The fusion age has begun.

Calliban · 2023-07-30 18:49:40

This paper is interesting.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 … 655/abfb4b

It suggests that through careful optimisation of the muon generator, a muon catalysed fusion system would achieve breakeven, maybe even a slight net energy gain.

Whilst just a device is unlikely to yield a practical powerplant, optimised muon catalysed fusion could provide lots of neutrons for a fusion fission hybrid system. Fusion would provide the neutrons needed to initiate fission in a surrounding blanket. Fission would provide extra lower energy neutrons to breed tritium. Lithium would serve as coolant for the metallic DU fuel plates in the blanket.

D-T fusion yields about 17MeV, of which 14MeV is released as neutrons. This is far above the 1MeV threshold for fast-fission of 238U. This reference suggests that fast-fission of 239Pu at neutron energy of 10MeV will yield as many as five additional neutrons. Similar yield can be expected for 238U fast fission.
https://t2.lanl.gov/nis/endf/intro22.html

This high neutron yield has two consequences.

1. Each fusion event that is catalysed by a muon will release a 14MeV neutron and will consume a tritium nuclei. A high neutron yield from fast-fission in the blanket, allows plenty of free neutrons to produce additional tritium by reacting with lithium in the coolant.

2. The abundance of neutrons allows a hybrid to function as a breed-and-burn reactor, with an initial load of DU fuel being loaded at the outer edges of the blanket. As the 238U absorbs fission neutrons streaming out from the blanket plates close to fusion core, some nuclei will fast-fission, others will transmute in 239Pu. As each fuel plate is shuffled inwards, it will breed progressively more 239Pu, which will also generate power as it absorbs neutrons and fissions. The fuel will generate power until ~20% of actinide atoms have fissioned. At this point, it can be removed.

A fusion-fission hybrid breed-and-burn reactor can in this way extract a high proportion of the energy contained in uranium and can be loaded with depleted uranium, which is a waste product from enrichment. No reprocessing is required, as (1) DU is highly abundant; (2) The reactor will extract 20% of the total energy content of the uranium - about 50x more than existing fuel cycles; (3) Plutonium is both bred and burned as the fuel shuffles inward, negating the need for fresh fuel to contain plutonium.

Each fission event will yield approximately 200MeV and will be driven by a 17MeV fusion event. If the fusion reaction generates enough heat to break even, then we can assume that the fission blankets will multiply that energy yield by a factor of 200/17 = 11.76, at beggining of life, with a layered fuel blanket consisting entirely of DU. As the reactor operates and breeding progresses, an increasing proportion of new fissions will occur as secondary events, as fission neutrons cause fission of 239Pu and fast-fission of 238U.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-07-30 18:55:57)

tahanson43206 · 2023-07-30 18:51:48

For Calliban .... depleted Uranium .... I could go to Wikipedia, but since you are here, what is the difference between Depleted Uranium and ordinary Uranium?

(th)

Calliban · 2023-07-30 19:10:20

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban .... depleted Uranium .... I could go to Wikipedia, but since you are here, what is the difference between Depleted Uranium and ordinary Uranium?
(th)

Natural U contains 0.71% 235U. It is the input to the enrichment process and can be used in CANDU reactors without enrichment. DU is the waste uranium tailings that emerge from the gas centrifuges in the enrichment plant. Depending on the price of the natural uranium feedstock, DU will have a 235U concentration of 0.3-0.4%. It is not useful directly as a nuclear fuel in standard fission reactors. The military use it to make armour piercing shells because it is dense and there are few other uses for it. For each kg of 5% LEU fuel produced by enrichment for a reactor, some 10 - 15kg of DU are produced as waste. So the world is swimming in DU that no one really has much use for.

Although nuclear fuel is millions of times more energy dense than chemical fuel, the once through enrichment cycles of light water reactors extract a pitiful amount of the energy content of uranium. About 4% of uranium in LEU fuel will actually fission. But it takes at least 10kg of natural U to make 1kg of LEU. So conventional light water reactors will extract only 0.3 - 0.4% of the energy in the natural uranium. That is rather poor.

The hybrid reactor could be loaded with natural U or DU and would fission some 20% of uranium atoms. The 20% limit is imposed by the ability of fuel cladding to remain intact under neutron flux. But this already at least 50% as much energy per unit mass of fuel than a standard PWR.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-07-30 19:15:43)

tahanson43206 · 2023-07-30 19:15:21

For Calliban re #128 .... thanks for the explanation!

I gather that the term "depleted" refers primarily to the percentage of U235, and has nothing to do with changes to the Uranium itself.

Would it be correct to deduce that the U-238 is unchanged by the enrichment process?

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-07-30 19:16:23

And Calliban ... since you are still awake past midnight in the UK, GW Johnson and RGClark (and kbd512) are deep in discussion of rocketry.

I'm watching the login waiting room.

(th)

Calliban · 2023-07-30 19:32:37

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban re #128 .... thanks for the explanation!
I gather that the term "depleted" refers primarily to the percentage of U235, and has nothing to do with changes to the Uranium itself.
Would it be correct to deduce that the U-238 is unchanged by the enrichment process?
(th)

Yes. Enrichment is a sorting process. The 235U is concentrated in one part of the uranium and depleted from the rest. So the tailings have more 238U and less 235U. For the stuff that gets used as fuel, the opposite happens.

The 238U will not fission with slow neutrons. It will absorb some neutrons and produce 239Pu. But the fast neutrons produced by fusion have enough energy to fast-fission 238U directly. This is how a breed-and-burn cycle can be fuelled with DU. It is challenging to achieve this in a conventional fission reactor, even a fast reactor. What makes it easier with a fusion-fission hybrid, is that those really high energy neutrons produced by the fusion reaction yield a lot of extra neutrons when they cause fission. Fission neutron yield increases as the energy of the neutron causing the fission increases. All of those extra neutrons will stream into the depleted uranium fuel metal, where they will be absorbed, breeding plutonium. When there is enough plutonium in the core, a lot of the fission events occur as fast-fission causes secondary fission in the plutonium.

I suggested that we use metallic uranium fuel for the blankets, because this keeps the neutron spectrum as hard (high energy) as possible. The harder the spectrum, the more fast fission you get. The more neutron rich the reactor is, the less energy you need to pour into the fusion driver. The lithium coolant is a light element with a high neutron scattering and absorption cross section. We want enough lithium to generate sufficient tritium, but no more. The coolant could be a blend of sodium and lithium to avoid softening the spectrum any more than neccesary. Fuel cladding will probably be stainless steel.

tahanson43206 wrote:

And Calliban ... since you are still awake past midnight in the UK, GW Johnson and RGClark (and kbd512) are deep in discussion of rocketry.
I'm watching the login waiting room.
(th)

I would need to set up my laptop, so will probably miss this one. Are you planning to make it a regular thing? If so, I will put a slot in my diary.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-07-30 19:37:53)

tahanson43206 · 2023-07-30 19:52:06

For Calliban re topic and meeting ...

Yes, now that we have brought the Zoom meetings back online, with a successful collaboration of RGClark, GW Johnson and kbd512, I am hopeful we can keep the momentum going. It would indeed be (not sure of right word but along the lines of "excellent") if we could bring a member or two from Europe into the mix.

We have only one nuclear engineer in the active membership, but others may be able to stretch, and we have plenty of ID's ready to go for new members, if we can provide an environment which they would find inviting.

I appreciate your having read Dr. Zubrin's book .... While it is unlikely Dr. Zubrin will ever visit NewMars, there are plenty of readers of his book (I am sure) and there might be one or two of those who would be interested in NewMars.

(th)

Calliban · 2023-07-30 20:31:53

I will make myself available for the next session. Same day, same time?

I ran a few calculations because I wanted to know how much it would add to the cost of power on Mars, if we had to import uranium from Earth. Fission of 235U, yields an average of about 203MeV. About 9MeV of that energy is lost as neutrinos. So each fission yields 194MeV of energy that we can actually use. There are 6.02E23 atoms of 235U in 235 grams of uranium. And there are 4.26mol of 235U in 1kg of 235U. 1eV = 1.6E-19J.

So, each kg of 235U yields 79,614,628,085,106J (22,115,174kWh) of thermal energy. However, LEU is only 5% 235U and only 4% of the total mass of uranium is fissioned when the fuel is discharged. So 1kg of LEU shipped from Earth will yield some 884,607kWh if we put it into a light water reactor on Mars. About 30% of that heat will be converted to electricity in a small LWR. So that gives 265,382kWh(e) for each kg of fuel we import from Earth.

How much will Earth-Mars transportation costs add to the price of electricity? That depends upon the Earth-Mars transportation cost. Elon Musk believes that that Starship could eventually reduce LEO launch cost to $20/kg. Under that scenerio, Earth - Mars freight transport could drop in price to $100/kg. Under that scenario, uranium transportation cost would add 0.04 cents/kWh to Mars generation costs. If transportation costs are as high as $2000/kg, then transportation would add 0.8 cent/kWh. This is still small, especially when you consider that the reactor plant will weigh many times more than its fuel and most of its mass must be shipped from Earth, initially at least.

I conclude that for a Mars base, the most sensible nuclear fuel is LEU, imported from Earth and deployed in a once through cycle in a light water reactor. This is especially the case as long as other much heavier reactor components also must be imported from Earth. The relatively low efficiency of a light water reactor is in some ways less problematic on Mars, because waste heat is in itself a valuable input to agriculture and water mining.

In the longer term, Martian fuel needs are likely to grow rapidly, because living on Mars requires a lot more energy per capita than living on Earth and Martian energy supply will be overwhelmingly dominated by nuclear fission. When Martian fuel consumption grows to levels rivalling an Earth nation, it becomes vulnerable to supply disruptions that may effect fuel supply. As life absolutely depends upon a reliable uranium supply on Mars, we might consider developing a more efficient fuel cycle once electrical power demand grows beyond about 10GWe. This is about the point where Martian population exceeds 1 million people. Which takes us up to the point that Elon Musk wants to see achieved by 2050. I don't know how realistic that is.

At that point, exploration shoukd have identified uranium and thorium deposits on Mars. If uranium turns out to be abundant, then CANDU type reactors could allow the Martian nuclear power sector to grow without the need for enrichment capabilities. If uranium is less abundant, then fusion-fission hybrids allow a 50x greater energy yield per unit of mined uranium than LWRs or heavy water reactors. This option therefore allows even relatively meager Martian uranium deposits to support an abundant energy economy. No enrichment or reprocessing would be needed. The spent fuel would cool off in ponds until decay heat had declined enough to store it in dry cast iron casks on the Martian surface. When Martian population reaches 100 million, we may decide to build a reprocessing plant.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-07-30 20:53:22)

tahanson43206 · 2023-07-31 06:34:43

For Calliban re #133

Thanks for this financial analysis, which (appears as I read it) to show that even low enriched uranium shipped to Mars would literally pay for itself by delivering both power and heat, and a valuable byproduct that can be harvested later by more advanced technologies.

***
Regarding Zoom ... please consider inviting folks you'd like to work with on this topic, or others you may wish to pursue.

We have an inventory of NewMars ID's created by spammers over 20 years, and the procedure to convert them to ** real ** people is by now well tested.

What we do NOT need are more members who connect and then continue their busy lives elsewhere.

If you have contacts you'd like to add to a core group working on fission power for Mars, the NewMars site is restarted, and there are indications the site will be properly maintained in future. I'm not yet clear on details of how that will happen, but I'll keep pursuing the matter.

In an ideal situation, we would have three working backups at the homes of three of the four Admins.

The base web site has been restored to use older software to run, but it needs to be upgraded to current generation support software, and then kept up to date.

The web site had no Webmaster after James Burk was promoted to Executive Director, and I failed to properly work that problem. The recent crash of the main web site at Mars Society revealed that the NewMars site could not boot using current generation support software, so it has been temporarily given a lifeline of some old obsolete software.

(th)

Calliban · 2023-07-31 11:54:54

From the Wiki article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear … ion_hybrid

'Fission occurs naturally because each event gives off more than one neutron capable of producing additional fission events. Fusion, at least in D-T fuel, gives off only a single neutron, and that neutron is not capable of producing more fusion events. When that neutron strikes fissile material in the blanket, one of two reactions may occur. In many cases, the kinetic energy of the neutron will cause one or two neutrons to be struck out of the nucleus without causing fission. These neutrons still have enough energy to cause other fission events. In other cases the neutron will be captured and cause fission, which will release two or three neutrons. This means that every fusion neutron in the fusion–fission design can result in anywhere between two and four neutrons in the fission fuel.[13]

This is a key concept in the hybrid concept, known as fission multiplication. For every fusion event, several fission events may occur, each of which gives off much more energy than the original fusion, about 11 times. This greatly increases the total power output of the reactor. This has been suggested as a way to produce practical fusion reactors in spite of the fact that no fusion reactor has yet reached break-even, by multiplying the power output using cheap fuel or waste. [13] However, a number of studies have repeatedly demonstrated that this only becomes practical when the overall reactor is very large, 2 to 3 GWt, which makes it expensive to build. [14]'
*****************************************

The ability of the hybrid to function efficiently depends critically on neutron economy. The high energy neutrons yielded from fusion reactions would allow the hybrid a much higher breeding ratio than a classic fast breeder. But the key to this performance is to avoid or minimise the presence of light elements that could slow neutrons by collision. A 3GWth heat production is certainly not large by historical standards for a nuclear reactor. Given that a city of 1 million people on Mars may need several GW of electric power, we could certainly afford to scale reactors up even more if it benefits neutron economy.

The reference below describes a Japanese concept for a fast-breeder (pure fission) reactor with an exceptionally high breeding ratio of 1.84, thanks to design decisions that maintain a hard neutron spectrum.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5560940

Those design choices were: (1) The use of metallic U-Pu-Zr alloy fuel and (2) Tube-in-shell fuel assembly design; and (3) The use of high pressure pumped liquid sodium as coolant. If we could repeat those design choices for a hybrid reactor, then the harder neutron spectrum should result in even better breeding ratios for the hybrid. A single hybrid reactor should generate 1-2GWe of electric power and enough excess plutonium to fuel three additional light water reactors, each with comparable power output. The hybrid will therefore be especially useful in supporting energy production if nuclear fuel turns out to be scarce on Mars.

If Martian population is 1 million in 2050 and is growing at 3% per year, which is a fairly typical growth rate, then population would be 369 million after 200 years. That is comparable to North America. Some estimates put per capita electricity requirements on Mars at 10kWe. If power consumption is that high, then we need to build 3700GWe of generating capacity in 2 centuries. If we want to produce power for terraforming efforts, we would need even more. Let us look at a starting point of 1 million people in 2050 and assume population growth rate 3% per year and per capita energy consumption of 10kWe. Power needs would be growing by 300MWe per year. To keep up, we must build a 1200MWe nuclear reactor in about 3 years. After that, we must build 2x 1200MWe reactors in 5 years. And so on. This sort of building rate is achievable. But it requires that a non trivial fraction of population are employed in energy production. It may also require the high breeding ratio that only hybrid reactors can provide.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-07-31 13:27:27)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-07 04:48:53

US scientists achieve net energy gain for second time in nuclear fusion reaction
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … n-reaction

Predicting molecular rotational temperature for enhanced plasma recombination
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-molecular … ation.html

How China has Become the World's Fastest Expanding Nuclear Power Producer
https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china … r-producer

What if Titan Dragonfly had a fusion engine?
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-titan-dra … usion.html

In a little over four years, NASA's Dragonfly mission will launch into space and begin its long journey towards Titan, Saturn's largest moon. As part of the New Frontiers program, this quadcopter will explore Titan's atmosphere, surface, and methane lakes for possible indications of life (aka. biosignatures).
This will commence in 2034, with a science phase lasting for three years and three and a half months. The robotic explorer will rely on a nuclear battery—a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermal Generator (MMRTG)—to ensure its longevity.
But what if Dragonfly were equipped with a next-generation fusion power system? In a recent mission study paper, a team of researchers from Princeton Satellite Systems demonstrated how a direct fusion drive (DFD) could greatly enhance a mission to Titan. This New Jersey-based aerospace company is developing fusion systems that rely on the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC).
This research could lead to compact fusion reactors that could lead to rapid transits, longer-duration missions, and miniature nuclear reactors here on Earth.
The research team was led by Michael Paluszek, the president of Princeton Satellite Systems (PSS) and an aeronautic and astronautical engineer with a long history of experience in space systems and the commercial space industry. He was joined by multiple colleagues from PSS, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson AFB, and Princeton and Stanford University. Their mission study, "Nuclear fusion powered Titan aircraft," recently appeared in Acta Astronautica.
The concept of nuclear propulsion goes back to the early Space Age when NASA and the Soviet space program sought to develop reactors to power future missions beyond the Earth-moon system. Between 1964 and 1969, their efforts led to the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA), a solid-core reactor that relies on the slow-decay of highly-enriched uranium (235U) to power a nuclear-thermal propulsion (NTP) or nuclear-electric propulsion (NEP) system.
The former relies on a reactor to heat deuterium (2H) and liquid oxygen (LOX) propellant, which is then directed through nozzles to generate thrust. The latter involves a reactor providing electricity to a Hall-Effect thruster or ion engine that relies on electromagnetic fields to ionize an inert gas (like xenon) that is directed through nozzles for thrust. In contrast to these traditional nuclear engines, the direct fusion drive (DFD) calls for a nuclear-fusion rocket engine that would produce both thrust and electric power for an interplanetary spacecraft.
In a previous study, an international research team proposed how a spacecraft equipped with a 2-megawatt (MW) DFD could transport a 1000 kg (2200 lbs) payload to Titan in less than 2.6 years (~31 months). This is over twice the mass of the Dragonfly mission, which is (relatively speaking) a featherweight by comparison—450 kg (990 lbs). A transit time of 2.6 years is also significantly less than the seven years the Dragonfly's spacecraft will take to reach Titan.
In their paper, Paluszek and his colleagues extended this work to include an aircraft as the payload, which would explore Titan's atmosphere and surface for years. And unlike the Dragonfly's quadcopter design, their Titan aircraft would be a fixed-wing robotic explorer. As Paluszek told Universe Today via email, the key to this spacecraft concept is the PFRC reactor concept developed by researchers at the PPPL:
"The Princeton Field Reversed Configuration is a magnetic topology in which fields, produced by antennas, close the field lines within a magnetic mirror. The antennas produce what is called a rotating magnetic field (RMF). Fusion takes place in this closed field region. Additional lower-temperature plasma streams around the fusion region to produce an exhaust stream with the best exhaust velocity and thrust for a given mission."
According to their paper, a DFD propulsive engine could transport a sizable spacecraft to Titan in less than two years. A second fusion reactor would power the Titan spacecraft as a closed-loop electrical power generator. Both reactors would be based on the PFRC concept and rely on a novel radio-frequency plasma heating system and deuterium/helium-3 (2H/3He) fuel. This would give the Titan aircraft significantly more power (by several orders of magnitude) and greatly extend the life of the mission. Said Paluszek:
"The Titan aircraft is much larger. It provides over 100 kW for experiments. Dragonfly supplies about 70 W. More power means faster data transfer to Earth and a whole new class of high-power instruments. The NASA Jupiter Icy moon Orbiter mission had a similar amount of power, and many novel instruments that required kWs of power were planned."
Utilizing nuclear power to advance space exploration is something that space agencies have been investigating since the dawn of the Space Age. With the Artemis Program and the return to the moon in this decade, and missions to Mars and other deep-space destinations in the next, NASA and other space agencies are once again considering potential applications. These include bimodal nuclear spacecraft equipped with an NTP and NEP system that could reduce transits to Mars to 100 days (it currently takes six to nine months for spacecraft to travel there).
An NTP system was recently selected for Phase I development as part of the 2023 NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program that could reduce transit times to as little as 45 days. In addition, NASA has contracted with DARPA to test an NTP prototype—the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO)—in orbit by 2027. There are also efforts to develop small, lightweight fission systems through NASA's Fission Surface Power (FSP) project to continuously provide up to 10 kilowatts (kW) of power for at least ten years.
These latter efforts build on NASA's Kilopower project, which led to the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY (KRUSTY) demonstrator. As Paluszek explained, a DFD that relies on the PFRC reactor design could drastically improve on these proposals. What's more, the technology has significant implications for space exploration and terrestrial applications as well:
"A key number is the ratio of power to power plant mass. DFD should be around 1 kW/kg. NEP is about 0.02 kW/kg. This tech could be used for portable power for emergencies or for the military. It could power remote towns that don't have a grid-tie [and] for industrial applications where a grid-tie is not available. It could power ships and very long-endurance drone aircraft. It could also be used for modular power plants, much like wind turbines and solar. Another application is peaking power."

tahanson43206 · 2023-08-07 06:49:53

For Mars_B4_Moon re #136

Thank you for the links in this post, and particularly for including the text of the Dragonfly replacement proposal.

I was happy to see Princeton showing up once again in advanced space related technology.

The fuel for the proposed system is Deuterium and Helium 3.

Deuterium is present in sea water. Helium 3 is rare, but it can be made from tritium, which can be made from Lithium.

Per Google:

The lithium nucleus absorbs a neutron and splits into helium-4 and tritium. Tritium decays into helium-3 with a half-life of 12.3 years, so helium-3 can be produced by simply storing the tritium until it undergoes radioactive decay.
Helium-3 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Helium-3

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-21 05:14:05

New Announcement: We are building a new Magnetized Target Fusion demonstration machine (LM26) in Richmond, BC, designed to achieve fusion conditions by 2025 and progress toward scientific breakeven by 2026.

https://twitter.com/GeneralFusion/statu … 9850179584

Our vision is a world that has clean, limitless energy. Our mission is to help deliver it. Discover the future in fusion at generalfusion.com.
CANADA | UK | USA

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-09-18 18:15:51

more of a learning science project than a profitable one? to squeeze plasma into a donut type shape

Student-built nuclear fusion reactor to debut in Australia | The student-built Tokamak reactor will be 3 X 3 feet in size and be the first such facility built for nuclear fusion in a university

https://interestingengineering.com/inno … y-students

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-09-23 03:12:28

China launches ‘Kuafu’ nuclear fusion research facility, named after mythical giant, in quest to build ‘artificial sun’
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science … uest-build

Microsoft’s Rationale For Nuclear Fusion And Direct Air Capture Bets
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilvers … ture-bets/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-10-07 07:59:45

Magnetic Fusion Plasma Engines Could Carry us Across the Solar System and Into Interstellar Space

https://www.universetoday.com/163348/ma … lar-space/

Missions to the Moon, missions to Mars, robotic explorers to the outer Solar System, a mission to the nearest star, and maybe even a spacecraft to catch up to interstellar objects passing through our system. If you think this sounds like a description of the coming age of space exploration, then you’d be correct! At this moment, there are multiple plans and proposals for missions that will send astronauts and/or probes to all of these destinations to conduct some of the most lucrative scientific research ever performed. Naturally, these mission profiles raise all kinds of challenges, not the least of which is propulsion.

Simply put, humanity is reaching the limits of what conventional (chemical) propulsion can do. To send missions to Mars and other deep space destinations, advanced propulsion technologies are required that offer high acceleration (delta-v), specific impulse (Isp), and fuel efficiency. In a recent paper, Leiden Professor Florian Neukart proposes how future missions could rely on a novel propulsion concept known as the Magnetic Fusion Plasma Drive (MFPD). This device combines aspects of different propulsion methods to create a system that offers high energy density and fuel efficiency significantly greater than conventional methods.

SpaceNut · 2023-11-25 20:07:09

'Wright brothers': US startup aims nuclear fusion using plasma railguns

NearStar Fusion, a five-person startup in Chantilly, Virginia, has a new energy-generating approach using nuclear fusion. The company is training plasma railguns to get over the hurdle of generating more power than is put in, Technical.ly reported on Monday.
Nuclear fusion is considered the holy grail of the energy sector that will solve the world's energy woes once achieved. Unlike nuclear fission, where heavy atoms are split in a nuclear reactor, nuclear fusion aims to fuse atoms of lighter elements like hydrogen to make stable products like helium, much like the process that occurs on the Sun.
Much of the attempts aimed at nuclear fusion have relied on the tokamak reactor, where the fuel, typically a pellet of hydrogen gas, is heated into its plasma state where the fusion can occur.
Inside the doughnut-shaped vacuum chamber of the tokamak, scientists aim to recreate conditions as seen on the Sun. The NIF, for instance, achieved its feat by using 192 lasers to target the pellet of hydrogen fuel. However, the lasers used by NIF are rather old and hence inefficient, say experts

AA1klAaw.img?w=768&h=432&m=6

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-11-27 10:55:29

Japan

NTT adapts AI network analysis tool to detect faults in nuclear fusion reactors
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/23/ … n_control/

energy news in the USA

US set to announce global nuclear fusion strategy at COP28
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-tra … -1-1558038

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-11-27 10:55:55)

tahanson43206 · 2023-11-27 11:21:55

For Mars_B4_Moon .... First, thanks for ALL the posts you've contributed!
Second, thanks for all the posts you've contributed ** recently **
Finally, thanks for Post #143, with the link to the COP28 planning ...

While reading that article, it hit me that there is a form of "hybrid" fusion I have not seen in any posts or articles or videos to this point...

For Calliban ... You are by far the best qualified of our current membership, to evaluate the potential of using lasers to help traditional magnet-squeeze systems (of which there are several designs) to achieve ignition.

You have discussed hybrid fission-fusion systems in the past, and it is possible (I can't recall) you might very well have included laser beams in your visions. In the current question, I am wondering if a laser beam (ie high energy photons) might assist a traditional magnetic-squeeze design (Tokamak, Stellarator, etc) to achieve ignition conditions?

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-04 07:16:47

AI solves nuclear fusion puzzle for near-limitless clean energy | "Nuclear fusion breakthough overcomes key barrier to grid-scale adoption"
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nucl … 05138.html
Recently AI solved an important puzzle for nuclear fusion, which means near-limitless clean energy if we can do it well, but it's a really intensive physical process (it requires about 150 million degrees Celsius) and has a lot of very complex technological challenges. Nuclear fusion reactors mimic the same process that happens in the Sun and in other stars.
According the researchers from Princeton University in the US (they published their research article "Avoiding fusion plasma tearing instability with deep reinforcement learning" in 2024.02.21. in the Nature scientific magazine):
"The latest success means another significant obstacle has been passed, with the AI capable of recognising plasma instabilities 300 milliseconds before they happen – enough time to make modifications to keep the plasma under control." So basically this means that the whole nuclear fusion process can be stabilized easier.

Calliban · 2024-03-04 07:30:37

B4, that is interesting. It could also potentially allow magnetic fusion devices to function at lower beta, i.e higher plasma pressure. Power output is proportional to the square of plasma pressure. So a 40% increase in plasma pressure will double power density. This is really important, because presently achievable plasma pressures would render power density too low for a commercially viable reactor.

On the downside, using an advanced computer to control a plasma millisecond by millisecond, does place a heavy burden on computational power and sensors capable of precise plasma mapping.

Presumably, the same active control mechanism woukd work for other approaches to fusion as well. The zeta z-pinch fusion experiments were ended by something called sausage instability. This happens because plasma conductivity increases with temperature, leading torunaway pinch effects. Active plasma control could presumably solve this problem as well. Using the plasma's own magnetic field for confinement would allow for far more compact and power dense fusion devices. But it comes at the expense of greater system complexity.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-03-04 07:31:17)

tahanson43206 · 2024-03-04 07:41:22

For Mars_B4_Moon re #145 .. thank you for finding and postings this report!

For Calliban re #146 ... Thanks for your comments.

While you see (or appear to see) computer control of the fusion process as a downside (and I can understand the objection) I see it as the key to achieving what the stars achieve with the brute force of gravity. If this system succeeds in the near future, it may (I hope) lead to similar success in handling the even more challenging anti-matter reactions of Star Trek fame.

A ** really ** significant positive outcome is creating of a very large employment opportunity for those willing to endure the rigors of scientific education and specifically advanced computer science education to support the wide spread of this technology.

As you have reminded this forum countless times, the well-being of the population of Earth (and everywhere) is directly related to success in harnessing atomic energy in all it's forms.

So! Once again, thanks to Mars_B4_Moon for finding and posting this important news.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-03-04 19:47:27

The post at the link below is about improvements in superconducting magnets. These were developed/discovered in 2021, and research has been continuing since then. Apparently results are encouraging.

https://interestingengineering.com/ener … cientists/

New superconducting magnets ready for fusion reactions, say scientists
Apache Internal Server error objected to something in the article...
In 2021, MIT researchers discovered a new type of superconducting magnet for fusion reactors. More than two years of testing showed it can work be used commercially.
Ameya Paleja
Published: Mar 04, 2024 07:43 AM EST
share
<snip>
The research findings were published in a special IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity issue.
Add Interesting Engineering to your Google News feed.news

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-23 04:55:36

Setting a laser like sight on a path to practical fusion

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Sett … n_999.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-24 04:38:35

Scientists inch towards holy grail of fusion reactors - Many companies predict commercial viability next decade, but more funding is needed now
https://www.ft.com/content/04a3c8a8-db2 … 537ecbc231

Physicists have been promising since the 1960s that fusion reactions have the potential to provide an abundant, emissions-free solution to the planet’s long-term energy needs.

Now, scientists, fusion executives and investors say the foundations may finally be in place for a company, or several, to demonstrate a commercially viable fusion plant by the 2030s.“

The stage is set for a big five years in fusion,” says Richard Pearson, a co-founder of Japan’s Kyoto Fusioneering, which was set up in 2019 to develop fusion power plant technology. “A lot has to happen, and there is a lot to do, but the emphasis and excitement in the industry is definitely there.

”The promise of fusion — in which hydrogen isotopes are heated to such extreme temperatures that they fuse, releasing energy — has tantalised researchers for decades.

other news

agreement to advance materials for commercial fusion
https://kyotofusioneering.com/en/news/2023/03/23/1321

Maybe gyrotron systems tritium fuel cycle technology and breeding blankets mentioned earlier

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-03-24 04:46:10)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2023-07-30 18:49:40

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#127 2023-07-30 18:51:48

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#128 2023-07-30 19:10:20

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#129 2023-07-30 19:15:21

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#130 2023-07-30 19:16:23

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#131 2023-07-30 19:32:37

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#132 2023-07-30 19:52:06

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#133 2023-07-30 20:31:53

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#134 2023-07-31 06:34:43

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#135 2023-07-31 11:54:54

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#136 2023-08-07 04:48:53

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#137 2023-08-07 06:49:53

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#138 2023-08-21 05:14:05

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#139 2023-09-18 18:15:51

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#140 2023-09-23 03:12:28

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#141 2023-10-07 07:59:45

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#142 2023-11-25 20:07:09

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#143 2023-11-27 10:55:29

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#144 2023-11-27 11:21:55

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#145 2024-03-04 07:16:47

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#146 2024-03-04 07:30:37

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#147 2024-03-04 07:41:22

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#148 2024-03-04 19:47:27

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#149 2024-03-23 04:55:36

Re: The fusion age has begun.

#150 2024-03-24 04:38:35

Re: The fusion age has begun.

Board footer