America's fusion future

James, MD — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:11:01 GMT

Consensus breeds mediocrity. Dump the international crud and just make the thing work here, if its not made here right now, find someone willing to design it and make it here.

If you have the specs, tool the damned machines needed to get it done.

Enough excuses, enough khumbaya. Just. Build. It. Already...

America's fusion future

solar — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:16:14 GMT

WE already have a fusion reactor...its 93 million miles away and it produces all the power we need..all we have to do is learn how to use it.

America's fusion future

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:36:00 GMT

For a possibly controversial -- yet highly informative, interesting and FREE -- alternative perspective on fusion research, I recommend Mallove's paper:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

Mallove's book "Fire from Ice" on the same topic was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

The public would be wise to listen to alternative voices when it comes to fusion research. The answer to the question, "Are we spending our money wisely?" is only discovered by listening to well-reasoned opposing views and considering evidence that the "experts" might consider to be absurd. If we place blind faith in our scientific institutions (as if it is a religion), then we do ourselves a disservice. It's imperative that we carefully listen to the critics in science, for we think best when we have options for what to believe.

America's fusion future

sunshine — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:38:42 GMT

The era of huge central power stations is over..get over it...regional and local solar farms is the future..stop wasting billions trying to make fusion reactors...

America's fusion future

Damon Price, los angeles, california — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:48:55 GMT

any way to filter some of our oil companies huge profits into paying for some of the research and development costs?....just seems like an appropiate source of funding

America's fusion future

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:52:21 GMT

The international aspect to this project is actually quite indispensible; the real question is "will the US be part of the "team" to do this or not. Our pitiful administration and congress can't even come up with the couple billion bucks simply to fulfull our agreed commitment. If they can't even do that, where are they going to get 13 or more billion?? That's the whole point of international cooperation! Do it that way or it doesn't get done! Period. Or it gets done without us; this would be BAD for several reasons: (1)If THAT were to happen it would be an unmistakeable signal to the rest of the world that the US had surrendered the scientific and technological pre-eminence americans have enjoyed (and nowdays, taken for granted) since the mid to late 1800's. (2) Such a power source would be arguably the most important development in decades; for the US not to even have a share of the 'credit' for it should be embarassing to any american.

Unfortunately, another effect of the budget situation is that the US is further solidifying it's reputation as an unreliable welsher on such commitents, much like that carried by the Russians in connection with the "space station".

One of the craziest, most illogical of the reasons certain politicians have used for not supporting the project is that it isn't being built in the US! It has to be built *somewhere*, and France was agreed upon by all parties involved. It reminds me of that moron Ted Stevens years ago insisting that an aurora-observation radar be built in alaska instead of arctic canada (near th magnetic north pole), despite the fact that that would render it useless. The scientists involved eventually simply dropped the project.

And, please, don't give me any "private industry" crap. They aren't going to invest in anything longer term than a couple of years, with a lot of risk, and a high investment price tag. Which brings me to one of my pet peeves: our government's failure to recover it's investment of tax dollars in projects that succeed. There is practically no scientific branch of the government that hasn't essentially given away millions, more often billions, of dollars worth of discoveries and inventions to industry. Many or most of these belong being developed in the private sector, but *only licensed-out at fair market value*! I hate it when the government simply gives away for free, stuff that my tax money paid for. For example, several of the composite materials used to construct modern aircraft were developed at NASA. They're worth millions. And this is just one example of hundreds. SO WHY THEN IS NASA NOT ALMOST SELF SUPPORTING??

America's fusion future

dale rutherford , chattanooga , tn — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:11:17 GMT

I realize this article is not about politics but coming off 8 years of presidential incompetence, with the republican nominee for president having no vision of the future in regards to energy and the US place in the world, and with two democratic candidates for president yapping about change without proposing any ... I would like to see Obama or Clinton truely make change and commit the US to a 10 year plan to totally upgrade our infrastructure, and implement 90% of energy production from clean energy sources. We fund energy research will millions and fund unnecessary war with billions and soon to be trillions.

How about a John Kennedy like position of telling the american people to start conserving and challenge (and actually fund) programs for energy independence as we did the manhattan project, nasa moon shot project, etc.

We are the most powerful nation in the world militarily because of our strong economy and technological superiority. This is slipping away.

As everyone knows energy independence will free us from dependence on the middle east and other unstable areas of the world. Putting aside the economic advantage, the positive impact agaist global warming, etc .. this is the number one weapon against extremists.

So when we read that by 2025 we could possibly obtain 25% of our power from clean energy; how sad is that to think about. How about 90% of our energy by clean power sources by 2019.

America's fusion future

Corey Stoltenburg, Austin, TX — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:25:55 GMT

You would think, being that this is the age of efficiency and making things better, that we wouldn't be wasting money on technology that was bluntly admitted to as "not being the magic solution to the energy problems, even in the year 2050. 'This problem is bigger than what any single technology will solve.'" If that's the case, why are we worrying so much about who's going to make which part when we could be focusing on technology we already have and just making it better. For example, solar and wind power. There are plenty of places in the world that get plenty of wind and/or sun.
I think that this is just a way for "super smart" people with huge egos and decades of education to feel good about themselves and all that money they spent on their education. Who wouldn't want to be the one to invent a fusion reactor? I know I would. But also take into consideration all the money that it would take, and the fact that half of the world is too poor to even have electricity, let alone things that are powered by electricity. $13 billion is a lot of money and I say that they should just invest it in solar power, wind power, and feeding the hungry!

America's fusion future

Vince Martin, Mason City, Iowa — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:56:15 GMT

Damon Price I have to back you on that idea. I say stop with this international stuff. We have the disigns needed, we can make one ourselves which is what we will end up doing anyway a few years after all this blows over. The only things this really does is keep us in the international community. Not that I am saying that is bad.

America's fusion future

RK, Palmer, AK — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:13:50 GMT

How many of these machines could we have produced had we not wasted so much on our latest stupid war?

America's fusion future

Paul J.S. Beaubien Victoria B.C. Canada — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:01:40 GMT

Ahh mathematics,,this should be able to be built at any size small to large,Your people have received my contact document where I delineate one dimensional space,, I guess you figure it is too expensive to break the secrecy reality and as such at least from what I have been able to see,there are holes...

America's fusion future

Letha C. Chamberlain, Seattle, WA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:25:22 GMT

Wherever's progress to be made, there are doubters and criticizers; otherwise, no one would ever think. Thank you, everyone in those shoes, but let us "gird up our loins" and get on with the business at hand--getting somewhere with the energy crisis before the billions of people die of starvation and plague (not long by the looks of it!) Yah! fusion! 'way to go!

America's fusion future

Jeff, St. Paul, MN — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:36:11 GMT

People are coming to realize BioFuel may be worse than gasoline.

Fusion has spent billions over the years likely to the point the energy will be too expensive.

Oil is far too expensive in war costs as well as dwindling supply.

The only problem with solar and its child, wind, is the lack of profits for energy companies and politicians. Look at it this way, TODAY I spend $30,000 to $40,000 for a solar system today (or soon, after the technology improves even further). (Also assume electric cars.) TOMORROW, I don't go to the gas-station. I don't buy from the electric company. No need to buy natural gas. And, 25, 30 or even 40 years down the road, I still haven't paid electric, gas or natural gas companies a penny. If they do not get paid, certainly their politician friends do not get paid.

In the past history of the Senate there used to be great respect. Today, and for more than the last decade, the Senate has been unable to solve any of our major issues. They just need to structure the "Solar Panel" deal like they did with rural electrification so many years ago. Today I can't buy a solar system and pay over time while every month I'm still paying the utilities because Congress fixed the problem of that era the best way they could.

America's fusion future

John Knight, PE — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:29:25 GMT

Enough of the political BS. While our politicians stick roads to nowhere in the budget our science and engineering goes to hell in a handbag just like our infrastructure. Replace the worthless politicians with those that understand real science and engineering and then we can see the realization of diverse energy programs placed where they are needed. be it fusion, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

America's fusion future

G Wood — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:13:32 GMT

Look at the Billions of dollars they are spending on something that may or may not work, and if it does, it won't be a viable solution for many years. Then look at the very simple and proven ways we can live with little or no energy input from a power grid. There are homes being built right now that are not hooked to any external power source and some that are that actually suppying their surplus enrgy back to the grid. Why not use all that money on something that actually DOES work. Give people subsidies to build These kinds of homes. I firmly believe the sun will either be our demise or our salvation depending on how we decide to use the energy it is providing us with already. Here is one technology and there is much more. http://youtube.com/watch?v=AtMC2MXc_n8

America's fusion future

Glen, Albany, NY — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:53:31 GMT

I think that if our government can spend 12 billion in Iraq a month, or our energy industries can garner over 100 billion a year in profits, we are certainly more than capable of ponying up 15 billion to build a fusion reactor for ourselves. I mean, it seems tossing around a few billion here and there is nothing these days. The question is priorities. Obviously, you can see where they lie... developing green, efficient, and renewable energy isn't one of them. How sad.

America's fusion future

Joseph Basile, Worcester, MA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:14:55 GMT

I think that as energy supplies become ever tighter around the world, these projects will be given more and more priority. We can make this technology work, alot sooner than we think, but it will take tremendous effort.

The first step in all of this is for politicians and government to public acknowlege just how tight our energy supplies really are. It's then that we can finally move society forward instead of letting it suffer with a lack of usable energy sources.

America's fusion future

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:31:33 GMT

I agree fusion is bound to be a major energy source in the future. Solar will be important, but I'm not sure it will ever supply the base load. For one thing, it needs major advances in energy storage technologies to handle cloudy and nighttime conditions. For another, I don't think we are going to want to pave paradise with solar cells.

Alan, another possible approach to controlled fusion popped up on the Internet recently: Dr. Eric Lerner's Deep Plasma Focus concept. Just like Bussard's Polywell approach, it was recently featured in a Google tech talk:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760&q=fusion+%22Google+Tech+Talks%22+duration%3Along&hl=en

Both of these approaches, while still unproven, have the potential advantage of being able to utilize the fusion reaction of hydrogen and boron-11, which vastly reduces radioactive waste generation because no neutrons are emitted.

I hope the U.S. government can cough up a few million to support research into these other approaches. They may be less likely to succeed, but if they do succeed they will have huge advantages over tokamaks like ITER, both in terms of the smaller size and cost as well as using cleaner reactions.

America's fusion future

Jon Montgomery AL — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:47:22 GMT

Why try to stop this thing and go for just solar? Correct me if I'm wrong but do the solar panels we use right now collect maximum amount of energy from the sun. I think they should get over the budget crisis in any way and move forward with this technology, no matter where it goes. As a collective society on this floating rock we all need to look at what needs to be done and get past who needs to do it, we're ally responsible for the outcome of this place.

America's fusion future

-|\|-o-l-a-|/|- Salt Lake City UT — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:21:13 GMT

For the real answer visit www.focusfusion.org
Also www.myspace.com/focusfusionsociety

America's fusion future

Justin, IA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:22:36 GMT

"In order to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity in a day, you could burn 9,000 tons of coal, liberating 30,000 tons of carbon dioxide in the process." Its interesting that you can get 30,000 tons of carbon dioxide out of just 9,000 tons of coal.

America's fusion future

CW, Baltimore, MD — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:33:10 GMT

I find it fascinating that so much of our government spending is wasted on things infinitely less important than the benefits the world would gain from fusion power. Virtually limitless clean energy? Nah, we need to invest more funding into finding new and more devastating ways to kill ourselves and every other organism on the planet. I would much rather see my tax dollars going toward this than a war that's estimated to run into -:trillions:- of dollars allocated and spent by the government.

All that and they can't come up with a couple billion for developing technology that has huge implications for humanity as a whole? Suffice to say, I'm in agreement with JC from AK.

Just look at fiscal breakdown of spending in the last 5 years on various government programs and you'll see how little our administration cares about scientific research at this point. It really is sad.

America's fusion future

Jay McDonald, Tucson, AZ — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:46:31 GMT

Fusion is the only technology that seems to produce the massive amounts of energy we will apparently need in the future. Once China, then the 3rd world come on-line, solar probably won't do it - although it could be a big piece of the puzzle.
My question is - is this just a technological problem? Or is it still a physics problem and no one has actually produced a controlled fusion reaction.
Also, what would be the costs in terms of water (for cooling) and in terms of producing and maintaining the plant? If you have to spend 1000 Gigawatts to mine the rare materials needed to produce a fusion reactor that produces 1500 Gigawatts over its lifetime, then it starts to look like the new Ethanol.

America's fusion future

Bruce, Wallingford CT — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:03:18 GMT

Fusion is the most promising of energy sources. I have studied the developments in this field since the late 70's and would say the biggest obstacle to development is funding, not science or technology. When you look at the funding available to fusion, relative to funding for other technologies, it is a very tiny amount spread over many years. That is, as the author rightly noted, the reason it is taking so long. ITER could be built in two to three years, if there was enough money to hire the engineering and contractors needed. But instead, it will trickle along for the next 15 to 20 years.

Why is fusion so important. The author has noted a few reasons. I would add that any advanced civiilzation needs not only a lot of energy, but energy that can be created in a dense format (that means a alot of megawatts from a small device). Why? Because the bigger the devices are the bigger the environmental impact, cost, and the more land that is diverted from other uses. The ITER looks big, but compared to several square miles of solar arrays or a hundred miles of wind towers, it is tiny and it is about the size of most convential power plants. Advances in technology will shrink it over time.

Dense power supplies are vital for industrial usage. Sure you can power your house with a windmill, some solar panels and a backup propane system, but no steel mill, foundry, boat yard, battleship, airliner, freight train, rocket, etc. is going to be able to utilize that type of energy until it is concentrated to a dense form. THe number of windmills, solar panels,and other low density energy supplies needed to power one steel mill would be unbelievably enourmous. We do want to remain an advancing industrial society, right? Then we need fusion.

America's fusion future

TO, St. Albans, VT — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:13:15 GMT

How many windmills can you buy for $5-$13 billion?

America's fusion future

TallDave — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:38:20 GMT

<i>Researchers in New Mexico are seeking to duplicate the late physicist Robert Bussard's experiments with an electrostatic plasma containment device that appeared to offer a low-cost route to fusion. Today, team leader Richard Nebel told me that the device was still under construction, and that testing had not yet begun. "We're getting close," he said</i>

That's interesting, I had thought they were already testing. Maybe this interview was done prior to the blog entry, or perhaps Nebel means "testing" in a more formal "official results" sense.

Or is it possible they're setting up to do some POPS experimenting in addition to validating the WB-6 data? Is that even feasible in this setup or allowed by contract? Maybe someone who knows will weigh in.

America's fusion future

Ed — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:56:02 GMT

Will you solar power wack jobs give it a rest? It's a gimmick that will in no way sustain the US power demand. We need to go with more nuclear, fission and fusion. GO NUKE!!!!

America's fusion future

John Busby Bury St Edmunds UK — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:23:42 GMT

Does the ITER need tritium made by irradiating lithium in a fission reactor? And is it impractical to make sufficient tritium to do more than experiments? And does the tritium dissociate before it can be used, even assuming that enough could be made? And would it need hundreds of fission reactors to make it, which it is eventually supposed to replace? Answers please Mr Sauthoff!

America's fusion future

sadworld — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:43:19 GMT

In 2007 congress earmarked $1.19 BILLION for maintenance of 20 F-22 fighter jets, even though they have been replaced with F-35s and the Air Force says they are obsolete. Why not spend it on fusion power instead? Then we will decrease both our dependence on foreign oil and the need for fighter jets in the first place...

America's fusion future

Joseph Basile, Worcester, MA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:46:31 GMT

Justin, IA

When coal is burned, the carbon atoms in it each bond with two Oxygen atoms from the air. Carbon atoms are 12g/mole and Oxygen is 16g/mole each.

So for every 12 grams of carbon burned you add 32 grams of oxygen to make it into CO2.

America's fusion future

Alan Boyle — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:52:19 GMT

TallDave, Richard Nebel told me yesterday that his team had to wait for parts to come in from outside the country, so their schedule was delayed for that reason. He said they hadn't yet fired up the WB-6 ... but I suppose they could be testing some components. And then again, there's always the possibility that a researcher isn't telling a journalist everything that's going on in the lab. What a surprise that would be. ;-) In any case, Richard said to check back in about a month. If anyone else who's in the know wants to weigh in, please do! All I know is what people tell me (or what I see ... one of these days I'll have to head down to New Mexico and check in with EMC2Fusion).

America's fusion future

McKludge, Orlando FL — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:56:55 GMT

From Justin - Its interesting that you can get 30,000 tons of carbon dioxide out of just 9,000 tons of coal.

It's simple chemistry, Justin. Coal is mostly carbon. For every unit of coal burned, 2 units of oxygen combine with that unit of carbon (carbon dioxide). A glance at the periodic table shows that (approximately) a unit of oxygen weighs 1.33 times more than a unit of carbon. So 9000 + (1.33*9000) + (1.33*9000) = 33000 tons. Since some of the carbon becomes carbon monoxide (CO) instead, and CO weighs 64% less than CO2, the actual outputis closer to 30000 tons. Also, don't forget that coal is *mostly* carbon. There are usually some other elements in there, too

TO said - How many windmills can you buy for $5-$13 billion?

Unfortunately, the answer is "More than people are willing to have in their backyard"

America's fusion future

Rocco DiMartini, Pennsylvania — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:24:22 GMT

The way I see it, it all comes down to the lobbyists in Washington. Why has the budget been small for this? How can the promise of prodigious amounts of energy produced with zero greenhouse emissions be stopped? Oil, coal, and gas lobbyist making sure the politicians in their pockets don't act on this. I say take away their subsidies and put them directly into this effort to create fusion power. Viva la revolution.

America's fusion future

S.B. Stein E. B. NJ — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:35:21 GMT

I believe that part of the funding problem can be traced to the current administration. They have a failure to see or think about the future. Congress also has a problem with this forward thinking when it comes to the budget. There should be research done here in the U.S. as well as with the joint group in Europe. Cooperation with others and our own private research should hopefully speed things along.

I believe the new energy policy should include $5 to $10 Billion for fusion power research. There should be another 2 Billion each for the following: advancing solar panel research (more efficient and easier to make), fuel reprocessing plants and fission reactors they are connected to as well as wind and wave development. If I were president, there would be solar panels to generate electricity on almost every federal building (including the White House and Congress where they can't be see so as not to detract from the beauty of the building).

America's fusion future

Charlie: Raleigh, NC — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:37:23 GMT

Yada Yada! Been hearing all this energy hype for decades. Yeah and it's the same song over and over. Yeah I'm an old guy. So why keep flogging this dead horse? You keep striving for new energy and that is the bottom line. It will come from many sources. Of course the wacko politicians are just bleeding it dry. It's not Republican or Democrat. It's called incumbants. The American voter is basically a blind fool. Keep the same people in office year after year and they have to do no work to stay there except lie to the public every election cycle. Government has never ssolved a single problem. Limit their control and everyone gains.

There are places and times for many type of energy. Some places can use wind, some can use solar, some need nuclear, some need hydro, some need coal. Get the idea? LOOOOOOONG term, fusion may well be the way to go. By the way, bio-fuels are stupid. Why would I want to burn my food source in my car? Energy is energy and you don't gain anything to change it from one source to another at the sacrifice of food supply. Brilliant!

America's fusion future

Mike K., Green Bay, WI — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:42:58 GMT

Justin in IA,
Joe B. in MA is correct, the burning of coal is a chemical reaction, and in the process, oxygen combines with the carbon in the coal. If the coal was pure carbon, it would be 33,000 tons of CO2 produced, the impurities in the coal bring the CO2 down, and coincidentally contribute to acid rain.

America's fusion future

Iñaki Goyena, Washington, DC — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:18:20 GMT

2016? $13 billion dollars, that’s peanuts compared $87+ billion spent on Iraq so far... What a shame, how long will I have to wait?, Oh no! Wait 35 five more years of miserable fascist capitalist driven US government to take advantage of technology like fusion power. There is scientific consensus that no one technology will be the key for fulfilling the future energy needs, Solar, Wind, Ocean/Kinetic, Nuclear, Fusion, Anti Matter?, it all boils down to the interest of governments and private corporations. My well being and fulfilled needs as a citizen of “this” nation is not on their foresight.

America's fusion future

Mark, New York — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:40:13 GMT

Sure drop out, and let the "international" community build it...Just like hybrid cars which Detroit either ignored or put off until they got their hatchbacks handed back to them by Japan. Such short-sighted, crunchy, wishy-washy can't think beyond today Americans...Yea, I'm talking to you, boomers!

America's fusion future

juat Watching — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:20:49 GMT

Building a fusion reactor is a fine idea.I have been hearing about such a thing for 50 years that it was just 10 years away. Just remember we will all be dead of old age before the first watt is generated by a fusion reactor.
Yea"right" when pigs fly.

America's fusion future

Roger Long — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:45:03 GMT

I find it interesting that Congress would cut funding for something that could help us attain energy independence from oil and coal precisely when the stated goal of our government is to attain that independence.

Could it be that our congressmen are taking bribes (ahem, campaign contributions) from oil companies?

We already know where the executive branch's sympathies lie. (pun intended)

America's fusion future

R. Nebel — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:55:49 GMT

Since there seems to be some confusion here, I guess I should clarify some things. Yes, we are operating the WB-7 and we have had plasma since the first of the year. What we don't yet have is full pulsed power capability which is required to test the concept. As many of you are probably aware, plasma experiments have a lot of different components that have to come together (vacuum systems, HV systems, safety systems, gas feed systems, etc.). The general proceedure is to test them component by component before you try to do an integrated test. We have been doing those component tests. The components that Alan alluded to that we were waiting on came in this week. Now we are building the hardware. We are a few weeks behind our original ambitious schedule (we started in September 2007 with a building and no equipment) but we haven't seen any showstoppers yet.
As to Ned's "rules", we don't get to write those. Our customer does that.

America's fusion future

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:26:51 GMT

Joseph Basile...isn't that how Jesus made all that fish and bread for all those people?

Just what is "burning plasma"? Plasma by definition is an ionized gas which is very conductive. I'd sure like to see an exact explanation about how the fusion reaction interacts with radio frequencies. The heat obviously is turned to high pressure steam to crank the turbines.

America's fusion future

Josh King, Berkeley, California — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:55:12 GMT

Jay McDonald from Tucson,

Your questions are right on point. First, regarding whether "controlled fusion reactions" have been produced, the answer is most certainly, yes. The most successful of these efforts was the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at Princeton. In 1994 this experiment produced a world-record 10.7 million watts of controlled fusion power. This achievement and others like it on the Joint European Torus (JET), have produced thermonuclear plasmas which provide a strong physics basis for building of ITER. The intention of ITER is to make 500 million watts of fusion power, with a net output of power 5 to 10 times greater than is put into the device. This means energy that could be put on the grid if a turbine and some other technologies were attached. Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, documents in its official report that, “The scientific feasibility of fusion energy has been proven.” ITER intends to prove fusion’s technological feasibility.

On your second question, let me assure you that fusion is no ethanol. The amount of energy to obtain the raw ingredients for a fusion reaction is trivial, and the methods of extraction are already established technologies (e.g. Lithium in your laptop battery). In fact, it has been shown that the a single deuterium separation plant requiring only a single 5 inch diameter pipe pumping in sea water would be sufficient to provide enough deuterium to supply all of the power needs of the entire US.

It should also be noted that many of the scientific breakthroughs that have warranted the building of ITER occurred in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, and despite the promising results produced, which in many cases exceeded scientists own expectations, funding for fusion has consistently declined making the next step to a device the size of ITER out of reach for over a decade. During the peak of the Apollo missions, NASA’s budget was $40 billion a year, which is more than 100 times the current annual domestic budget for fusion. At the Apollo budget, ITER could likely be built in 2-3 years. It can’t be emphasized enough that fusion is as far away as we make it; fund it now, and it could be here tomorrow.

–Fusion Graduate Student

America's fusion future

TallDave — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:51:26 GMT

Thanks for the update Alan.

I assume "fired up" means at full power, since in your January article they were already talking about having first plasma and an initial analsysis that looked good.

My wild guess is they're waiting for some test equipment, perhaps some extremely well-shielded neutron detectors to better convince skeptics they aren't measuring arcs. But it could be anything, really.

Hopefully we'll hear something in a month.

America's fusion future

John Doe, Seattle, Wash — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:45:03 GMT

http://fusion.gat.com/conferences/meetings/fss99/11.con/11manhei.pdf

Can Fusion Research be Revitalized by Embracing a Fission Fusion Hybrid Reactor?

Wallace Manheimer
Code 6707, NRL

A study has recently be undertaken to re-examine the entire question of whether fission
fusion is a viable approach to revitalizing fusion research in the United States1. This
study examined not only the science and technology, but also attempted to figure out
what would and would not be salable to the American government, the source of fusion
research funding in the United States. Some of the conclusions of this study are

1. It is unlikely that the American Government will continue to support fusion
research at the multi-hundred million dollar level per year with a goal so
distant in the future.

2. Large international projects such as ITER are unlikely to be the salvation of
fusion research, at least as far as the American Government is concerned.

3. The use of fusion reactors for anything but energy generation is unlikely to be
salable to the American government.

4. It is very likely that fission power will make a comeback, probably in the
United States, almost certainly in the world2.

5. Fission and fusion are more likely allies than competitors.
Based on these conclusions, the idea of fission fusion was reviewed and re-examined.

Some conclusions are

1. Fusion reactors can be used as fission breeders, but with a very large advantage
over fission breeders. One fusion breeder can support perhaps 10 satellite
fission reactors, whereas one fission breeder can support more like a single
additional reactors. Any breeder is a large proliferation hazard and would have
to be in a secure area with close government oversight. A fusion breeder
greatly reduces the number of breeders.

2. Even pure fusion has a significant proliferation hazard in that a rogue country
or reactor operator could slip 238U in the blanket and breed plutonium. This
potential proliferation hazard of a pure fusion reactor has received very little
attention.

3. Fusion could be used to help put the world on a much safer and proliferation
resistant nuclear energy cycle, namely the breeding of 233U from Thorium.
This could be mixed with 238U in a sub-critical, proliferation resistant mixture.

4. Tokamaks are now producing about 1019 neutrons per second in a D-T
plasma. Operating such a tokamak steady state would produce enough nuclear
fuel to power a 200-400 MW fission burner.

5. A viable approach to the American fusion project could be to build a high duty
cycle tokamak of the size of say TFTR. This tokamak would have a thorium
blanket and a D-T plasma. Breeding 233U would be an important research
goal.

6. The construction of such a tokamak would mean that the fusion project would
enter mainly a technology demonstration phase, rather than a plasma physics
phase.

7. The tokamak might be of interest to the Navy as a producer of nuclear fuel for
ship propulsion.

8. This tokamak could also be used for other purposes such as spallation
neutrons, burning nuclear waste, etc. However fuel production would be its
main purpose.

9. If the project is successful and captures the interest of the country, a follow
on phase could be to build a much larger tokamak, say with 100 MW of beam
power and Q=10. This could supply a large number of satellite burner
reactors, and might be economically viable.
It is hoped that this study will stimulate discussion in the American fusion community.
References

1. W. Manheimer, Back to the Future, the Historical, Scientific, Naval, and
Environmental Case for Fission Fusion, Fusion Technology, 36, 1. July, 1999
2. IEEE Spectrum, November, 1997. An entire issue making the case that fission will
come back as a viable power supply.

America's fusion future

Joe Strout, Fort Collins, CO — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:44:06 GMT

Thanks for the report. I'm especially excited about the polywell research being done by Dr. Nebel and his team -- In my opinion, this approach to fusion is by far the most likely to produce a commercially viable reactor, and to do it soon enough to matter. And Dr. Nebel, thank you so much for taking the time to post that clarification here. We're all trying to leave you alone to concentrate on your work, but at the same time, we're at the edge of our seats, cheering you on and eagerly waiting for any news.

America's fusion future

wwb, idont, thinkso — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:03:53 GMT

It is amazing to me that we have spent 18 billion dollars over several decades on the ITER Fusion reactor design that has not yet proven to be any closer to a viable commercial power plant than when it started. When 80 to 90% of funding dollars goes to one design you are basically betting on one pony. Every 20 years, the ITER proponents say another 20 years. At some point you would think someone would say, enough is enough and start spreading the bet to a few other ponies in the race. I would cut ITER funding to 50%. There are other respected scientists that claim between 5 to 10 years for commercial fusion power plants with their design with just a fraction of funding needed compared to this boondoggle ITER. To me the monopoly of one design is inheritably stupid and typical of this government’s logic.
To those that repeat the mantra of alternative energy (solar, ethanol, biodiesel and wind) you’re dreaming. Though it may have its place, it is not the long term answer to the “worlds” energy needs due to material cost, space, energy storage and other problems. The world energy needs all forms of energy to currently sustain itself and that must include nuclear fission. If the reality of a fusion reactor ever came to light, it would change the world by providing cheap, clean energy at a cost of one hundred times less than all other current means for millions of years. Third world countries could afford to have the same standard of energy per person as industrialized nations. The world would change.

America's fusion future

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:30:17 GMT

Dale,

The incompetent Bush had the money in the budget. The competent Democrats in Congress cut the funds.

Go figure.

America's fusion future

Josh King, Berkeley, California — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:47:29 GMT

According to the non-profit organization Fusion Power Associates a total of less than $20 billion have been spent by the US over the entire 57-year history of fusion research. The progress in fusion plasmas have improved dramatically, from only being able to create plasma temperatures as low as a fluorescent light in 1951, to present temperatures of 500 million degrees, which is hotter than the core of the sun. The device that has achieved the most impressive performance thus far has been the tokamak. It is for this reason that it is the preferred design of the ITER device. ITER was first seriously proposed in 1985 following a meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev. Prior to this, in 1980 under President Carter, the Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act was proposed to authorize $20 billion dollars to be spent to domestically develop fusion energy over a 20 year period. This act never passed; despite results that proved commercial fusion energy was scientifically feasible.

For those interested here are a few history books on fusion research:

1.) Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention of a New Energy Source, by Joan Lisa Bromberg.

2.) Fusion: The Search Endless, by Robin Herman.

3.) The Man-Made Sun: The Quest for Fusion Power, by T.A. Heppenheimer.

America's fusion future

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:48:10 GMT

Josh King, thanks for your information about the history of fusion research. I'd like to take you back to Jay McDonald's question about net energy production, however. Your response was:

"...let me assure you that fusion is no ethanol. The amount of energy to obtain the raw ingredients for a fusion reaction is trivial, and the methods of extraction are already established technologies..."

While I have no doubt the energy balance sheet will be strongly positive for fusion, I think you missed the point of the question. ITER is a huge, complex machine that requires many exotic materials. And it's not even a complete power plant -- just the heat source. How expensive will these machines be to build? How much energy will it take to mine, refine, transport, and construct all the parts? How expensive will they be to operate and maintain?

You want to avoid making the mistake that Lewis Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, made in 1954 when he said that nuclear power would make electricity "too cheap to meter". He was undoubtedly thinking only of the fuel cost, which of course is minor for fission plants and will be trivial for fusion plants.

So, as a student of these technologies I would ask you this question. From a science and engineering standpoint, what is the prospect that tokamak fusion power plants can ever be significantly smaller or simpler than ITER? What are the projected economics? To be specific, I wonder what the price of a barrel of oil will have to be to make a tokamak power plant economically competitive.

America's fusion future

me in Utah — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:54:33 GMT

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php

America's fusion future

Adam, Brisbane, Australia — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:49:55 GMT

Hi All

AS pointed out by "John Doe" above the D-T fusion power cycle, as used by ITER, will be an abundant source of neutrons. It needs to be for two reasons vital to its operation - to breed tritium fuel in its lithium jacket, and to extract heat from the fusion plasma, which is otherwise inaccessible to power extraction. Because of that neutron flux it can also make plutonium for weapons or transmute thorium for fission fuel.

The effects of long-term neutron exposure on the reactor's components are currently unknown, so a second facility for testing materials will be built in conjunction with ITER, and this will hopefully allow a commercial reactor prototype to be underway by 2031, according to ITER's current schedule. The first commercial reactor might arrive by 2048, which is an awfully long time to wait in a world with energy issues we're hoping to solve with fusion power.

I want to see fusion working, but our timeframe means something has to happen sooner for it to be the replacement to coal/oil. Unlike many, I'm happy with fission power, but it has some big problems due to the current fuel-cycles that only use ~ 3% of the fuel's energy potential, then throw it away as "waste". This has to stop. Fission, by itself, could power our future, but only if its fuel efficiency improves 30-fold. This can be done, but there is a lack of funding and political will to replace the uranium mining industry with something more responsible to the future.

America's fusion future

Josh King, Berkeley, California — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:10:19 GMT

Bill Hensley, by no means do I wish to belittle the complexity of magnetic fusion tokamak research, or deny the significance of material requirements for building this experiment in answering Jay McDonald's question. Commercial fusion energy development is certain to be the most complex technological undertaking known to man. The prospect that a commercial tokamak reactor could be made smaller or simpler then ITER is unlikely, because as you pointed out, ITER is going to be a heat source, and will not contain the reactor blanket necessary for tritium breeding and heat extraction. In fact, it is most likely that a functioning power plant will be significantly more complex. Unfortunately, many of your questions regarding development of fusion technologies should have already been answered through the parallel development of fusion reactor engineering, and burning plasma physics, rather then the former following the successful demonstration of the latter. However, because of prohibitively small budgets, such efforts have not been possible.

With regard to economics, it is premature to speculate on a final commercial fusion reactor price tag and how that will translate into a per kilowatt-hour charge. However, the currently artificially small cost associated with the burning of fossil fuels may change in favor of fusion in the near future, as the environmental repercussions of such activities are becoming all too apparent. The only consolation I can offer is that I wouldn't be studying this field if I didn't believe that ultimately Mr. Strauss could be proved correct.

America's fusion future

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:18:37 GMT

Thanks, Josh. After I posted my question I did notice that an economic model is posted on the ITER web site, although of course it is way too early to have any definitive answers about fusion power plant economics:

http://www.iter.org/PPsim/starter2.html

The default numbers in the model yield a cost of electricity of 22.5 cents/kWh. They also give a rule of thumb that electricity production costs are only about 40% of the final residential price. That would point to about 56 cents/kWh to the consumer.

I have no idea about the assumptions that went into that estimate. I don't even know if it is in "today's dollars". Whatever the final number turns out to be, however, I suspect that such a capital intensive approach to energy production will never be "too cheap to meter". Rather, its main advantage will be a virtually inexhaustible fuel supply and subtantially less environmental impact.

I'd be curious to know your opinion of the prospects for the other approaches that have been mentioned here: inertial electrostatic confinement and deep plasma focus. If they can be made to work, they would seem to require a much smaller machine for the same power output. That suggests a lower potential cost.

America's fusion future

Josh King, Berkeley, California — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:36:04 GMT

Bill Hensley, by no means do I wish to belittle the complexity of magnetic fusion tokamak research, or deny the significance of material requirements for building this experiment in answering Jay McDonald's question. Commercial fusion energy development is certain to be the most complex technological undertaking known to man. The prospect that the first commercial tokamak reactor could be made smaller or simpler then ITER is unlikely, because as you pointed out, ITER is going to be a heat source, and will not contain the reactor blanket necessary for tritium breeding, heat exchangers, or turbine generators. In fact, it is most likely that a functioning power plant will be significantly more complex.

Capital costs for existing fission plants are the primary expense associated with this form of power generation. The typical cost for building a new fission power plant ranges between $3 and $6 billion, depending upon how many of that design have already been built and if the kinks in construction have been worked out or not. ITER's construction, including buildings, will cost $7.6 billion. The additional $5.4 billion is to be used to experiment on the reactor for 20 years.

Unfortunately, many of your questions regarding development of fusion technologies should have already been answered through the parallel development of fusion reactor engineering, and burning plasma physics, rather then the former following the successful demonstration of the latter. However, because of prohibitively small budgets, such efforts have not been possible.

With regard to economics, it is premature to speculate on a final commercial fusion reactor price tag and how that will translate into a per kilowatt-hour charge. However, the currently artificially small cost associated with the burning of fossil fuels may change in favor of fusion in the near future, as the environmental repercussions of such activities are becoming all too apparent. The only consolation I can offer is that I wouldn't be studying this field if I didn't believe that ultimately Mr. Strauss could be proved correct.

America's fusion future

R Nebel — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:54:45 GMT

Josh:

If you want to know what the costs will be for fusion compared to fission, the things to compare are the mass power density or mpd (total power out divided by the total mass of the fusion/fission power core) and the recirculated power fractions. This is not a definitive answer (it assumes that the secondaries of both systems are the same), but it will get you in the right ballpark. I suggest that you run the numbers for ITER and compare them to a commercial LWR. This doesn't imply that the costing is directly proportional to the mpd, but it gives you an idea how much one technology has to be improved to compete with the other technology.

America's fusion future

William R. Casey, PE, West Mifflin PA — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:33:01 GMT

Solar advocates: What we need to learn is how to store solar produced electricity and how to transmit it long distances. We can't even make an efficent long life storage battery for an electric car.

America's fusion future

Dirk Pitt, Indianapolis, Indiana — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:18:56 GMT

While everyone gets all worked up over these plasma reactors a much more likely nuclear reactor is about to come to everyones rescue. It's called a thorium reactor and it produces almost no waste compared to current reactors and what waste it does produce only stays radioactive for 500 years instead of 250,000 years. Oh and a couple other things, it is inherently SAFE due to the fact that it's core cannot meltdown and there is enough thorium available to power the entire planet for the next 5,000 centuries. Google thorium reactors and read the research for yourself. This is what we need to be spending money on.

America's fusion future

John PIckens, Tabernacle, NJ — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:38:32 GMT

The problem with solar power from photovotaic devices is that they take incredible amounts of energy to produce. Then, unless you position the array in a perfect location, such as the desert Southwest in the US, you will never, ever get as much energy out of the array as it took to build it. Think I'm wrong? Show me a photovoltaic manufacturer who powers their production facility entirely with solar power. Go ahead, Find one, there aren't any.
As to fusion, the real difficulty there is that the plasma chamber gets irradiated with products of the fusion reaction, and becomes lethal to approach after not very long. Kinda hard to maintain a precision vacuum/radiofrequency/power collection system when you can't get into the room with it.
Nuclear fission reactors have the same problems, but are much simpler in design, and can be remotely serviced with overhead cranes.

America's fusion future

Ed Royce, Allenhurst, NJ — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 05:20:00 GMT

Hmmmm.

What a complete waste of time and money. Utterly beyond useless just like the ISS.

1. What is the point of spending billions on creating a test fusion reactor when we have yet to fully use **fission** reactors to replace conventional power sources? Even if ITER works out it'll be tens of billions more, and another couple decades, before anybody would even consider establishing a *test* powerplant.

2. We have safe and effective fission power technology now. We don't *need* fusion. In fact fusion doesn't really give us anything more that couldn't be done entirely now with fission power.

3. People have this idea that "clean" fusion power won't result in highly radioactive materials that need to be sequestered. This is false. The radiation from the fusion process can be dangerous and over time will irradiate materials that will have to be stored.

...

Frankly fusion power, at this time, is a complete boondoggle and a total waste of money. Instead efforts should be made to improve the safety and efficiency of the fission process with minimal efforts put into fusion power just to keep research going.

It's like NASA's ISS. A $120 billion dollar waste of time that has accomplished little to nothing. Well other than earning the Russian a few million dollars selling US taxpayer paid living quarters to thrill seekers.

America's fusion future

Josh King, Berkeley, California — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 06:55:48 GMT

Sorry for the double post. I didn't realize it posted the first time.

Bill, unfortunately I don't know anything about deep plasma focus, and I have only seen an electrostatic fusion device once at the University of Wisconsin, but the main application for that device was a proton source for radiopharmacutical productions. As I understood it, the limit of this confinement scheme for fusion was that the electrode material can't withstand the bombardment of repeated ion collisions at fusion energies, but honestly this is out of my area and I can't say for sure.

In can say that one constitent requirement for any fusion experimental device is expensive and sophisticated diagnostics, used for measuring the crucial plasma parameters (e.g. density, temperature, and confinement time). I think this is partially why few fusion concepts are funded adaquately.

My belief is that alternative fusion concepts should be funded significantly more, but not at the expense of tokamak research. In fact, my masters degree research was working on Lawerence Livermore National Lab's Sustained Spheromak Physics Experiment (SSPX), which is an alternate fusion concept. I had intended to do my Ph.D research on the device as well, but funding for the experiment was pulled in October of last year. This device had the potential to provide a much simplier confinement scheme from the tokamak, while still producing similar plasmas, and could be a much better scheme for reactor design. In spite of this unfortunate turn of events, I harbor no resentments toward ITER. ITER is "the way" and I have my sights set on trying to do some graduate research in the support of ITER.

America's fusion future

Van — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:18:03 GMT

Though it is important to be hopeful for Dr. Nebel and his team working on the Polywell devices, we should not count chickens before they hatch. The Polywell is not yet proven. Given the implications of successful net fusion power, it seems staying grounded is of utmost importance. It is enough that Dr. Nebel has the audacity to test this concept on the chance that it will work. In the meantime as Dr. Bussard would say let us hope that they are at least doing good science.

America's fusion future

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:08:22 GMT

Dirk Pitt: If it's so great, why isn't it being done? Is the fusion lobby that powerful?

Also, what about geothermal development? The western and SW US has enormous potential for this. Magma heating is relatively accessible and could sustain large generating sources. They say the engineering isn't worth it but I just don't believe that.

America's fusion future

walter,novato, calif — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:23:58 GMT

You go Richard, best of luck to you. I pray that it works as Dr. Bussard claimed. You and your team can change the world as Dr.Bussard wished. My he rest in peace.

America's fusion future

walter, novato, calif — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:42:06 GMT

Solar is not the answer. To supply 40% California energy future with solar power it would require 6000 sq. miles of solar panels at a cost of 1000 dollar each year to each household. Greens, get out of the energy business - you're killing the economy. Look what your ethanol policy has done to food production and price. You don’t have a clue. Nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric is the only green answer.

America's fusion future

Michael Kenward, Sussex England — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:41:17 GMT

Before all those "build it here to American designs" folks get too carried away, how about looking at the record?

ITER is a follow on from JET. The US dedided not to buy into that European toy. Instead it built TFTR at Princeton. Nice physics, useless as an engineering dry run.

The US shut down TFTR years ago, more's the pity. The EU keeps JET running, racking up experience and data.

The rest of the world should think long and hard before placing any faith in an American contribution. As someone else has said, the US has a great history of welching on international agreements. (Anyone here old enough to remember Spacelab?)

To the person who asked "what the price of a barrel of oil will have to be to make a tokamak power plant economically competitive" you are missing another factor. What about the cost of carbon?

This may not be a factor in the USA, which seems determined to stuff the rest of the planet, but the rest of us may have to pay ever rising amounts to chuck carbon into the atmosphere.

It really is time that the US created a grown up energy strategy, one that does not kow tow to Texan oil and the farming lobby, now famous for wrecking the world's biofuel and food markets.

There is little about energy that the world can learn from the land of the Humvee.

America's fusion future

Smurfcrusher — Mon, 19 May 2008 02:18:56 GMT

Where's the Mr. Fusion? I want it to wake me up with a 50,000,000 degree cup of coffee. ;)

America's fusion future

Michael,kent oh — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:54:10 GMT

Its only a waste if it does not work. The best science we have suggests that it will in fact work. Solar however is certainly a good energy source. In fact,all of our energy,except nuclear and geothermal comes from solar energy. Wind is driven by solar energy. Fossil fuels are stored solar energy. Geothermal is an odd one out,being die to nuclear fission in the earths core. (if it wasn't for the fission,then the earths core would be cold and solid already) While solar energy is certainly a good idea,its very diffuse. Nuclear energy is a very potent source of energy. If we had access to fusion as a power source,it would literally solve all of our problems. We could use it to manufacture hydrogen or synthetic methanol for cars. We could use it to power and heat our homes. We could even use synthetic methanol (which could be made from electricity, carbon dioxide and water) to make all the industrial chemicals that now come from fossil fuels. We could do similar things with solar,but fusion has a much higher energy density. In reality we will probably use both.
For more esoteric purposes however,fusion would be very useful,for instance for installations on mars or the moon. Solar energy may not be practical to supply large installations with oxygen and produce large quantities of liquid oxygen and hydrogen for rocket fuel.