* Home o » Technology & Science + »
Science msn Web MSNBC Cosmic Log ABOUT COSMIC LOG 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 . America's fusion future Posted: Wednesday, April 02,
2008 7:25 PM by Alan Boyle Sean Ahern / ORNL This visualization shows how the
plasma within the ITER reactor would be heated by radio frequency waves. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The long-term future of energy may well lie in clean, plentiful
fusion power - but will the reactors that produce that power carry a "Made
in the USA" label? That's a big issue on the agenda for the U.S.
ITER program , which is cooperating with six international partners to build
the first power-generating fusion prototype in France by 2016. The year 2016
may sound like a long time from now, but the "Made in the USA" issue
isn’t something that can be put off for eight years. It
needs to be addressed right now - and that's a big problem for Ned Sauthoff,
the head of the U.S. ITER Project Office at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Here's why the next few months are important: The design for the eight-story-high
plasma containment vessel has been in the works for years. After dealing with
some last-minute uh-ohs, such as a nasty potential problem with burping plasma,
the seven parties in the $13 billion ITER project have finally addressed
"most, if not all, of the major construction issues," Sauthoff told
me last week during my visit to his headquarters in Tennessee. Sauthoff said
the design outline is expected to become frozen in place around June, when
representatives of the project's seven parties (the United States, China,
Europe, India, Japan, Russia and South Korea) meet in Japan. "The schedule
would say it has to be frozen this summer," he said. Then the specs would
be reviewed by the parties and sent out to contractors by the end of the year.
(ITER used to stand for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, but
nowadays the effort's publicity material downplays the acronym and plays up the
idea that it's a Latin word for "the way." The June meeting is the
next milestone along the way.) Each of the parties behind ITER has been given
responsibility for jobs that add up to a percentage of the total project. For
the United States, that amounts to 9.1 percent - taking in parts of the
doughnut-shaped reactor vessel as well as vacuum pumps and some of the
plumbing, superconducting cables and more. Different nations will provide some
of the same components for the reactor. That piecemeal approach is deliberate,
Sauthoff said. "ITER is not in itself designed to do things in the most
cost-effective way," he admitted. Rather, it's designed to give all the
partners a piece of the technological action. "Everybody wants to make
their own ITER at the end of the day," Sauthoff explained. *Fusion and
financial frustrations* This is where Sauthoff is facing a dilemma: He and his
colleagues at U.S. ITER are responsible for providing the components they've
promised, whether they're built in the United States or elsewhere. "Our
desire is to spend the U.S. money, as much as possible, in the U.S.," Sauthoff
said. But different countries have different ways of making things. For
instance, consider one of the high-tech blanket shield modules for the reactor
vessel. Making that module is much like making an engine for an automobile,
Sauthoff said. There are several ways to do it - casting the module from alloy,
forging a block and then drilling it out, or even creating it from metal powder
using a technology called hot isostatic processing . ORNL Ned Sauthoff heads
the U.S. ITER project. –
Automakers might well be in a good position to make those modules,
but would they be U.S., Japanese or American automakers? If the components
can't be made in America to fit the international specifications, they'd have
to be made somewhere else - with the American taxpayer footing the bill.
Sauthoff had been planning to work with potential U.S. manufacturers this year
to make sure they could meet the specs. Then, in a surprise move, Congress axed
virtually all the money that was set aside for ITER operations during the
current fiscal year. That left the manufacturers in the dark. "We were
expecting to do $50 [million] to $100 million worth of industrial
presentations. ... That's the major consequence of our little bump in the
road," Sauthoff said. U.S. ITER's industrial efforts haven't completely
come to a standstill. "I had a little bit of a war chest put away,"
Sauthoff said. But he's really hoping for some of the money to be restored in a
supplemental appropriation, which may be attached to a war-funding measure
expected to come up in Congress sometime in the next couple of months. And he's
absolutely counting on Congress to come through with the money sought for the
next fiscal year . He isn't the only one in wait-and-see mode. So far, the
other ITER parties have been sympathetic to Sauthoff's political plight, but he
said "their patience will not extend into '09." *Is this trip
necessary? *Is commercial fusion power worth getting impatient about? After
all, there are lots of other energy sources out there, ranging from biofuels
and cleaner coal to resurgent nuclear fission power and renewable solar and
wind power . ITER / ORNL This artist's conception shows a cutaway of the ITER
plasma containment vessel. A human figure is included at lower right to provide
a sense of scale. Click on the image for a larger version.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sauthoff agrees that fusion won't be the magic solution to the
energy problems, even in the year 2050. "This problem is bigger than what
any single technology will solve," he said. However, if ITER and its
successors work the way engineers think they will, fusion could fit a big niche
now occupied by oil-fired, gas-fired, coal-fired and nuclear power plants - the
very niche that will need something totally new in the next few decades. At the
currently projected rate of growth in energy consumption, the world will be
using 50 to 100 times as much energy in the 2050-2100 time frame. "In
roughly 50 years, we better change a large part of the way we produce energy,
particularly if the developing world is going to be striving to get the energy
consumption of the developed world," Sauthoff said. If the fusion reaction
can be perfected by that time, the technology would offer a huge advantage: The
fuel for fusion - isotopes of hydrogen that are combined to produce helium plus
surplus energy - can be isolated from sea water. And it doesn't take much of
that fuel. 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. Or you could take a few pounds of deuterium and tritium, and turn that
into a slightly smaller amount of helium - without producing any greenhouse
gases. *Forever in the future? *When you get right down to it, even oil and
gas, wind and solar power can be traced back to the closest working fusion
reactor we know: the sun. Scientists have been working for decades to capture
that solar-style power plant in a magnetic bottle. Sauthoff has heard the old
joke: "Fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will
be." He admits that 20 years ago, his predecessors were saying commercial
fusion power was just 20 years away. But the way he sees it, those estimates
were stated in the wrong way. "We measure progress by dollars," he
said. Thus, the old estimates should have been cast as projecting commercial
fusion power after 20 years, based on annual funding of $2 billion, he said.
Today, Sauthoff estimates that commercial fusion is about 35 years away, based
on the current funding plan. The U.S. Department of Energy's plan calls for
spending $214.5 million on ITER in the coming fiscal year, with the total U.S.
project cost for the construction phase amounting to between $1.45 billion and
$2.2 billion by 2015. (Remember, that figure should represent 9.1 percent of
the full ITER cost.) The U.S. share of operating costs would amount to about
$80 million a year between 2015 and 2034, according to the Energy Department's
plan, and decommissioning ITER would cost the federal government $1.25 billion.
Can scientists and engineers actually figure out how to create a controlled
fusion reaction with a net energy gain? So far, we've just been talking about
the ITER approach to the fusion puzzle - but the government is funding two
other approaches as well: * One of those efforts , headquartered at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California, involves blasting away at pebbles
of deuterium and tritium with dozens of laser beams. The National Ignition
Facility is due for completion in 2009 or 2010, with a total price tag that
some have estimated at $5 billion or more. * The other effort has gotten only a
pittance of funding from the federal government, but a lot of buzz from the
Internet. 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. Sauthoff said he
welcomed those alternative efforts to solve the puzzle. "First you do the
physics," he said. "You get yourself a burning plasma. Once you've
gotten a burning plasma, then it's a matter for the politicians to decide, do
they want to invest in the technology? ... Let's just play by the same
rules." Do those sound like rules to live by? Feel free to weigh in on the
promise and the puffery surrounding fusion research by leaving your comments
below. */More Big Science:/* * *From Oak Ridge:* Under the neutron microscope .
* *From Fermilab in Illinois:* Suspense on a subatomic scale ... Inside the
subatomic race ... Building the future of physics . * *From Europe's CERN
physics lab:* Toiling in the fields of physics ... Inside the big-bang machine
... Living in the Web's cradle ... First the Web, now the Grid ... Inside the
antimatter factory . * *From the ITER project:* Fusion when? ... Fusion's
fortress . * *From Canada's TRIUMF lab:* Inside the supernova machine . * *The
big picture:* The science behind the tour ... Beyond big science ... Big
trouble for big science ... Doomsday fears spark lawsuit . MAIN PAGE Email this
EMAIL THIS Comments 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... *James, MD* (Sent Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:11 PM)
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.
*solar* (Sent Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:16 PM) 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. *Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA* (Sent Wednesday, April 02,
2008 8:36 PM) 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... *sunshine* (Sent Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:38 PM)
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 *Damon Price, los angeles, california * (Sent Wednesday, April 02,
2008 8:48 PM) 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?? *JC, Fairbanks, AK* (Sent Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:52 PM)
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. *dale rutherford , chattanooga , tn* (Sent
Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:11 PM)
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! *Corey Stoltenburg, Austin, TX* (Sent Wednesday,
April 02, 2008 11:25 PM)
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. *Vince Martin, Mason City, Iowa*
(Sent Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:56 PM) How many of these machines could we
have produced had we not wasted so much on our latest stupid war? *RK, Palmer,
AK* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:13 AM)’
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... *Paul J.S. Beaubien
Victoria B.C. Canada* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:01 AM) 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! *Letha C. Chamberlain,
Seattle, WA * (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:25 AM)
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. *Jeff, St. Paul, MN* (Sent Thursday, April 03,
2008 3:36 AM)
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. *John Knight, PE* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:29
AM) 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 *G
Wood* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:13 AM) 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. *Glen, Albany, NY*
(Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:53 AM) 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 acknowledge 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. *Joseph Basile, Worcester, MA *
(Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:14 AM) 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. *Bill Hensley,
Houston, TX * (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:31 AM) 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. *Jon Montgomery AL*
(Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:47 AM) For the real answer visit
www.focusfusion.org Also www.myspace.com/focusfusionsociety *
-|\|-o-l-a-|/|- Salt Lake City UT* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:21 AM) "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. *Justin, IA* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:22 AM) 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. *CW, Baltimore, MD* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:33 AM) 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. *Jay McDonald, Tucson, AZ* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:46 AM) 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 a lot 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 conventional 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 enormous. We do want to remain an advancing industrial society, right? Then we need fusion. *Bruce, Wallingford CT* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:03 AM) How many windmills can you buy for $5-$13 billion? *TO, St. Albans, VT* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:13 AM) 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 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. *TallDave * (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:38 AM) 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!!!! *Ed* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:56 AM) 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! *John Busby Bury St Edmunds UK * (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:23 PM) 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... *sadworld* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:43 PM) 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. *Joseph Basile, Worcester, MA * (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:46 PM) 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). *Alan Boyle* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:52 PM) 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" *McKludge, Orlando FL* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:56 PM) 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. *Rocco DiMartini, Pennsylvania* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:24 PM) 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). *S.B. Stein E. B. NJ* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:35 PM) 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! *Charlie: Raleigh, NC* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:37 PM) 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. *Mike K., Green Bay, WI* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:42 PM) 2016? $13 billion dollars, that‚Äôs 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 ‚ Äúthis‚ Äù nation is not on their foresight. *I√±aki Goyena, Washington, DC* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:18 PM) 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! *Mark, New York* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:40 PM) 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. *juat Watching* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:20 PM) 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) *Roger Long* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:45 PM) 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. *R. Nebel* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:55 PM) 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. *Thomas Ashby, Calgary* (Sent Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:26 PM) 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, ‚ÄúThe scientific feasibility of fusion energy has been proven.‚Äù ITER intends to prove fusion‚Äôs 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‚Äôs and early 1990‚Äôs, 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‚Äôs 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‚Äôt be emphasized enough that fusion is as far away as we make it; fund it now, and it could be here tomorrow. ‚ÄìFusion Graduate Student *Josh King, Berkeley, California* (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:55 AM) 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. *TallDave * (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 10:51 AM) 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. *John Doe, Seattle, Wash * (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 12:45 PM) 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. *Joe Strout, Fort Collins, CO * (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 1:44 PM) 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‚Äôs logic. To those that repeat the mantra of alternative energy (solar, ethanol, biodiesel and wind) you‚Äôre dreaming. Though it may have its place, it is not the long term answer to the ‚Äúworlds‚Äù 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. *wwb, idont, thinkso* (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 2:03 PM) Dale, The incompetent Bush had the money in the budget. The competent Democrats in Congress cut the funds. Go figure. *M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois * (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 5:30 PM) 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 bespent 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. *Josh King, Berkeley, California* (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 5:47 PM) 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. *Bill Hensley, Houston, TX * (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 6:48 PM) Next >> SEND A