backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by holoman.. on Nov 17 at 11:02 PM


Princeton's NSTX reactor  (Source: Princeton/William Heidbrink)

Researchers at Princeton have devised a breakthrough in fusion plasma containment dubbed the "snowflake divertor", which would extend reactor component lifetimes and lower costs.  (Source: V. Soukhanovskii, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

Tests show the snowflake divertor achieves a lower temperature flux on the divertor walls and has a larger radiating region. This is good because it means that the walls will last longer without melting and requiring replacement.  (Source: V. Soukhanovskii, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
U.S. scientists devise a way to make fusion reactors safer and hardier, without compromising energy production

Taming ultra-hot plasma and sustaining a fusion reaction is no easy feat.  Scientists have been trying for some time now to accomplish the delicate dance to get a fusion reactor to produce a surplus of energy -- mimicking the processes occurring in the Sun.

Currently, hopes for productive fusion rest on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a multibillion-dollar international research reactor being constructed in Cadarache, France by an international team from the United States, China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation.

Scientists at the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and Dr. D.D. Ryutov from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory believe that they have devised a critical solution for the new reactor, utilizing their much smaller test reactor.

From Russia With Love

The Tokamak is a reactor design in which super-hot plasma is contained within a protective magnet field, forming a donut-shaped torus.

The plasma containment design is a fruit of the Cold War research race and one of the Soviet Union's greatest triumphs in that race.  Soviet physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov worked out the theory behind the device in the early 1950s; and then in 1956 Lev Artsimovich and his team of researchers at the Kurchatov Institute, Moscow actually built the world's first working Tokamak.

The device allowed the Soviets to obtain electron temperatures of over 1000 eV by the late 1960s.  That claim was met with initial skepticism, as researchers in the United States and Europe were far behind it.  It was validated, though, by later testing.

Taming the Tokamak

Today the Cold War is a distant memory, but the Tokamak has become a cornerstone of modern fusion research.  Rival designs (such as the U.S. invented Stellarator design) have thus far failed to offer equivalent efficiencies.

However, to achieve efficient fusion ITER must push the plasma temperature to new heights.  The optimal temperature for the fusion processes of the reactor's radioactive hydrogen fussile fuels -- deuterium and tritium -- is an incredible 100 million degrees Kelvins -- about 360,000 times room temperature.

Scientists will heat the plasma using ohmic (current based) heating, neutral beam injection, and radio frequency (RF)/microwave heating.  The plasma will be composed of approximately 0.5 g of the radioactive hydrogen mixture, and will fill most of the 840 m3 reactor chamber. 

The critical problem once the reaction is started is how to harvest it and protect the system from the high-energy byproducts.

Neutrons from the fusion reactions will escape the field as they are no longer charged.  This is a good thing, as it will eventually be how power is harvested from a commercial fusion reactor.  However, like all aspects of the design, it offers significant challenges.

These high-energy neutron particles must be absorbed by protective blankets and used to breed tritium fuel from lithium.  They must also transfer energy into coolant, lowering their kinetic energy to safe levels.  Officially ITER is not designed to produce power, though it targets producing ten times the heat needed to start and sustain the reaction (roughly 500 MW of net power, sustained for 1,000 seconds).  In a real plant the heated coolant would be used much like the steam in a coal power plant to produce work and electricity.  In ITER the heat will be disposed of, as the system is only a demonstration device.

While neutron absorption necessitates some clever engineering, an even trickier problem is what to do with the small fraction of destructive charged plasma particles that escape the containment field.  These particles, which spill into the "scrape-off" layer surrounding the magnetic shell are funneled via a secondary magnetic field into a "divertor chamber".

The problem is that even with new super-strong steels being devised, the divertor may not be hardy enough to weather the hellish heat from the diverted plasma.  As a result the components would likely degrade quickly, necessitating frequent replacement, and reducing the likelihood that the technologies might be commercially viable.

Typically diverted plasma flows in through an X-shaped field, named, unsurprisingly, the X-divertor.  The Princeton team reported at the 52nd annual meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics that, for the first time, they have successfully employed a new kind of field -- a "snowflake divertor" which is named as such due to its resemblance to a snowflake or starburst. 

With the new field, rather than striking the divertor walls and releasing all their heat, the super-hot particles manage to cool better and heat the walls less.  Princeton's test Tokamak -- the NSTX saw greatly reduced heat flux on the divertor walls using the design. 

And more importantly, the new design did not negatively impact the high performance and confinement of the high-temperature core plasma, and even reduced the impurity contamination level of the main plasma.  And the design only needs two or three existing magnetic coils, so inclusion in reactors like ITER should be relatively straightforward.

In all, this means that the field creates a hardier, safer fusion device, without compromising the critical fusion processes.  That's very good news for the Tokamak project and for the hopes of commercial fusion.

Looking Ahead

The ITER reactor is expected to cost around $23B USD to complete.  Construction began two years ago and will finish in 2018.  The finished design will consist of nine torus segments each weighing between 390 and 430 tons.  The full device will be approximately twice as large and sixteen times as heavy as any fusion device to date. 

Its reaction goals far exceed the current world record holder -- the UK's JET reactor.  JET achieved a 16 MW net power fusion reaction for less than a second.

In order to complete Tokamak and optimize its design, ongoing breakthroughs like the "snowflake divertor" will be critical. 

Research will continue at the NSTX, DFIII-D (General Atomics, San Diego, Calif.), TFTR (an older design, also at Princeton), Alcator C-Mod (MIT, Cambridge, Mass.), LDX (also at MIT), and the MST (University of Wisconsin Madison).  Unfortunately a couple other high profile fusion projects were recently scrapped -- the NCSX (a stellator design at Princeton) and the UCLA ET (a larger reactor design at UCLA in Los Angeles, Calif.).

Despite those losses some of the world's brightest minds are working hard towards the goal of completing ITER by 2018.  If all goes well, these researchers will be able to employ ITER from 2018 to 2038 to gather the knowledge necessary to deploy affordable fusion power to the world.

A critical challenge in the U.S., though, will be funding of the research and direct costs necessary to build ITER.  The Department in Energy and other federal departments currently provide billions to study the topic of fusion, which most scientists agree holds the key to the world's clean energy future.  However, in a struggling economy and growing calls for budget cuts, there's much fear that fusion research will be put on the chopping block.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh. My.
By Anoxanmore on 11/8/2010 1:40:24 PM , Rating: 5
This is a fine example of human intelligence in its purest form(almost).

I really hope I'm still around to see the world powered by Fusion plants.

As long as we don't have 100ft giant dinosaur-like reptiles come with it. ;)




RE: Oh. My.
By Bubbacub on 11/8/2010 1:47:50 PM , Rating: 5
whilst it is a wonderful concept and i'm 100% behind ITER and HIPER (and any other future programs) i would be even happier if we started putting money into widespread adoption of modern fissile reactors. fissile reactors are viable technologies that we could use today to remove our dependence on coal and gas (and with electric cars - petrol). radioactive waste and danger are not the problems the eccomentalists make it out to be.


RE: Oh. My.
By theArchMichael on 11/8/2010 2:04:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
As long as we don't have 100ft giant dinosaur-like reptiles come with it. ;)

Oh no it's Al Gore. jk jk lol.

I think they are already making inroads to implementing some new nuclear, the white house supports it. But I thought the issue holding things up was the hodge podge energy grid we have now.


RE: Oh. My.
By Anoxanmore on 11/8/2010 2:16:38 PM , Rating: 5
My name is Anoxanmore, and you killed my Godzilla, prepare to die!

=^-^=


RE: Oh. My.
By quiksilvr on 11/8/2010 3:01:42 PM , Rating: 5
Stop saying that!


RE: Oh. My.
By tng on 11/8/2010 5:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
LOL..... Wish I could rate that up.


RE: Oh. My.
By FaaR on 11/9/2010 2:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
The more fission reactors you build the less incentive or need there will be to build anything else. A fission reactor will be running for a substantial number of years, very likely half a century at least, which means it will be a huge showstopper for ~2 generations when working towards any truly clean energy source for humanity. (Except fusion also produces some radioactive components, although not on the same scale as a fission plant.)

Add to this the difficulty, complexity and expense of decommissioning nuclear power plants and their associated fuel treatment facilities and storing the resulting scrap for roughly an eon or two. It'd be stupid to paint ourselves into a corner by building a lot of fission nuke plants when we seriously could have fission power in the nearish future if we just went for it wholeheartedly.


RE: Oh. My.
By JoJoman88 on 11/10/2010 2:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
I have and idea, let's put all that nuclear waste on the far side of the moon and store it there. Oh wait, that wasn't my idea anyway. It didn't turn out to be a good plan anyway,but it made for a good T.V. show.


RE: Oh. My.
By Paj on 11/9/2010 8:13:19 AM , Rating: 2
Im all for fusion resource, however I dont advocate ramping up fission. Removing dependence on one resource in exchange for another doesnt seem to be the smartest way forward.


RE: Oh. My.
By ekv on 11/9/2010 1:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument is that by not depending on fission you won't be dependent on fusion. Which is non-sense. You are going to be dependent on some resource -- energy, water, air -- no matter what. You might as well have said, "let's stop breathing so we won't be dependent on air."

Furthermore, fission is here and now. It is viable, unlike fusion, which is a mere promise. Fusion reactors have great potential and it ought to be a target for research funds [e.g. unlike AGW], but fusion has been 30 years away for ... about the last 30 years.

There is reputed to be a trillion dollars of spent uranium just sitting in a stockpile that could be used by Traveling Wave Reactors. Fissile waste products can be and are the subject of research. Spent uranium can be re-used and/or re-processed, etc.


RE: Oh. My.
By Tuor on 11/9/2010 10:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, radioactive waste, IMO, is by far the biggest problem with fission reactors. The half-life of such waste is tremendously long, and the difficulties presented in storing it for essentially as long as humanity remains around is not something that should be easily dismissed.

I live in Washington, and even now there are large areas around Hanford that are contaminated and have unacceptably high levels of radiation. And in Russia... well, the Soviets weren't too concerned about proper waste disposal.

I would love to see more fission reactors. But before that, I think we need a better way of dealing with the wastes produced.


RE: Oh. My.
By JediJeb on 11/9/2010 3:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Reprocessing would reduce the amount of radioactive waste quite a lot. Also switching to Thorium would help reduce the amount of radioactive waste from fission power plants. There are currently designs also for small local plants that run more or less unsupervised for decades buried in the ground for safety and security. There is a lot of research going on in fission plant design that would make them far better than what we have seen in the past.

Perfecting a clean efficient fission infrastructure would free up funds for use in researching fusion that would replace it further down the road.


RE: Oh. My.
By marvdmartian on 11/9/2010 12:01:23 PM , Rating: 1
The question is, will someone have to strap on the pack with the 4 robotic arms, in order to operate this thing?? Hopefully not, since we don't have Spiderman here to save our skins!

This will hopefully lead to the development of the Mr. Fusion I've been patiently waiting to buy.


ELMs
By CnlPepper on 11/8/2010 2:28:32 PM , Rating: 5
As wonderful as this is, it won't protect the divertor from the real problem facing it (and the inner wall): ELMs or Edge Localised Modes. These are violent pulses that occur periodically from the plasma edge in the most high performance plasmas (H-modes). Controlling ELMs is one of the most challenging problems in the Tokamak world. Progress is being made however. Now if only we actually understood the mechanism behind them, that would help...! :)

(I did my PhD on JET)




RE: ELMs
By michael67 on 11/8/2010 3:39:53 PM , Rating: 4
OK, call me a idiot in accounting, but why dont we spend more money on this, then on all those wars, and defense research?

We are fighting them mainly over energy anyway.
SO why can we spend over 1.1 trillion to fight for secure Iraq oil, *cough* I mean "destroy WMDs and free the Iraq people"

But we cant spend word wide a 100 billion a year on research in this clean unlimited form of energy, that will end all wars over energy ?


RE: ELMs
By icemansims on 11/8/2010 3:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OK, call me a idiot in accounting, but why dont we spend more money on this, then on all those wars, and defense research? We are fighting them mainly over energy anyway. SO why can we spend over 1.1 trillion to fight for secure Iraq oil, *cough* I mean "destroy WMDs and free the Iraq people"


Asked.

quote:
But we cant spend word wide a 100 billion a year on research in this clean unlimited form of energy, that will end all wars over energy ?


And answered.


RE: ELMs
By tng on 11/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: ELMs
By delphinus100 on 11/8/2010 7:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
People fought over the Middle East before oil, they'll fight over it after oil. (If they don't destroy it first, perhaps also via fusion.)

Not all wars are over energy, or some other natural resource.

But it would be nice to have one less reason for conflict, yes...


RE: ELMs
By invidious on 11/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: ELMs
By Mint on 11/9/2010 7:35:37 AM , Rating: 5
Nobody is asking for " all that money" to be put into fusion. By the time ITER gets finished in 2018, it will have been talked about for over 30 years with around $25B spent on it (the US putting in 9% of that).

The US will have spent $18 T on defense during that period. If we put merely 1% of that into ITER, it would result in an 80-fold increase in spending and get it at least 10 years ahead of the schedule it's currently on.

How can we spend only $4B per year on energy research and a trillion on defense? The amount of things that could have been accomplished by shrinking the DoD by just 30% (which still keeps it obscenely high) is both staggering and depressing.


RE: ELMs
By ShaolinSoccer on 11/9/2010 9:05:45 AM , Rating: 2
The military has how many working people with families to feed?


RE: ELMs
By rvd2008 on 11/9/2010 11:09:30 AM , Rating: 4
Wars are extremely profitable for some and outcome is predictable. Fusion research may be or may be not as profitable and results are far from certain. Once capital figures out how to make a buck on fusion it will do it.


RE: ELMs
By ekv on 11/10/2010 1:23:37 AM , Rating: 2
ANWR has provable oil reserves. The tech exists to extract it and do so with minimal environmental impact. It could potentially make us independent from OPEC. It would lower our energy costs. How can we let it just sit there?

Then there's the "War on Poverty" ...


RE: ELMs
By JediJeb on 11/9/2010 3:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine if we took all the money spent on defense and spent it on Fusion research. We could solve the problems and have a working reactor in 20 years, just in time for the Middle East to decide to take us over because we are about to kill off their way of making a living selling oil, and oops, we no longer have a viable defense force because we spent all the money on Fusion research.

I know, sounds silly, but in this world there has to be some kind of balance between science and military to keep things going. Even Hitler spent money on research into alternative energy programs, but mainly to help fuel his lust for ruling the world. Military and Science can both be used for good and bad.


Don't hold your breath
By Alchemy69 on 11/8/2010 11:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
Commercial fusion power is 50 years away, and always will be.




RE: Don't hold your breath
By JediJeb on 11/9/2010 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
Because someone always laughs!


Great Article
By JakLee on 11/8/2010 7:47:48 PM , Rating: 3
Now THIS is the kind of article we really need more of here on Dailytech - very nice & thanks for the info




By Iketh on 11/8/2010 11:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
Reading this article, I'm reminded of how the first computers filled entire rooms much the same way...

Articles like this will be a hoot to look back on in the future.




Thank you Mick
By TimberJon on 11/9/2010 8:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's about time.




It's not the money
By bathotropic on 11/12/2010 10:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
More Money != More Results.

You can't speed up research like this by throwing (other people's) money at the problem. You need to create an environment where people want to work on problems like this and then hope that somebody solves it.




By holoman on 11/17/2010 11:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
They forgot to mention many assumptions from the beginning were wrong. That they are in a corrective mode to try controlling magnetic disconnects (100 million degree super heated snap backs-something like the Sun's corona). Which last year almost caused a major mishap of inner wall after a few femtoseconds of operation.

The method they control excess plasma gas built up and cleaning inner BeO tiles (cocunut husks and boraxo).

There are so many design flaws in the Tokamak concept I wouldn't know where to begin.

It will never work and should be scrapped for a new design direction.




A new meaning
By kontorotsui on 11/8/2010 7:27:23 PM , Rating: 1
Now this gives a new meaning to "a snowflake chance in (a plasma) hell".




Still boiling water?
By Patito on 11/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Still boiling water?
By CnlPepper on 11/8/2010 3:22:14 PM , Rating: 5
Given that 4/5ths of the energy coming out of a D-T fuel cycle fusion reactor (the only viable cycle currently) is released as kinetic energy on a neutron, there are very few ways you could extract energy from the reaction directly. To obtain the energy from a neutron you need it to collide and deposit it's energy. There is really no other way. Neutrons are neutral so there isn't a great deal you can do to them (that doesn't waste energy) other than simply stop them. Steam power isn't that inefficient and the working gas is also not harmful.


RE: Still boiling water?
By Ranari on 11/8/2010 8:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, still boiling water.

Water can retain a remarkable amount of heat energy. This amazing feat of H20 is precisely why we have things like, I dunno, climate and weather. And since we've been working with steam engines for the last 300+ years, they've actually become remarkably efficient at converting heat into mechanical energy.


RE: Still boiling water?
By SPOOFE on 11/8/2010 10:46:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
researching ways to DIRECTLY use the fusion energy

You think they should research how to magically turn neutrons into electrons?


RE: Still boiling water?
By muhahaaha on 11/9/2010 12:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
Steve Jobs can help with this.


RE: Still boiling water?
By JediJeb on 11/9/2010 3:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
There's an App for that?


RE: Still boiling water?
By bobsmith1492 on 11/9/2010 5:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
Easy, just add quarks...


harp harp harp
By trajan on 11/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: harp harp harp
By nuarbnellaffej on 11/8/2010 2:01:51 PM , Rating: 5
I think most people, myself included, do not know a whole lot about fusion reactors, or how they function so having a detailed introduction is pretty nice.

I mean to say, that I understood fusion reactors are not currently feasible, but I don't really know the specifics, so by introducing the "techy" stuff gradually it was much easier for me to take in.

It may be the "in thing" to complain about the DT writers, but it would be wonderful if the actual articles were discussed a little more, those "real" discussions always seem to get lost in the countless debates that go on, which usually don't pertain to the subject matter at all.
Just Say'n


RE: harp harp harp
By MrBlastman on 11/8/2010 2:13:23 PM , Rating: 5
I don't care what you think. It was a well written article, period.

Kudos to Jason for producing such an informative piece.


RE: harp harp harp
By guffwd13 on 11/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: harp harp harp
By guffwd13 on 11/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: harp harp harp
By mead drinker on 11/8/2010 5:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
It is ok. I just rated you up.


RE: harp harp harp
By invidious on 11/8/2010 5:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
Your personal fued with jason is not the topic, thus voted down by many.

I do agree that normally the "news" portion of the article should be at the top so that those familiar with the issue dont have to read all of the backstory. But this is nuclear physics, very few people are familiar with the backstory. So it makes more sense to "write to the audience" and assume that we dont all have PHD in nuclear physics. Well written, informative, tech related, good stuff.


RE: harp harp harp
By aharris on 11/8/2010 8:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. Without looking at the author, I made it about halfway through the article and said to myself, "If only JM wrote this well. Wonder who this new writer is?" ...heh, oops.

Let's see a lot more of this Jason!


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Related Articles
U.S. Beats Britain to Fusion Super Steel
October 28, 2008, 10:20 AM
ITER Nuclear Fusion Project Approved
November 24, 2006, 5:09 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki