Is Nuclear Fusion The Answer To Clean Energy?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

An interesting video presentation of ways to use ALL available clean energy technologies for now, and continue heading for Nuclear Fusion, which, they say, may never actually come to fruition.  At least not from a financial perspective.  A shout out to @ronwagn, they all seem to believe we should be using a lot more NG, now and into the future.  So what do all you disparate cheerleaders think?  Did you like the video?  Do you basically agree with it or disagree?

Is Nuclear Fusion The Answer To Clean Energy?

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[markslawson + 1,042]

Didn't have time to look at the whole thing but my understanding of fusion is that as a power source still a few decades off at least - if a viable reactor can be devised. I would also seriously doubt whether it be done cheaply. Even ordinary fission reactors using technology which is well understood and has been in use since the 1950s have trouble at the moment competing with natural gas plants, as one of the commentators noted, especially in the US. Gas prices are low and the stuff is easy to access.

If you want to decarbonise power production within the lifetime of anyone reading this then fission power remains the only way to do it but that is something that activists just do not want to hear and, in any case, just isn't happening. Existing reactors are losing the battle with NG in particular. Fusion is an interesting idea but don't hold your breath waiting for it.  

[D Chandrasekharam + 3]

Nuclear energy is the only solution to reduce carbon emissions. Research should focus on safety and waste disposal. Waste disposal in geological repositories is not a viable solution. Small canisters with waste can be utilized to generate power for utility buildings and large commercial complexes. I have already discussed about it and published a model way back in 2010. Solar PV is being promoted as a clean energy. This is not true. Manufacturing solar PV cell is an energy intensive process that utilizess coal/carbon. PV cell thus already emits considerable amount of carbon dioxide during its life cycle and can not be given a clean chit!! 

[Boat + 1,315]

33 minutes ago, D Chandrasekharam said:

Nuclear energy is the only solution to reduce carbon emissions. Research should focus on safety and waste disposal. Waste disposal in geological repositories is not a viable solution. Small canisters with waste can be utilized to generate power for utility buildings and large commercial complexes. I have already discussed about it and published a model way back in 2010. Solar PV is being promoted as a clean energy. This is not true. Manufacturing solar PV cell is an energy intensive process that utilizess coal/carbon. PV cell thus already emits considerable amount of carbon dioxide during its life cycle and can not be given a clean chit!! 

In Texas coal use went from 60% to 20% while wind has reached 20%. The argument of don’t build anything from coal is silly. Don’t worry, your still dying from pollution but in areas just not as quick.

[Boat + 1,315]

Btw, I read one of those smaller nuke plants got the go ahead. We’ll see in a few years if that tech can compete.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

We have a perfectly good fusion reactor in place, it just happens to be about 150 million Km away.

 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

7 hours ago, D Chandrasekharam said:

Nuclear energy is the only solution to reduce carbon emissions. Research should focus on safety and waste disposal. Waste disposal in geological repositories is not a viable solution. Small canisters with waste can be utilized to generate power for utility buildings and large commercial complexes. I have already discussed about it and published a model way back in 2010. Solar PV is being promoted as a clean energy. This is not true. Manufacturing solar PV cell is an energy intensive process that utilizess coal/carbon. PV cell thus already emits considerable amount of carbon dioxide during its life cycle and can not be given a clean chit!! 

What do you think of using fast breeder reactors to burn nuclear waste further? My understanding is there's ~1,000 years of power generation still left in the nuclear waste we already have.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

What do you think of using fast breeder reactors to burn nuclear waste further? My understanding is there's ~1,000 years of power generation still left in the nuclear waste we already have.

Alternative fission plants create isotopes that are more easily weaponized.

I would like to see a weapon-to-energy plant where old bombs are disassembled and used for energy in a high-security facility.

 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

Every time posts like this show up, I invite people to keyword search 'Hydrogen Boron 11 Fusion'. This is definitely nuclear fusion - however it is not 'large', expensive, or radioactive.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Every time posts like this show up, I invite people to keyword search 'Hydrogen Boron 11 Fusion'. This is definitely nuclear fusion - however it is not 'large', expensive, or radioactive.

Well, at least it's fusion and not all fo those off-topic fission posts. However, p+B11 is apparently much harder to do than D+T, and as far as I can see p+B11 has not yet been accomplished at all, while D+T is (sort of) achievable in a Tokamak, just not with net energy output yet. Until I see reports of actual break-even devices, practical D+T is still 20 years away, just as it has been since 1950. To me practical p+B11 is the same.

Don't get me wrong: I would love to see small, deployable p+B11 reactors. The theoretical advantages of aneutronic fusion are overwhelming and would utterly transform the entire energy economy, making all other forms of energy, both fossil and renewable, completely irrelevant. But I don't think we will get it in the nest 20 years.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 9/10/2020 at 7:31 AM, Meredith Poor said:

Every time posts like this show up, I invite people to keyword search 'Hydrogen Boron 11 Fusion'. This is definitely nuclear fusion - however it is not 'large', expensive, or radioactive.

Note also that, while your assertions are basically true, there are caveats. First, By convention we call p+B11==>3He4 "fusion" but it's actually fission. We call it fusion because we lump it in with other relatively clean light-element nuclear reactions instead of lumping it with heavy-element nuclear reactions that have nasty decay products.

Next, it's still radioactive, just not very radioactive. For example it's a lot less radioactive (curies per MWh) than, say, coal fly ash, but it's still radioactive. First, there are a few low-probability side reaction that generate neutrons, and these will ultimately create radioactive isotopes in the reactor shielding. Next, a fair amount of the energy will result in hard x-rays generated by bremsstrahlung, right? This energy must be captured in the shielding, which will convert it into heat which in turn can be used to generate electricity. The x-rays don't produce radioactive isotopes, but this still means you need a fair amount of shielding mass, say a 10 cm thickness of lead all the way around, so even the smallest reactor will weigh at least 500 Kg.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Note also that, while your assertions are basically true, there are caveats. First, By convention we call p+B11==>3He4 "fusion" but it's actually fission. We call it fusion because we lump it in with other relatively clean light-element nuclear reactions instead of lumping it with heavy-element nuclear reactions that have nasty decay products.

Next, it's still radioactive, just not very radioactive. For example it's a lot less radioactive (curies per MWh) than, say, coal fly ash, but it's still radioactive. First, there are a few low-probability side reaction that generate neutrons, and these will ultimately create radioactive isotopes in the reactor shielding. Next, a fair amount of the energy will result in hard x-rays generated by bremsstrahlung, right? This energy must be captured in the shielding, which will convert it into heat which in turn can be used to generate electricity. The x-rays don't produce radioactive isotopes, but this still means you need a fair amount of shielding mass, say a 10 cm thickness of lead all the way around, so even the smallest reactor will weigh at least 500 Kg.

Breaking Boron 11 into Helium is obviously 'fission', as you point out. Gamma radiation is easily absorbed by water, or more specifically by the hydrogen in the water. General Electric found that they could make effective radiation shielding out of UltraHighMolecularWeight (UMHW) Polyethylene mixed with Tungsten. So a small reactor might be the same size, but not necessarily the same weight.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Breaking Boron 11 into Helium is obviously 'fission', as you point out. Gamma radiation is easily absorbed by water, or more specifically by the hydrogen in the water. General Electric found that they could make effective radiation shielding out of UltraHighMolecularWeight (UMHW) Polyethylene mixed with Tungsten. So a small reactor might be the same size, but not necessarily the same weight.

To a first approximation, shielding for gamma rays and x-rays requires "mass in the path": You can use lead, or you can use tungsten in a polymer matrix, but the shielding comes from the mass.  Tungsten is denser than lead, but it is refractory, so you cannot easily cast it or otherwise work it. Therefore, just put tungsten powder in a plastic melt and then cast that. The result will have a density about like lead.

https://www.eichrom.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/gamma-ray-attenuation-white-paper-by-d.m.-rev-4.pdf

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

The bad thing about gamma rays is they are hard to shield.

The good thing about gamma rays is they rarely interact with matter.

If an inch of lead doesn't stop it then your body probably won't either - it just passes through.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

14 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

The bad thing about gamma rays is they are hard to shield.

The good thing about gamma rays is they rarely interact with matter.

If an inch of lead doesn't stop it then your body probably won't either - it just passes through.

Sorry, but Gamma rays and the somewhat less energetic X rays are ionizing radiation. They are very dangerous in high doses and somewhat dangerous in lower doses. This is why the x-ray room in a hospital is heavily shielded to protect the technicians.  1 cm of lead cuts this radiation in half, 2 cm cuts in by fours, and 10 cm (about 4 in) cuts it by 1024. your "inch of lead" cuts it by a factor of about 6. This stuff is nasty. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome

lead is roughly ten times the density of your body. A path of length ten inches through your body will interpose about the same mass as a path of 1 inch in lead, and will therefore stop about 5/6 of the gamma rays. Every stopped gamma ray is stopped by either the photoelectric effect or the Compton effect and produces an energetic electron that tears up the tissue around it. Gamma radiation is what the general public is usually talking about when the term "radiation" is used. Alpha and beta are less penetrating. Neutrons are a different story.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry, but Gamma rays and the somewhat less energetic X rays are ionizing radiation. They are very dangerous in high doses and somewhat dangerous in lower doses. This is why the x-ray room in a hospital is heavily shielded to protect the technicians.  1 cm of lead cuts this radiation in half, 2 cm cuts in by fours, and 10 cm (about 4 in) cuts it by 1024. your "inch of lead" cuts it by a factor of about 6. This stuff is nasty. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome

lead is roughly ten times the density of your body. A path of length ten inches through your body will interpose about the same mass as a path of 1 inch in lead, and will therefore stop about 5/6 of the gamma rays. Every stopped gamma ray is stopped by either the photoelectric effect or the Compton effect and produces an energetic electron that tears up the tissue around it. Gamma radiation is what the general public is usually talking about when the term "radiation" is used. Alpha and beta are less penetrating. Neutrons are a different story.

I'm very familiar with the science, I've worked with radioactive materials. X-rays are much easier to stop than gamma.

My old lab did Ra 226 and Ba 133 analysis as well as X-ray florescence. Our radium lab was in the basement with about a foot of lead around the detectors, mostly to block background radiation, not from the samples.

x-ray florescence unit had much less shielding, maybe an inch, and we couldn't detect any leakage.

But, yes - the stuff is bad.

 

[specinho + 439]

I probably have a glimpse about how we like high expenditure energy plants or projects........

But...................... If our intention is merely to boil water............... here might be a range of energy to choose from??

[Meredith Poor + 883]

Sapphire project:

What they're saying here is that they already have fusion, and they also have elemental transmutation, particularly transmutation capable of converting radioactive waste to harmless elements. Their efforts from here are focused on scaling up and commercialization.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

Evidently people have been building 'fusors' in their basements (or garages) for some time. These aren't necessarily very safe, since they generate copious quantities of X-Rays. Some of this seems to be on the scale of 'high school science project'.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html

This link points to a video that is short on details but indicates that Lockheed Martin is developing 'small' fusion reactors.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

12 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

Evidently people have been building 'fusors' in their basements (or garages) for some time. These aren't necessarily very safe, since they generate copious quantities of X-Rays. Some of this seems to be on the scale of 'high school science project'.

Yes, the first Farnsworth fusor was built before 1960, I think. Nobody has ever figured out how to get more energy out than you put in.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

55 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yes, the first Farnsworth fusor was built before 1960, I think. Nobody has ever figured out how to get more energy out than you put in.

The point of the Safire project is that they are succeeding in this, by about 14:1 output over input.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

16 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

The point of the Safire project is that they are succeeding in this, by about 14:1 output over input.

That is their claim and I have no information to cause me to doubt it, except for general skepticism after 70 years of fusion claims. I would love for this to become practical quickly. My earlier response about breakeven was specifically about the Farnsworth fusor and not about the Safire project.

Please note that Safire is not and does not claim to be aneutronic: our discussion of aneutronic fusion (p+B11) is not relevant to Safire. Safire claims to be able to deactivate nasty old fission waste. This means that Safire is a potent source of fast neutrons, which it would have to be since it operates by fusion of hydrogen (type unspecified, but probably D-T) and all types of hydrogen fusion emit fast neutrons. But dealing with fast neutrons is  major engineering challenge, because they transmute and radioactivate parts of your reactor. The radioactivity per MWh of energy will be dramatically lower than with fission (or coal ash) but it must still be dealt with.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

4 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

That is their claim and I have no information to cause me to doubt it, except for general skepticism after 70 years of fusion claims. I would love for this to become practical quickly. My earlier response about breakeven was specifically about the Farnsworth fusor and not about the Safire project.

Please note that Safire is not and does not claim to be aneutronic: our discussion of aneutronic fusion (p+B11) is not relevant to Safire. Safire claims to be able to deactivate nasty old fission waste. This means that Safire is a potent source of fast neutrons, which it would have to be since it operates by fusion of hydrogen (type unspecified, but probably D-T) and all types of hydrogen fusion emit fast neutrons. But dealing with fast neutrons is  major engineering challenge, because they transmute and radioactivate parts of your reactor. The radioactivity per MWh of energy will be dramatically lower than with fission (or coal ash) but it must still be dealt with.

Since the Safire people claim that they use 'ordinary' hydrogen (they are specific in that they don't need deuterium) there has to be another source of neutrons. This would suggest some other element is introduced into the plasma, most likely helium. However, any other noble gas would work. Either that, or the reaction is 'eating' the anode.

Some of the videos show people working around the reactor chamber without any protective equipment. However, the chamber may be surrounded by shielding.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/16/2020 at 5:39 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry, but Gamma rays and the somewhat less energetic X rays are ionizing radiation. They are very dangerous in high doses and somewhat dangerous in lower doses. This is why the x-ray room in a hospital is heavily shielded to protect the technicians.  1 cm of lead cuts this radiation in half, 2 cm cuts in by fours, and 10 cm (about 4 in) cuts it by 1024. your "inch of lead" cuts it by a factor of about 6. This stuff is nasty. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome

lead is roughly ten times the density of your body. A path of length ten inches through your body will interpose about the same mass as a path of 1 inch in lead, and will therefore stop about 5/6 of the gamma rays. Every stopped gamma ray is stopped by either the photoelectric effect or the Compton effect and produces an energetic electron that tears up the tissue around it. Gamma radiation is what the general public is usually talking about when the term "radiation" is used. Alpha and beta are less penetrating. Neutrons are a different story.

You might be surprised to hear this, but in a nuclear explosion, it is actually the alpha particles that do the most damage. They stick to particles of dust, and when you breath them in, they have twice the ionising power of beta radiation.