All live creatures including humans have always had radioactive potassium built into them.

The Accelerator Driven Reactors are a much easier way than fusion to produce energy and to use all isotopes of thorium and elements with higher atomic numbers as fission fuel. Only fission products need ever leave  an ADS reactor group. For a continuous output of 1,000,000 kilowatts, only less than 10 pounds of fission products a day are produced. This also means that only ten pounds a day of uranium of thorium needs to be delivered, and this means that it could be delivered by the postal service or UPS. The US neutron source is a working device that could be duplicated for a ADS prototype that would produce net energy. Abundant ADS fuel sits in the form of "Used" fuel rods at every power plant. The ADS is not even necessary to use this fuel as it can also be used without modification in heavy water reactors. It is not waste as it retains 95 percent of its original fission energy.

There is a known form of cold fusion that no one talks about in that context. It is called electron capture. The fusion of an electron with the nucleus. Some chemical compounds have be thought to slow down this type of nuclear decay or perhaps even speed it up. In the Pons-Fleischman experiments, a deuteron or even only the neutron from the deuteron could have  fused with the paladium nucleus. In the latter case the net energy gain would be about 4 MEV. There are some alloys that can absorb more hydrogen than would be contained in a similar volume of liquid hydrogen.

There may be ways to fission uranium or thorium that do not involve neutrons. Deuterium is fissioned with gamma rays in heavy water reactors. Much of the money and people now being used for fusion research should be spent for building ADS systems. There is enough Uranium already mined for the next century of fission power.
I shall afford will disagree with you
Why bother with fusion or cold fusion when simple Hydrogen Chemistry discoveries by Randal Mills and
being commercialized by BlackLight Power http://blacklightpower.com
will revolutionize the way we use energy! Why no news on the recently confirmed existance of the Hydrino through not only independant expermination but also for the first time direct spectral observation of transitions of hydrogen to form hydrinos as published in the Central European Journal of Physics


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=1718741

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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