|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Fusion power a step closer?
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
grege79 19-Nov-10, 20:49 |
 Fusion power a step closer?Using the most powerful laser system ever built, scientists have brought us one step closer to nuclear fusion power, a new study says. The same process that powers our sun and other stars, nuclear fusion has the potential to be an efficient, carbon-free energy source—with none of the radioactive waste associated with the nuclear fission method used in current nuclear plants. (See "Radioactive Rabbit Droppings Help Spur Nuclear Cleanup.") Thanks to the new achievement, a prototype nuclear fusion power plant could be operating within a decade, speculated study leader Siegfried Glenzer, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Glenzer and colleagues used the world's largest laser array—the Livermore lab's National Ignition Facility—to heat a BB-size fuel pellet to millions of degrees Fahrenheit. "These lasers are pulsed, and for a very short amount of time"—one ten-billionth of a second—"the power they produce is more than all the power generated by the entire electrical grid of the United States" at any given moment, Glenzer said. The test confirmed that a technique called inertial fusion ignition could be used to trigger nuclear fusion—the merging of the nuclei of two atoms of, say, hydrogen—which can result in a tremendous amount of excess energy. Nuclear fission, by contrast, involves the splitting of atoms. The laser demonstration means scientists are now much closer to triggering nuclear fusion in a controlled setting—something that's never been done before and which is necessary if fusion is to be harnessed for energy. Nuclear's Nice Side? Performing nuclear fusion in the lab requires enormous amounts of laser power, but if perfected, controlled fusion should generate ten to a hundred times more electrical energy than is used to spark the nuclear reactions. Nuclear fusion, after all, is what allows stars to burn for billions of years. And fusion could be not only powerful but clean and green as well. Not only does nuclear fusion not produce long-lasting nuclear waste, but fusion could potentially be used to chemically neutralize radioactive pollutants and has been "proposed as a cure to our nuclear waste problem," Glenzer said. Simply put, neutrons released by fusion could rearrange radioactive atoms so they aren't radioactive anymore. (Related: "'Nuclear Archaeologists' Find World War II Plutonium.") Nuclear fusion energy is also potentially carbon free, meaning it could be used to generate power without creating any more carbon dioxide gas, which contributes to global warming. And while fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, and nuclear fission fuels, such as uranium, are limited resources, there's enough nuclear fusion fuel on, in, and around our planet "to power the Earth longer than the lifetime of the sun," Glenzer said. (Related: "Cheap Oil to Last, 'Doomsday' Fears Overblown, Author Says.") Gold Fusion During the laser experiment, the fuel pellet was placed inside a solid-gold cylinder about the size of a pencil eraser, which was hit by multiple laser beams. The gold cylinder absorbed the laser energy and converted it into thermal x-ray energy. The x-rays then ricocheted inside the cylinder and struck the fuel pellet from all sides. As the pellet absorbed the x-rays, it heated up—eventually reaching about 60 million degrees Fahrenheit (33 million degrees Celsius)—then collapsed in on itself. The experiment was designed only to test the lasers' ability to heat the cylinder efficiently. Made largely of plastics and helium, the fuel pellet was not filled with enough actual fuel—chemical variants of hydrogen called deuterium and tritium—to actually trigger nuclear fusion. Actual fusion, Glenzer said, will occur sometime this year. With a fully loaded fuel pellet, "the implosion will be like squeezing a soccer ball to the size of a pinhead," he added. "The center of that spherical ball will get so hot that nuclear fusion starts." Nuclear Fusion Plant by 2020? If successful, the upcoming nuclear fusion experiment will create two classes of energetic particles: alpha particles and neutrons. "The neutrons escape and can be used to do things like heat up water"—which could potentially be used to produce steam to drive turbines in an electrical plant, Glenzer said. "The alpha particles remain trapped [in the burning sphere] and continue to heat the fuel and make it burn," as happens in a star. Scientists estimate that if they can get to the point where they can burn about five fuel pellets a second, a power plant could continuously generate up to a gigawatt of energy—about what the city of San Francisco is consuming at any given moment. A working prototype of a such a plant could be built in a decade, Glenzer said. Cheaper to Burn Cash? Nuclear fusion researcher Michael Mauel is "very excited" about the recent experiment and said it shows the ignition method works as expected. But "whether or not we'll have lasers imploding pellets to make fusion energy—it's way too early to tell," said Mauel, who was not involved in the study, which will be published in the journal Science tomorrow. In addition to the considerable engineering challenges involved in ramping up the laser systems for wide-scale use, the cost of the fuel pellets will also have to come down, said Mauel, a Columbia University physicist. "Each one of these costs between ten [thousand] and a hundred thousand dollars," Mauel said. To use the pellet method to generate nuclear fusion power, "they'll have to cost less than ten cents a piece." |
||
|
grege79 23-Jan-11, 00:40 |
|
||
|
usable fusion is the issue Although there is great hype for fusion power generation, the technology development that is needed to develop a practical power plant is off-the-scale. I tend to agree with your lady associate: There is great potential in tapping the energy of the sun for power generation, but the ultimate solution will probably require multiple technologies that include solar, wave/tide harnessing, and nuclear. Notice that I didn't include the wind. |
||
|
|
||
|
Wind/fusion energy Wind turbine power generation is good for the product manufacturers and installers, it has strong public appeal, and a great lobby; but the big catch-22 --something advocates don't like to talk about--is POST INSTALLATION MAINTENANCE. Wind turbines need brave new technologies like heavy lift anti gravity machinery and super smart, self sufficient robotics before it will become a cost effective power generation resource. |
||
|
tipsyjourneyman 15-Feb-11, 03:43 |
Food for thought. DN |
||
|
This is also ignoring the fact that millions is currently being spent on research on fusion energy (not cold fusion though, that's science fiction nonsense!). It's a huge challenge for modern physics and engineering that is most certainly being pursued! |
||
|
What if So "what if" we some day know that string theory is correct, there are infinite universes, or that singularities actually exist? What will we be able to apply with that knowledge? We certainly won't be able to change it and will probably never be able to build anything around it. The only true value of numerous Physics research endeavors is knowledge, which I suppose is value enough; even though the return for the dollar is relatively moot. |
||
|
I don't know, as I said. But who knew at the time that quantum mechanics could lead to computers? An idea introduced merely to explain a few abstract abnormalities has become vital to the world we live in today. There is no telling what other knowledge might make possible, that's half the point. I would agree that knowledge is in of itself worthwhile, but to claim that this is the only use for theoretical physics and that it never has any impact on the world we live is insanely ignorant. |
||
|
tipsyjourneyman 15-Feb-11, 17:43 |
|
||
|
Some may claim that scientists are more interested in research on subatomic particles than nuclear fusion and thus research on nuclear fusion lag behind. This is not true. There is neither lack of funding nor lack of interest in nuclear fusion. In Russia they have Kurchatov research institute for nuclear fusion. In US we have Tokamak research nuclear fusion at Princeton university. Tokamak is a donut shape fusion reactor built similar to Russian model. As grege pointed out in his first message, scientists are trying laser nuclear fusion at Lawrence Livermore laboratory. Recently in France, international top scientists around the world pooled together the money and expertise to solve this problem by building a large nuclear fusion reactor similar to LHC that will smash atoms. I believe, the knowledge of atoms will help solving the nuclear fusion and will not rob the money and expertise away from nuclear fusion. |
||
|
I see, instead of answering my point you are just going to go for the ''your argument is stupid'' line of debate. Well not much I can do with such infantile replies, I may as well talk to a wall. Your ''joke'' (does it have to be funny to be a joke?) didn't make sense anyway, and I can assure you that nothing in this area that you can understand will go over my head I once again question your expertise in this area. |
||
|
drunknovice |
||
|
grege79 16-Feb-11, 17:05 |
String theory contains elements that are falsifiable, hardly a dogma, even if some supporters may think so. I am curious as to why you think cold fusion is the way to go drunkennovice, I do not know a lot about this particular area. I wonder how practical some of the past research has been considered? I don't think that the research being done has no practical ramifications. Here is a brief article about the funding of the LHC cerncourier.com It seems that there are several nations that are a little more positive about what is being done then you are. Perhaps they did not use a rational, considered and logical process when deciding to invest.. Jan, the answer to the looming energy crisis lies in physics, I have no doubt that without investment and research in these areas, humans as a race will face a very difficult time. Who would have thought research into magnetism would have lead to the developments it has. I am not even going to get into the climate change arena, I remember a comment made by a popular (or notorious) atheist when challenged to a debate by a religious leader. When turning down the offer he stated it would look better on his opponents resume than his. I always find it amusing when people call it a dogma, but then attack it when new evidence and research comes in and the prevailing theories are modified so as to incorporate this evidence. This is science. Dogma is an unchanging, unchallenged view. In the field of medicine, only a couple years after graduating, a lot of what you know is redundant. New evidence and studies have come out and enhanced the field. Anything you think you know has to be continually questioned upon the basis of the latest evidence and findings. Most people don't realise, but generally all aspects of knowledge are the same. One should be careful about stating what they know as fact, especially when they have not read any base level reviews (peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal) or looked at any of the hard science involved. |
||
|
grege I fully agree that Physics can have a strong hand in solving the looming energy crisis, but we had better get rolling before we burn ourselves up. |
||
|
grege79 17-Feb-11, 00:13 |
|
||
|
Cold Fusion If one is interested in cold fusion, please go into the above link in wikipedia. Flesichmann and Pons are from Utah university and they claimed they achieved cold fusion. They were awarded Nobel prize for that but the prize was premature because sientists around the world cannot duplicate their results. Some people even think or say, who study cold fusion are quacks. Personally, I don't think so. Progress in science, technology and exploration are made by people who dare to risk and challenge the unknown. Wright brothers invented the air plane by showing that heavier than air machine can fly. Christopher Columbus discovered America because he dared to set sail out into the unknown. He was wrong in thinking that he would get into India directly by sailing west. He did not know America exists at that time. That is the beauty of science and exploration since although scientists and explorers can make mistakes they can correct their mistakes with new found scientific evidence. If Columbus,Wright brothers or any other scientists and explorers will not dare to do like ordinary average people, it will be a great set back and hindrance to advancement of science and exploration. So, in my opinion cold fusion is not an exception, and there is nothing wrong in pursuing cold fusion experiment that one day it will work by finding some missing scientific facts which are unkown nowadays. |
||
|
tipsyjourneyman 19-Feb-11, 05:04 |
A Riposte Itchy: If you don't like me taking the "you're argument is stupid" line then cease making stupid arguments. As for humour. Well I'm sure there's a lot of people that don't get why 'A Mid Summer's Night Dream' is funny. They usually have cousins called Billy Bob and a few more fingers and toes than they really should...... |
||
|
tipsyjourneyman 19-Feb-11, 05:06 |
|
||
|
It is usual in adult debates to present a reason WHY an argument may be stupid. Just stating that it is gets us nowhere. Oh and try not to repeat yourself either, that is a common and obvious tactic of poor debating. I have already countered your initial arguments, I would really like a new idea, if you have one. aki: I can find no record of Fleischmann and Pons ever being awarded the Nobel prize, good thing too because they were a couple of self-promoting fame-grabbing wannabes. If you ever want credit for an experimental result that violates the laws of thermodynamics you had best make sure you can repeat it before you go to the press! |
||
|
tipsyjourneyman 22-Feb-11, 05:00 |
Wait a second! I feel I have to apologise to itchy. By using the term 'stupid argument' just to rile him I now have no term to describe AK's......arguments. Well no term that conforms with Gameknot's Policies. Ramblings? No, everybody rambles from time to time. Led Zepplin told us to. Hmmm. Demented crayon scrawlings of a mad-man? No they're not in crayon. Ah. COMPLETE BOLLUX! (I hope everyone one day will spell like bollux like I do. Sadly the only way to get everyone to start misspelling words is to write a dictionary. Like Webster's. I asked Obama to correct the many spelling errors but only got spam from the Whitehouse as a reply. Ooops now I'm rambling....) Well anyway I'm off to polish my Nobel Prize in Physics. It's true. I won one. Just ask AK! Ha ha ha ha ha |
||
|
tipsyjourneyman 22-Feb-11, 05:04 |
A Joke A. Because it was premature! AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAA Ahhhh if only the Nobel Prize people had some clause about demonstrated practical significance for all those prizes. Then Fleischmann and Pons would've got nothin! Ahhhh AK. You slay me! |
||
|
I am sorry for my error. |
||
|
Drunk |
||
|
Powering the Planet Can one idea be energy's holy grail? By Thom Patterson, CNN June 27, 2011 7:38 a.m. EDT | Filed under: Innovation STORY HIGHLIGHTS Physicist Michel Laberge quit his job to find "holy grail of energy" Never-done "net gain fusion" promises safe, clean, cheap power Fusion could be global political, economic "game-changer" Experts hope for historic fusion breakthrough in 2012 (CNN) -- Michel Laberge quit his job to invent a "glorified jackhammer" that he hoped would save the planet. That was 10 years ago. Now, investors are betting more than $30 million on that jackhammer idea, which may yield a holy grail of energy -- a safe, clean and unlimited power source called hot fusion. Laberge is trying to do something that no one has ever done: create a controlled "net gain" fusion reaction that creates more energy than is required to produce it. It's the same process that powers our sun. If it works, it could solve huge problems like climate change, the energy crunch and reliance on foreign oil. But the competition to get there first is stiff. Thousands of scientists backed by the world's most powerful governments are racing against Laberge and his 50 colleagues working at an office park lab near Vancouver, British Columbia. "This is a bit crazy -- the small guy trying to win the same thing as the big guys," admits the 49-year-old physicist. Some observers in the physics community wonder if upstarts like Laberge are being strangled by giant multibillion-dollar research projects. Laberge says he's never wanted to rub shoulders with the cool kids at top-shelf facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Livermore, California. "It's very boring to work on the big projects," says Laberge. They're "too big, too expensive, too complicated." But don't call him a rebel. "I like to do some things differently," Laberge says. "I'm nonconventional, but I'm not a rebel." He fears the next generation, including his own two children, are threatened by a world that's running out of fuel. "If we don't do something about energy we're going to be living in little huts with windmills on top," says Laberge. "For food, you're going to be growing tomatoes on the backside." "I like to do some things differently, I'm nonconventional, but I'm not a rebel," says fusion energy pioneer Michel Laberge. A decade ago, it was Laberge's self-described mid-life crisis that brought him to a career crossroads. Despite success designing technology for printing direct mail materials, he remained unsatisfied. "I was cutting the forest and burying you under junk mail," he remembers. "I said, 'What am I doing here?'" Laberge took a chance and left Creo to chase his longtime fascination with fusion. "I had fusion on the brain," he recalls. "I sat at home on my couch for about six months, to the great despair of my wife, calculating all sorts of fusion schemes." Eventually, Laberge had his "aha" moment: a precision controlled piston that hammers giant shock waves into a magnetized sphere -- slamming atoms together hard enough to fuse and create energy. The idea triggered investments in Laberge's young company, first from family and friends, then from venture capitalists including Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. So far, funding has totaled $32.5 million. That sounds like a lot until you consider that the world's biggest fusion research facility -- under construction in France -- is expected to cost $20 billion. That's billion with a "b." Named ITER -- the Latin word for "journey" -- the project is funded and staffed by the United States, European Union and five other nations. Laberge designed this giant piston -- or "glorified jackhammer" -- as part of a planned fusion reactor. China announced in May it will train 2,000 scientists for fusion research. Beijing "is going gung ho on this," says Glen Wurden, a top fusion scientist at the cradle of the atom bomb: New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory. The facility has joined Laberge's company, General Fusion, in a cooperative research agreement. Does Laberge have a shot? His idea is "definitely worth studying," Wurden says. Even Ned Sauthoff, ITER's U.S. project manager, is cheering for smaller fusion researchers. "I would love to see that fusion can be done so economically, and so I hope they succeed," Sauthoff says. "ITER is the way that you go if you really want high confidence. But you have to pay more for high confidence." The ITER facility won't be complete until 2017. Best case, ITER's first net gain fusion reaction would take place sometime after 2019. Another giant fusion project, the National Ignition Facility at California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is using the world's largest lasers to attempt a fusion breakthrough by 2012 at a cost of about $5 billion. Can world's largest laser zap our energy woes? "ITER and NIF are expensive and they take lots of energy," says Wurden. "We think there is a cheaper solution between the two." "Basically, glorified jackhammers are cheaper than lasers," Laberge says with a laugh. General Fusion aims to achieve net gain fusion experimentally in 2012. By 2018, it plans to complete a power plant prototype that would generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes. "We would like to be in a commercial stage of being able to take orders and build power plants by the end of the decade," said Michael Delage, General Fusion VP of business development. Fusion could change everything -- or not Could fusion change the way powerful governments behave on the world stage? Cutting dependence on foreign oil could prompt nations to shift attention away from oil-rich regions. The U.S. military already spends at least $50 billion yearly on "expenditures related to oil," according to the American Security Project, a bipartisan Washington think tank. The fuel for fusion reactors is relatively cheap and accessible. Fusion reactors would run on fuel made up of two types of hydrogen: deuterium, which can be extracted from sea water, and tritium, which could be produced by the fusion reactors themselves. "I was cutting the forest and burying you under junk mail. I said, 'What am I doing here?'" --Physicist Michel Laberge If fusion sounds familiar it's because science has been promising it for decades. A historic fusion breakthrough is "really close," Wurden says, but developing a successful commercial fusion power plant is further off. "So, if somebody tells you they're going to solve global warming with nuclear fusion three years from now just laugh them out of the street. OK? It's not going to happen." "Fusion physicists are probably some of the worst people in the world at predicting the future in terms of how easy it's going to be for the next step," says Mike Dunne, Livermore's program director of laser fusion energy. Fusion differs from conventional nuclear power because it makes energy by smashing atoms together to create new atoms instead of splitting them apart. This year, Japan's nuclear plant crisis after an earthquake and tsunami showed the hazards posed by deadly radioactive fuel rods, which eventually must be disposed of safely. In fusion, there is no threat of a meltdown and no waste from the fuel. Although the reactor and its components will become radioactive after years of exposure to the process, this radioactivity disappears after a few decades. Conventional nuclear fuel rods need thousands of years to lose radioactivity. But anti-nuclear groups have expressed concern about whether fusion research opens a door to nuclear weapons proliferation. Tritium can be used to boost the power of nuclear weapons. Fusion research, they say, could contribute to development of a so-called pure fusion weapon. "The government did look at this in some detail," said Dunne, who added that there are always fringe groups who are suspicious of "nefarious activities" when it comes to nuclear research. Washington is comfortable that this technology provides no opportunities "for nuclear proliferation or advancement of other country's weapons capability," said Dunne. The development of commercial fusion, he says, has no defense applications. Giant sucking sound? The current budget-slashing climate on Capitol Hill doesn't bode well for fusion research. The 2012 federal budget is expected to provide about $400 million total. But now that Congress is taking a hard look at budget cuts, lawmakers want more than ever to see encouraging results. The pressure is on to either produce results or re-think spending priorities. With less research money available, will high-profile projects like ITER and NIF snatch government money from smaller private firms like Laberge's? If somebody tells you they're going to solve global warming three years from now just laugh them out of the street. --Glen Wurden, Los Alamos National Laboratory RELATED TOPICS Energy Technology Federal Budget Nuclear Energy Science and Technology An intensified scramble for cash could hurt other small players, such as Seattle-based Helion Energy and a secretive outfit with ties to the University of California called TriAlpha Energy. "I hope that ITER and NIF -- these two giant elephants in the room -- won't absorb all the resources in the world just to do fusion a particular way," says Wurden. Whatever the case, China and India's huge populations will need more and more energy each year and climatologists fear the worst from continued reliance on fossil fuels. "We're burning the candle at both ends," Laberge says. "The standard of living is increasing rapidly due to technology and we're burning resources faster than they're being replenished. Sooner or later it's all going to come crashing down." If that scenario comes to pass, will science be ready to tackle the challenge? |
