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 catches fire

Posted: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:46 PM by Alan Boyle


LLNL
Technicians check a positioner inside the target chamber at the National Ignition
Facility in California. A tiny capsule containing fusion fuel would be placed at the
very end of the pencil-shaped positioner, then blasted by 192 laser beams.

All of a sudden, nuclear fusion is becoming an energy buzzword instead of an energy joke: One route to fusion is being hailed as having the potential to become a "holy cow game-changer," another mainstream method is getting a multimillion-dollar boost, and a dark-horse candidate is stealthily moving forward as well. Heck, even cold fusion is back in the game.

So what's behind the seemingly sudden interest?

Part of the buzz is dictated by the calendar. After 12 years of construction, the world's most powerful laser is finally finished at the National Ignition Facility in California, and VIPs are getting a look at some of the best that Big Science has to offer in fusion energy research.

But part of it is dictated by the hard times we're living in, said Richard Nebel, who heads a team looking at an unconventional kind of fusion technology. "These can be the times when innovation can really take hold," he told me today.

The way Nebel sees it, tough times can spur people to look for unconventional solutions to society's challenges - for example, how to develop cleaner, cheaper, more abundant sources of energy. Biofuels (including algae), wind, wave, geothermal and solar power are all part of the mix, along with better batteries and greater fuel efficiency.

There's a place for safer nuclear power as well, involving fission as well as future fusion - or maybe even fission-fusion hybrids. Here's a quick rundown of the latest developments:

Laser fusion
The $3.5 billion National Ignition Facility has been 12 years in the making, but today the Energy Department announced that the super-laser-blaster is fully operational and ready for business. The department has emphasized the facility's function as an H-bomb simulator, probably because that's its most down-to-earth application. However, a lot of researchers and onlookers are hoping that the NIF can provide a realistic route to commercial fusion power.


LLNL
  Click for video:
  The National Ignition
  Facility explains "the
  power of light."

The NIF's array of 192 pulsed lasers are designed to blast pellets of deuterium-tritium fuel so intensely that they ignite in a fusion reaction. Earlier this month, NIF's operators reported that they delivered more than a megajoule of laser energy to the target chamber's focus point - which should be enough to get nuclear fusion started.

The prospect of creating a controlled fusion reaction is what led New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to write that the research planned for NIF might be a "holy cow game-changer" in the energy quest. If the technique actually works, a $10 billion pilot power plant could be built to prove that "any local power utility could have its own miniature sun - on a commercial basis," Friedman said.

And if not? "At the pace we're going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us," he wrote.

Tokamak fusion
The other Big Science path to fusion leads through France, where the $13 billion ITER fusion research plant is under construction. ITER, due for startup in 2016, is an international effort that is based on magnetic-confinement technology. The fusion reaction would be contained within a highly shielded, doughnut-shaped chamber known as a tokamak.

A year ago, U.S. participation in ITER was essentially put on hold due to the budgetary battles between Congress and the Bush administration. There was a risk that U.S. firms would be locked out from participation in the project - but that scenario was averted when the Energy Department restored ITER's funding just in the nick of time.

The omnibus spending bill for the remainder of this fiscal year, which was signed into law three weeks ago, includes $124 million for the U.S. involvement in ITER. Thom Mason, the director of Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told the Knoxville News Sentinel's Frank Munger that the U.S. ITER effort had been "running on fumes" for the past few months.

"So, this will really help the morale and get people moving," he said.

The big priority now is to arrange for the purchase of U.S.-built hardware that the federal government has promised to contribute to the ITER reactor. That should have a "good economic impact in terms of employment," Mason said.

Fission-fusion hybrids
Some researchers say the fusion process could be paired up with the fission process to reduce the amount of waste left behind by conventional nuclear reactors.

The classic hybrid concept - known as Laser Inertial Fusion-Fission Energy, or LIFE - was developed by NIF researchers: They suggested that a laser-sparked fusion reaction could supply extra neutrons inside a fission reactor. That power boost would burn up radioactive leftovers that otherwise would have to be stored or reprocessed.

More recently, physicists at the University of Texas at Austin proposed a similar hybrid technique that would employ a fusion tokamak rather than a laser-blaster. The technique was touted by Forbes magazine's Jonathan Fahey as a "Texas Smoosh 'Em." (Fahey also looked at the LIFE concept.)

The idea's boosters say going with hybrid reactors would reduce the need for long-term waste repositories such as the one that had been planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It looks as if the Obama administration is pulling the plug on the plans for Yucca Mountain, so
any strategy that cuts down on the nuclear waste problem would be warmly welcomed.

However, it's not yet clear whether the fusion-fission hybrid concept is workable. Over at the Atomic Insights blog, Rod Adams is skeptical about NIF in general and hybrid nuclear power in particular. "Fission works; fusion is a complex hallucination," Adams writes.

Polywell fusion
If fusion is a hallucination, the wildest part of the vision would have to be the project that Nebel and his colleagues are working on at EMC2 Fusion Development Corp. in New Mexico. They're following up on preliminary indications that a relatively low-budget, high-voltage gizmo known as a Polywell fusion device could produce more energy than it consumes - that is, if the gizmo is scaled up to the appropriate size.

Late last year, Nebel's team sent a report about their experiments to their funders at the U.S. Navy. The results were encouraging enough that the Navy is providing the money for follow-up work through the end of this year.

Nebel told me the interim funding was meant to "keep us alive until they figure out what they want to do." Although he was reluctant to go into the details, progress reports posted on the Talk-Polywell discussion forum and the Dean's World blog indicate that the device's design  is being tweaked to improve its performance.

"We've been trying to clean up some of the things we know we can do better," Nebel said.

Nebel has long hoped that the technology could be ramped up to create commercially viable fusion reactors - which would cost way less than $10 billion each, by the way. He is still hopeful. "We think that we should be able to go forward with this," he said.

However, Nebel is also reluctant to overpromise. That might not be a bad thing, considering that so many people involved in the fusion quest have been promising so much for so long. The most Nebel will say is that the studies - and the discussions with potential funders - are continuing.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Lions and tigers and bears. OH MY!  I think the naysayers will try to run all this into the ground.  I say kudos to all the forward thinkers of today who are trying to push the envelope and find ways to power our planet without fossil fuels.  Combine this with the advances we will get from the LHC and who knows what tomorrow may hold?  Another great article by the author!
I'm sure I'm not the only one who is suprised by how much press the space station and LHC get when major projects like the one at the NIF are going on and are never even mentioned.
When are they going to wire up my house with this free electricity? Make electricity out of cabbage, right? How about some good old American natural gas for now. This lab might have 50 genuises working there, but 500,000 US energy workers unemployed.
Great info and best of luck to each approach.  My favorite is the Polywell approach by Nebel and EMC2 from New Mexico.  This is really out of the box stuff and the risk/reward is extremely favorable.  ITER will likely be over-budget my billions...when Polywell could be fully funded by just millions.
I also read in a science magazine that there is also a Canadian guy working on a mechanically induced form of fusion. He has these pistons that fire with atomic bomb detonator kind of accuracy to induce a pressure wave in a metal sphere. Inside the sphere is a fast spinning plazma and the fusion material sits in the votex's center. It would be nice to find out more about how that is going.
Yes lets turn all the hydrogen into helium so that we have no water to drink, that's a good idea. It's not an endless fuel supply. When hydrogen fuses it forms helium which cannot be made into water. Why do we think this is a good idea.
This is an indication of why I am not worried about energy shortage.  When necessary, human ingenuity will find a way to improvise, adapt, and overcome obstacles.  That's the strength of we humans.
With all those glowing promises, I'm reminded that nuclear fission supporters once promised power "too cheap to meter". We still haven't seen any fusion reactor that makes more power than it consumes, and every step closer to that breakeven point is accompanied by an increase in size, complexity and cost. We might achieve breakeven, only to find it too expensive to be cost competitive!
Nonetheless, let research continue. Even if it doesn't solve our energy problems, the knowledge learned will be worth the cost.
> Posted: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:46 PM by Alan Boyle

I think you posted that about 5 hrs and 15 minutes early.
Get a grip, there is still a long way to go. Fusion energy will not impact anyone who is alive today. It's interesting, NIF is a fantantical physics laboratory - but not an energy technology. The sun is a magnificent fusion reactor that showers the earth with a large amount of electromagnetic energy that is available for our use if we chose to bother. Solar energy is fusion energy that is clean and the source of life on our planet.
This looks amazing!  Hopefully it will live up to all the hype.  I have heard about fusion for a long time, maybe it will actually be a reality!
Buzzard's solution is the most viable, and you missed the boat.
I'm no expert, but how safe is this technology? No one wants to get a stray laser to the eye...
The proven way to reap the benifits of nuclear fusion is through solar power. We have a very large fusion reactor placed 150 million kilometers away for safety concerns, and yet it still sends us the energy it produces for free. A very nice arrangment if you ask me.
I remember reading that fusion was twenty or thirty years away forty years ago. All of this stuff looks interesting but none of it looks like it could light a single light bulb. But the research should continue, if only because it might teach us something. And it keeps those scientists off the street.
Why does it always take so long for a science writer to get to the nitty-gritty?

Don't you all know that the educated are bored with minute details?
Yes - I remain a fusion skeptic, especially when the enthusiasts talk about how they are going to someday solve the world's energy supply challenges - as long as we give them hundreds of millions (polywell) to tens of billions (NIF and ITER) in taxpayer money to build devices to get just a little bit closer to the goal. It is especially galling when the well educated scientists or salesmen involved in the programs use easily disproved arguments lifted directly from the tracts of anti-nuclear activist groups to show how their "someday" technology is "cleaner and safer" than our currently operating and readily available fission technology. (Go and read some of the defensive comments on my skeptical post regarding the fusion-fission hybrid - link in story.)

When I say that "fission works" I am using a bit of classic understatement. It not only works, but it beats its fossil fuel competition hands down in terms of safety, reliability, cleanliness and operating costs.

The only real ding is that capital costs are high enough to require longer than desired payback periods. Even that disadvantage is oversold - the payback periods are far less than the PROVEN lifetime of the plants. The 104 operating commercial reactors in the US produce power at an average O&M cost of 17.60 per megawatt hour and they are essentially paid off with 20-40 years of life remaining before decommissioning. Translation - cash cow in a market where the price setters are running at costs of $23.00 (mine mouth coal) to $50-80 per megawatt-hour (natural gas combustion turbines depending on market price of gas, which varies a lot) to well over $100 - (subsidized solar).

There is an easy way to reduce the capital cost of fission - stop using bogus arguments against it to slow progress, cause unnecessary regulations, and require excessive back-ups to back-ups that all add cost without improving an already incredible safety record.
What is predicted to happen once the fuel material in the target "pellet" is spent – does it end with a blast, the pellet simply gets vaporised, ...?
How significantly different is the predicted energy output versus the energy spent (not just during the firing of the lasers but overall building the device, replacements of components, etc.)?
any local power utility could have its own miniature sun - on a commercial basis,"  Is this really something we should willingly put into the hands of power company's ?  I'm no scientist but the thought of this thing exploding sends shivers down my spine...Have they even thought that through ? Do they know what kind of destruction this could bring ? Seems funny to me that only a few short years this kind of technology would have made you a laughing stock,and now it's cutting edge tech ? Seems to me we are so consumed with possiblity of what we can do,we don't take the time to see if we should or what the bad outcome of this could be...The world almost stopped over the collider,yet nothing is being said about harnessing the power of the SUN ?  
Great summary article.  I hadn't heard about the fusion-fission hybrid concept before. Thanks.
Dear Mr. Boyle,

I am surprised to see that Focusfusion was left out of the Fusion news.

http://pesn.com/2009/02/20/9501526_Lawrenceville_Plasma_Physics_funded/

This is THE Most inexpensive (about $500,000 per station) fusion research ongoing to date and it is much less difficult to understand.    It is a pulsed fusion reactor - very very small that puts out more energy than goes into it.  It also used Hydrogen-boron fuel, was a focus of JPL for a craft to Mars for a number of years because it could make the trip in about 4 months.  It also has recently acquired funding.  It is well worth mention in your article and is much cheaper to build.  $500,000 each versus $10,000,000,000 each for some of the other mentions.

There is a google tech talk about it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760


It has it's own website here:  http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

I ask that you have a look and consider it for publication and/or addition to your Fusion article.
Bravo!  Even if fusion appears to be a long shot, its promise is great enough to justify the research expense.  
Excellent news.  It's long past time we developed a viable alternative to fossil fuels, which in the next fifty years will probably cease to be a viable alternative for Earth's energy needs.

I'm also excited about this development since every scenario for deep space travel (i.e., something that doesn't involve merely circling the planet) will require a massive energy source... in other words, a fusion reaction.
Excellent article Alan!  How exciting that we live in such a wonderful time of scientific advancement.  I'm glad that Obama is our president and that he has saved our participation in ITER fusion research after that dimbulb bushwhacker almost killed the funding.

Despite the current low oil and gas prices they won't last and we had better get our act together on alternative energy production now before the prices go way back up.  Our country should be at the forefront of alternative energy production, especially the fusion sources that promise great amounts of energy for little resource usage.

Support Fusion Power!
Great stuff.  It would be nice if any - or all - of it actually works as hoped.  Thanks for the info, Alan.
If fusion is such a hallucination how come we have 100 trillion + stars in the sky?
And if not? "At the pace we're going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us," he wrote.

Every living creature since life began on Earth has had to deal with natural climate change. It has been cooling for the last 10 years even though CO2 levels have risen. CO2 levels are still just a third of what they have been in the past. Solar output is down, cosmic ray impacts are rising which is leading to cooling. But somehow man is responsible.
I think the fission approach should be LFTRs, as recommended by James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
and detailed in
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
Alan, Good stuff.

I don't have a great knowledge of this process, so i am hoping someone can answer my question. How goes this process create a net gain in energy? I always understood that this was the issue with antimatter as well. It takes just as much energy to produce antimatter than it produces when it comes in contact with matter, thus a net gain is impossible. Wouldn't it take the same amount of energy to ignite a pellet of hydrogen than you can get out of it with the fusion process as well?
Fusion power was just 20 years away -- when I got my physics degree 30 years ago.  It has been so ever since.

Maybe Obama will fix that by firing Big Fusion's chief scientist, and finding some government people to run things.
And then there's thorium fission. See
"The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8
Very dramatic video.  Creating a star on earth huh?  A star is a giant ball of mostly hydrogen gas undergoing  fusion at it's core which provides the counterforce necessary to forestall gravitational collapse.  They've got all that in that ten meter containment facility?  I guess that video got them the money to make a small scale nuclear explosion very inefficiently under laboratory conditions for study.  I guess that's just not as exciting an explanation
Sorry Alan,
I think the article was great actually.  My previous post had issue with the corny drama in the video.  Just wanted to clarify.
fusion,yes     fission  no   welcome to 2400 AD
It would be great if we could get fusion to work, but is this modern alchemy?  Yeah fusion exists... in stars.  How many stars are small enough to fit inside a large office building?  And stay stable at that size.  I'm no expert, obviously.  I hope it's possible, and that we continue to research and use other forms of power generation.
Of all the alternative fusion concepts i've read about the polywell seems to be the most viable approach to commercial fusion power.  Hopefully, the polywell concept will get the funding it needs to determine if the concept can produce net power.
Great stuff Mr Boyle. Just wish you had more in here about the several groups working on different kinds of so called 'cold fusion'.
The sooner we can get this comercial fusion power going, the easier we could have electric car with no worries and deeper space travel.  It would also mean that we could have a number of these fusion generator around the planet.  We wouldn't need people to mine coal anymore or drill for oil reducing our need for fossil fuels.
All the fusion reactors under development will at best just barely manage to induce fusion, and have ZERO chance of an uncontained reaction- fusion is incredibly difficult.  There is absolutely no cause for worry on that score.

As for turning earth's hydrogen into helium and drying out the planet, ahahahaha, we should have such problems!

Quoting from wikipedia:

"Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the 1995 global power output of about 100 EJ/yr (= 1 x 1020 J/yr) and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[9] To put this in context, 150 billion years is over ten times the currently measured age of the universe, and is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun."

So in a million years, we'd use up about 6 parts per million of earth's _Deuterium_, or about one billionth of the total ocean, about 1 km3 total.  Hoover dam holds back 35 times as much water (on those rare occasions when it's full).

Innumeracy is a terrible thing.
This is to S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

You took the words out of my mouth, this excites me due to the fact of what it could mean to space travel, just think of being able to travel to Mars etc. within a few months instead of a few years it would be a wonderful thing.
Could this also be an April fools joke ;)
So far I've found most the comments to be quite useful to the ongoing discussion about fusion/fission power and its future.

But I have to address one [...] person.

Aaron:
I suggest you research more on the processes that give us our water as it stands before you make such statements.  Taking hydrogen and turning it to helium would not deplete our water supplies, as the helium would eventually break down or be broken back down anyway.  Besides which, the purpose is not to turn hydrogen into helium.  All that is is adding an electron.  There's no energy release.  To better understand the process, watch the explosion that occurs when a balloon of hydrogen is popped (with a candle) in an oxygen rich enviroment.  Water vapor is released, along with a sizeable explosion of energy.
Thanks for the Polywell update (and the link) as well as the other news.  Very interesting stuff.

It's good to hear something from Rick.  We don't see him much at Talk-Polywell anymore.  Hopefully that means he has better things to do!

So... creating more energy than what is put in. This defies the laws of thermodynamics. While I wholeheartedly agree that the planet needs a "game-changer," I'm still not convinced that it will be possible without incurring consequences and repurcussions. Fission is/was a brilliant solution if it werent for the problems of constant and vigilant maintenance and the waste problem. I'm rooting for the scientists, I truly am, but we have never been able to circumvent the effects of entropy. Has anyone seen a perpetual motion machine that actually worked? Until then, we should focus on reducing our dependency and wasteful use of the little energy left to us. Consider how people ever lived without cell phones, iPods, and I'll be the first to say it... air conditioning. We simply can not maintain/sustain our (American) energy spending habits. Our kids and grandkids simply can't afford it.

[ALAN ADDS: I agree with you ... on the issue of getting more energy than you put in, I should have known I'd lose some people on that. On one level, you're getting more energy than you put in when you throw a log on the fire (not Cosmic Log, I hope!) That's a chemical reaction that results in heat emission. With fusion, a tiny bit of mass is converted into energy. This has to do with the binding energy of the particles. This page explains how binding energy works:]

http://www.nuceng.ca/igna/binding_energy.htm

If only we had a couple of Super Saiyans... Goku, Vegeta... Where are you?  Really, there is no such thing as "free lunch".  Somebody has to pay for it somewhere, eventually...  
Combustion is simple to control and use for energy production.  Consequently we use a lot of it.  Fission is complex to control and use for energy production.  Consequently we use much less of it.  Fusion is mondo-beyondo complex.  We don't use any yet and I doubt fusion will get beyond an insignificant contribution to overall energy production within the next 50 years.  Meanwhile our atmosphere is loading up with carbon dioxide from that oh-so-easy combustion and we don't have 50 years to wait for fusion to take over while climate change fries our biosphere.  Time to get real and that means lots of modest solutions working together instead of one big "gamechanger".  We need everything from better energy storage to better efficiency to increased renewable energy sources.  Stop wasting time and money looking for the magic bullet - it's not out there.
Why all the big TO DO? Everyone wants to spend cazillions of dollars to get free sustainable energy.  Well, the technology has been around since the 1950's.  A hydrogen fuel cell in your house would provide all your electricity, some or all of your hot water and a by-product of pure water, and would be powered by the methane gas from your sewer line. When you are not using the electricity the excess would go into the power grid.  The utility would have to pay for this power. Why isn't anybody doing this?  Ask the CEO of your local power company. Mine makes $8 million a year.  If we all had hydrogen fuel cells in our house the CEO's would have to get a real job.
Maybe someone can explain if they are making a real sun or a theoretical "sun"? If it was a real sun, would it be too small for a gravitational collapse? This is why I don't do too much physics study, it makes my head hurt.
Why is ther no work being done on Solar Updraft Towers?


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=1872580

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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