backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Oct 12 at 8:58 AM

National lab project is unlikely to produce results and is being misrepresented, allegedly

California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) -- located on the grounds of the University of California, Berkley (UC Berkley) -- is the center of a growing controversy regarding a $7B USD laser fusion project, dubbed the "National Ignition Facility" (NIF).

I. LLNL Says Project is Near Fusion, IEEE Editor Says "No Way"

The project -- launched 15 years ago in 1997 -- has yet to achieve "ignition"; the point at which the laser-confined fusion produces more energy than it consumes.  And it carries a sticker price of $290M+ USD per year in operating costs.

But those issues didn't stop LLNL from releasing a cheerful press release, proclaiming:

Fifteen years of work by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility (NIF) team paid off on July 5 with a historic record-breaking laser shot. The NIF laser system of 192 beams delivered more than 500 trillion watts (terawatts or TW) of peak power and 1.85 megajoules (MJ) of ultraviolet laser light to its target. Five hundred terawatts is 1,000 times more power than the United States uses at any instant in time, and 1.85 megajoules of energy is about 100 times what any other laser regularly produces today.

The release was hardly coincidental.  It came just months ago, in hopes of swaying Congress, which is presently deciding whether to sustain funding for the troubled project.

NIF Laser pre-amps
Pre-amplifiers are pictured pumping up the power to the LLNL's record-setting laser.  But is all that power being wasted on pipe dreams? [Image Source: LLNL]

But according to IEEE Spectrum editor Bill Sweet, a veteran of India's nuclear power development project, most physicists view laser-contained (aka. "inertial confinement") fusion ignition as a pipe dream.  He argues that most agree that magnetic confinement fusion is far more likely to be realized, though still a difficult problem.  

William Broad, chief nuclear issues reporter for The New York Times, agrees.  He writes that the National Nuclear Security Administration's project overseer, Donald L. Cook, has serious concerns.  He quotes Mr. Cook as saying, that even with the latest power milestone considered, the project simply "has not worked", and that the NNSA is "going to settle into a serious investigation" of the NIF's sliding ignition deadline.

II. Protecting the Nuclear Stockpile?  Maybe Not...

Mr. Sweet also takes issue with LLNL's other justification for the project -- that it provides a test-bed to simulate nuclear weapons performance, a key national security goal.  

LLNL comments, "[The NIF] is the only facility with the potential to duplicate the actual phenomena that occur in the heart of a modern nuclear device -- a goal that is critical to sustaining confidence that a return to underground nuclear testing remains unnecessary."

But Mr. Sweet counters, "Richard Garwin, for decades the most highly regarded independent specialist on nuclear weaponry in the United States, told IEEE Spectrum six years ago that it would be 'a mistake to assume that NIF experiments are going to be directly relevant to weapons testing. The temperatures in the NIF chamber are much lower than they are in actual nuclear weapons, and the amounts of material being tested are much smaller.'"

He adds, "For decades the joke about magnetic confinement fusion--much the more plausible approach to harnessing the energy of the sun--is that the technology is always 20 years away. So when will inertial confinement fusion be delivering commercial electricity? That one is easy. Never."

NIF lasers
Congress is debating whether to scrap the NIF. [Image Source: LLNL]

It sounds like there's some serious credibility question regarding the project's security and energy claims.  That said, there might be some merit to the project, even if Mr. Sweet is at least partially right.  

UC Berkley astronomy Professor Dr. Raymond Jeanloz, comments, "Already the most incredibly tightly controlled and most energetic laser in the world, it is remarkable that NIF has achieved the 500 TW milestone - quite a significant achievement.  This breakthrough will give us incredible new opportunities in studying materials at extreme conditions."

Indeed, from a pure science perspective, the device is a pretty impressive accomplishment, even if it turns out its fusion goals are indeed pipe dreams.  It could indeed yield some novel materials research, if it escapes this round of funding reviews.  Ultimately the issue appears not so much that the super-laser lacks novelty, but rather that its critics argue that it is being misrepresented.  For that reason, Mr. Sweet infers, the NIF is the "mother of all boondoggles".

Sources: IEEE Spectrum, LLNL, The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: I'm fine with this
By MozeeToby on 10/9/2012 1:20:02 PM , Rating: 1
Quite the other way around actually, fusion bomb designers are desperate for new information on the way an implosion fusion reaction takes place and treaties make testing your new H-bomb design impractical or impossible without ticking off a lot of people. We've had 30 years of improvements and tweaks made to the models, but they need some actual data to verify that the models are correct.

As to the rest, of course it's not going to be a power producing reactor, it was never intended to be. As you said, there's no infrastructure in place to refuel the system. More importantly, there's no practical way to cycle the lasers at rates that would be economically viable (I've heard you would need at least 1Hz, probably closer to 10Hz to make such a system work).

NIF was designed to answer the questions of if we have the technology to produce an energy positive fusion reaction with laser confinement. Actually harvesting that energy comes much later and is largely (except perhaps the problem of cycling the lasers) an engineering problem. And yes, they are very, very close to ignition (producing more energy than they are injecting).

Killing this program now, when they are so close to success would be the real boondoggle. $7 billion is obviously a lot of money, but it's also sunk cost. For $1 billion more you can demonstrate fusion, cancelling the project now doesn't magically give you the money you already spent back.


RE: I'm fine with this
By gamerk2 on 10/9/2012 1:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
Agree with this assessment 100%.


RE: I'm fine with this
By rdhood on 10/9/2012 1:44:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And yes, they are very, very close to ignition (producing more energy than they are injecting). Killing this program now, when they are so close to success would be the real boondoggle.


Well, at least one person drank the koolaid.

Here's a clue: they will be very,very close to ignition right up the the time they kill this project. That might be this year... maybe next year... maybe 10 years out. They will always be so close to ignition that "killing this program now, when they are so close to success would be the real boondoggle."


RE: I'm fine with this
By kattanna on 10/9/2012 1:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quite the other way around actually, fusion bomb designers are desperate for new information on the way an implosion fusion reaction takes place


of that, I'm sure. but this method is a poor replacement. albeit it is more empirical then a computer model, but it has so many variables different then a real Fusion device as to question its usefulness.

quote:
For $1 billion more you can demonstrate fusion


but we can already demonstrate fusion via magnetic containment. Also, if the reaction cannot be sustained, then really..whats the point?


RE: I'm fine with this
By Ringold on 10/9/2012 3:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking about this just the other day. Why not allow the occasional underground test?

Yes, I know, international treaties. They're like gun control laws; they keep the US and UK, France, etc from working on their nuclear programs, but don't do a thing to slow North Korea, Iran or Syria (prior to Israel bombing it).

So asides from treaties, why not? Particularly when our warheads are getting so old. If radiation was 1/100th as bad as environmentalists would claim, the entire American Southwest would be devoid of all life, whereas last I heard the Trinity site was in fact a tourist attraction. Indeed.. population of the entire region is expanding. I'd think a few tests would do little harm but provide a lot of useful insights, possibly quite a few for science more broadly.


RE: I'm fine with this
By kattanna on 10/9/2012 4:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
i feel the same way about our self imposed ban on reprocessing nuclear waste


RE: I'm fine with this
By Ringold on 10/9/2012 9:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, one of the most insulting bans of them all. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, for trying to keep a nuclear power from becoming a nuclear power. That cat was out of the bag when that guy was still growing peanuts.


RE: I'm fine with this
By m51 on 10/9/2012 10:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
Fusion weapon design is no longer a high priority. All the fusion weapons in the stockpile have been retired. The only deployed warheads now are simple fission or boosted fission devices. There is no need or desire for high yield devices (>1 Mton) anymore, the focus is on precision delivery.

I'm also skeptical of any fusion research project achieving economical power production in the next 50 years. The problem is incredibly complex and difficult and there are a number of unsolved/unresolved issues like the first wall problem and tritium production. Even if solutions are found the capital cost of the equipment and operations and maintenance costs put fusion power costs way out of line with other much simpler and energy dense systems like nuclear power, let alone competing with natural gas.

On the other hand I am loathe to cut research funding. It's often attacked because the benefits are not immediately visible or quantifiable, yet looking back historically basic research always pays off. Keep an oversight on it, but don't kill it. Technological advances yields economic advantages, it keeps the economy on the leading edge.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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