Fusion Power

[jlhredshift]

Last night the President said
"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. (My underlining)
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (My underlining)(Applause.)

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.) "

The only "clean and safe nuclear energy" that I know of is fusion power. The nucleonic spallation facility in Oak Ridge TN. could be a precursor.

[Eroica]

Relatively speaking, nuclear fission is cleaner and safer than fossil-fuel burning, which kills thousands worldwide every year.

[Sammy]

Not my area of expertise, but I am not impressed.

Nothing about conservation, especially policy changes to discourage the inappropriate use of over-sized inefficient vehicles.

The hydrogen-economy concept has been discussed many times on this forum. The consensus is that it is not sound unless hydrogen can be produced without using fossile-fueled technology/

Which comes to the idea of being on the threshold of a major breakthrough. Anyone on the forum aware of the liklihood/nature of such a breakthrough? The timeframe for it's commercialization?

I don't want to get into politics here, but I see the quoted statement as just that -- a meaningless gesture to respond to criticisms of past inaction. I stand ready to be educated IF others here can post facts which show that my assessment is wrong.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Relatively speaking, nuclear fission is cleaner and safer than fossil-fuel burning, which kills thousands worldwide every year.

In fact, nuclear fission is one of the cleanest forms of power generation that we have. And it is the only one that is both clean and practical.

[jlhredshift]

The best fusion reaction is Helium-3 and neutrons to produce helium -4. The result of this reaction is X and Gamma rays that can be contained and their energy captured to make steam to drive turbines for electricity. There would be no adverse radioactive waste that would have to be stored, essentially, forever like the byproducts of fission reactions. Again, I refer to the 6 billion dollar facility in Oak Ridge.

[Eroica]

The best fusion reaction is Helium-3 and neutrons to produce helium -4.

Most people here would probably agree with that, but the catch is that Helium-3 is not a very common resource. I've even heard some people suggest that the primary reason Bush is interested in returning to the Moon is to mine He-3 for fusion purposes!

[jlhredshift]

Most people here would probably agree with that, but the catch is that Helium-3 is not a very common resource. I've even heard some people suggest that the primary reason Bush is interested in returning to the Moon is to mine He-3 for fusion purposes!

Between the salvation of the worlds energy needs and its positive impact on social ills that commercially feasible fusion power would mean and any excuse to advance the technology necessary for going into space, I'm ecstatic. I can only hope that this is what the President means.

[Laguna]

Where does he get all that money from to pay the bill for all that?

[jlhredshift]

Where does he get all that money from to pay the bill for all that?

If you are referring to the entire speech then the answer is unknown; but, if you mean the technology part quoted above then the answer is, can we afford not to.

[Gruesome]

[QUOTE=Sammy]

Which comes to the idea of being on the threshold of a major breakthrough. Anyone on the forum aware of the liklihood/nature of such a breakthrough? The timeframe for it's commercialization?
[QUOTE]

On the likelihood of such a breakthrough........It's inevitable.

On the timeframe..........anybody's guess. However, necessity is the mother of invention, so the more gas goes up the sooner that day will arrive.

And when it does, somebody is going to make a planet-load of money.

[jlhredshift]

[/QUOTE]
On the likelihood of such a breakthrough........It's inevitable.

On the timeframe..........anybody's guess. However, necessity is the mother of invention, so the more gas goes up the sooner that day will arrive.

And when it does, somebody is going to make a planet-load of money.[/QUOTE]

Go to www.sns.gov

It may be that the US gov't may get the patent. If so then who gets the bucks?

[Demigrog]

Not my area of expertise, but I am not impressed.

Nothing about conservation, especially policy changes to discourage the inappropriate use of over-sized inefficient vehicles.

Which is good, because conservation is neither realistic nor sufficient to solve the problem. Making a real dent in energy demand would require draconian regulations that, aside from destroying the economy, would require lifestyle changes that a great many people are not willing to make.

The hydrogen-economy concept has been discussed many times on this forum. The consensus is that it is not sound unless hydrogen can be produced without using fossile-fueled technology/

Everyone involved in the "hydrogen economy" knows that it will be based on low-emissions technology (nuclear, some wind/solar/geothermal, gasified coal). It is also understood by everyone involved that this is a decades long process. Aside from the fuel cell vehicles themselves, we need the infrastructure for production, delivery and sale of hydrogen.

Which comes to the idea of being on the threshold of a major breakthrough. Anyone on the forum aware of the liklihood/nature of such a breakthrough? The timeframe for it's commercialization?

Well, gasified coal is one major breakthrough that has already happened, though I'm not sure what the President was alluding to by "Zero-Emission Coal Technology,” as even the best IGCC tech will still produce CO2, SOx/NOx, and mercury emissions (albeit at levels much lower than conventional coal).

Honestly, we don’t need breakthroughs—we already have much of the fundamental science knowledge we need. Reducing our oil dependency is entirely a matter of engineering and economics. Even fusion technology is mostly an engineering challenge at this point. As we engineer better processes, they become economically competitive with fossil fuels. Some breakthroughs would be nice, though, if we could get them—but they wouldn’t really be breakthroughs if we knew that we needed them.

I don't want to get into politics here, but I see the quoted statement as just that -- a meaningless gesture to respond to criticisms of past inaction. I stand ready to be educated IF others here can post facts which show that my assessment is wrong.

Well, I suppose you could argue that the entire speech is meaningless since the President does not actually have any power to implement his programs. Congress has to do the actual work, and to get Congress to do it the President has to motivate voters to call and write their Representatives and voice support. So, the President’s speech is exactly as meaningful as each individual voter believes it to be (except in aggregate. )

Question though, do you disagree with what he said (about oil dependency/energy), or merely disbelieve that he will accomplish what he says?

[Swift]

<snip>
Which is good, because conservation is neither realistic nor sufficient to solve the problem. Making a real dent in energy demand would require draconian regulations that, aside from destroying the economy, would require lifestyle changes that a great many people are not willing to make.

I do not agree. Obviously, conservation alone can not supply energy. But even a 5 or 10% drop in energy use from conservation would be a help. I also see no evidence that encouraging or even demanding some conservation woudl "destroy the economy". If the required fleet average for automobile gas mileage was raised 5 or 10 mpg over the next 5 years, how would this "destroy the economy"? I would recommend the Union of Concerned Scientists for information.

[Halcyon Dayz]

"Destroy the economy" is hyperbole.
A challenge can produce a whole new industry.
It could even produce economic growth.

The only "Zero-Emission Coal Technology" I can think of though,
is planting a set number of trees for every tonne of CO₂
produced. Not so bad actually.

[Swift]

The only "Zero-Emission Coal Technology" I can think of though, is planting a set number of trees for every tonne of CO₂
produced. Not so bad actually.

There are some other proposals. One is remove some/all of the CO₂ in the exhaust gas and to pump it down into deep geological deposits. Others are to pump it deep into the ocean. I have seen varying estimates of the cost and practicality of doing this - it is not science fiction, but there are doubts if it is economical.

[Captain Kidd]

I would recommend the Union of Concerned Scientists for information.

And then go find some actual info. Their nuclear agenda is, well, an agenda. Apparently the millions of dollars we (as an industry) are pumping into containment sump fixes don't count (to name one of their "concerns").

And here I thought these guys actually tended to use science (I hadn't done much looking into them but my curiosity finally got piqued), but they seem to harp heavily on the typical naysayer’s rallying cry that money is always the motive for the gubbermint to wink away problems.

This clear and present danger is virtually being ignored by the federal agency empowered to protect the public. Instead, this agency focuses its attention on improving the financial performance of the nuclear industry.

If what I've been experiencing is meant to be "improving [our] financial performance", I'd hate to see what the UCS considers focusing attention on safety would be like.

Maybe they do have good points on a varity of stuff, but to resort to "the government only cares about big business" gets old after awhile. You can point out issues without throwing in a conspiracy angle.

[Sammy]

Demigrog wrote

Question though, do you disagree with what he said (about oil dependency/energy), or merely disbelieve that he will accomplish what he says?

The latter! I thinks it's crucial, from both the environmental and foreign policy aspects. that we evolve from dependency on fossile fuels in general (tho it's possible that some technologies which provide suitably reduced emissions will allow us to utilized our vast coal resources), and from foreign oil specifically.

I just don't see it happening with current policies, or the proposals advanced in the President's speech.

Also, I do not agree that hydrogen economy advocates in general understand that using current techniques to produce hydrogen is just not practicable. And I think that the cost and other considerations of providing the needed infrastructure are vastly underestimated.

I also am not very impressed with the coal gassification idea. This concept (both in situ and in facilities) has been toyed with since (at least) the 1970s. It has major problems, both environmental and economic -- unless technologhy of which I am not aware has been developed.

The only fairly near-term energy alternative I am aware of is increased construction of nuclear fission plants -- an alternative which was not addressed all, in favor of what, IMO, is pie-in-the-sky proposals which offer little in either short or long-term scenarios.

[jlhredshift]

I agree that conservation is a good thing in general for both economic and environmental reasons.

I must persist, however, in pointing out that fusion power, which is both clean and safe, may not be that far in the future. The SNS facility being run by the DOE in Oakridge, an area traditionally used by the government for energy research and security, has elements in its construction that are inconsistent with its stated purpose. It is surley a research facillity, but for what end. The continued construction of fission power plants makes no sense with all the downsides inherent with their use and retirement. There are no downsides to fusion.

I also have faith in the human species for solving seemingly insurmountable technological problems, flight, fission, and landing on the moon as examples, all of which had their naysayers of impractibility. We must move on from revamping of the current ways of solving energy needs. The impossible just takes a little longer, let's roll.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Out of curiosity, what downsides to fission are you talking about?

[Demigrog]

I do not agree. Obviously, conservation alone can not supply energy. But even a 5 or 10% drop in energy use from conservation would be a help. I also see no evidence that encouraging or even demanding some conservation woudl "destroy the economy". If the required fleet average for automobile gas mileage was raised 5 or 10 mpg over the next 5 years, how would this "destroy the economy"? I would recommend the Union of Concerned Scientists for information.

Look at the US energy consumption since WWII.

Conservation follows energy prices; until the oil prices spiked in ’73 and ’79, our energy consumption was increasing exponentially at about 3.2% per year. Once prices began to rise, conservation naturally kicked in, and our energy consumption growth has dropped considerably. In fact, the great thing about a market economy is that we don’t need to enact conservation measures as laws, because the energy prices themselves will achieve the same result without intervention.

I also should point out that energy consumption has only dropped three times since WWII—each time was accompanied by economic recession.

What specific conservation measures would make a real impact on our energy consumption? Transportation is only a quarter (roughly) of our energy consumption in the first place. Plus, raising fuel efficiency of cars and trucks (even if technologically and economically feasible) would have little impact—people would simply drive more—and may have already led to decreased safety as automakers are forced to reduce vehicle weight.

No doubt we could force additional energy conservation by adding taxes, but this would be roughly the same as increasing energy prices. To force any significant energy conservation, this would have the same result as in ’73 and ’79, triggering economic recession.

There are some other proposals. One is remove some/all of the CO₂ in the exhaust gas and to pump it down into deep geological deposits. Others are to pump it deep into the ocean. I have seen varying estimates of the cost and practicality of doing this - it is not science fiction, but there are doubts if it is economical.

I still wouldn’t call this zero emissions coal technology, as there is no technical reason we could not do this with any generation technology. Of course, IGCC coal is about 20% more efficient than pulverized coal (meaning 20% reduction in CO2), but after you add in the equipment for carbon capture, the IGCC efficiency gain is mostly lost. Not to mention nobody has a feasible near-term solution to sequestering--I suppose that Bush was referring to additional research on these technologies.

I just don't see it happening with current policies, or the proposals advanced in the President's speech.

Well, the devil is in the details, and this was just a high-level policy speech. I’ll reserve judgement until I see the actual spending bill enacted by congress.

Also, I do not agree that hydrogen economy advocates in general understand that using current techniques to produce hydrogen is just not practicable. And I think that the cost and other considerations of providing the needed infrastructure are vastly underestimated.

‘Advocates’ is rather vague; I’ll agree that most lay people don’t have a clue what the hydrogen economy would entail. However, everyone involved in the actual technology development is pinning their hopes on nuclear power. Sure there will be a few alternative hydrogen sources as well, but the bulk of production will have to be nuclear powered.

The infrastructure problem is one that will be tricky to solve; I suspect some states like California may legislate their way into hydrogen, which eventually would support the rest of the country. I anticipate dual-fuel systems as well, that can use gasoline for trips in areas without hydrogen stations. The vehicles themselves are a long way from cost competitiveness, of course. All of these problems will gradually be solved, but over many decades.

I also am not very impressed with the coal gassification idea. This concept (both in situ and in facilities) has been toyed with since (at least) the 1970s. It has major problems, both environmental and economic -- unless technologhy of which I am not aware has been developed.

IGCC technology will be adopted over time regardless of the oil/hydrogen problem. With a 20% efficiency gain over pulverized coal, utilities will jump on the chance to reduce their fuel costs 20%--slashing their emissions is a bonus. The main issue is whether or not it is a good idea to lock utilities into a CO2 generating power plant with a 50-60 year life cycle. Sequestering technology offers utilities a potential “out” in the future, so IGCC plants will probably be built with carbon-recapture built in or easily added.

The other thing to consider about IGCC is that it offers an alternative to oil. If we were to drive hydrogen production from IGCC plants, we might not realize much of an environmental gain, but we would still be free of foreign oil dependency.

IMO the debate comes down to IGCC coal (with CO2 sequestering, eventually) versus Gen III+ nuclear in the short term, with Gen IV nuclear being the long term solution. I do think we’re better off with nuclear plants than coal plants, but IGCC plants will be quicker and easier to build with less legal and regulatory wrangling.

The only fairly near-term energy alternative I am aware of is increased construction of nuclear fission plants -- an alternative which was not addressed all, in favor of what, IMO, is pie-in-the-sky proposals which offer little in either short or long-term scenarios.

Bush included nuclear power in his speech, but understandably didn’t say much about it. No need to create another political headache.

I must persist, however, in pointing out that fusion power, which is both clean and safe, may not be that far in the future. The SNS facility being run by the DOE in Oakridge, an area traditionally used by the government for energy research and security, has elements in its construction that are inconsistent with its stated purpose. It is surley a research facillity, but for what end. The continued construction of fission power plants makes no sense with all the downsides inherent with their use and retirement. There are no downsides to fusion.

Fusion power is at an absolute minimum decades off. Its downsides at the moment are all technical risks—the risk of investing billions of dollars into a design and finding out it is impractical. Obviously the US is spending money on fusion research, but it is way premature to start offering real incentives for fusion reactor construction. IGCC coal and Gen III+ nuclear plants are in the works right now, and could be built within this decade. Additional incentives would accelerate new plant construction. The hydrogen economy cannot really be developed until these new plants are built.

[Jules]

Last night I watched a New Horizon documentary (made for BBC) called An Experiment for Mankind (or something similar) about nuclear fusion, and I was left with the impression that nuclear fusion has not been successfully pioneered by scientist yet? Is this true or has progress been made since the docu was filmed?

[Van Rijn]

Last night I watched a New Horizon documentary (made for BBC) called An Experiment for Mankind (or something similar) about nuclear fusion, and I was left with the impression that nuclear fusion has not been successfully pioneered by scientist yet? Is this true or has progress been made since the docu was filmed?

Successful fusion? Absolutely. We have had devices that could produce fusion reactions for many decades. Some can even fit on a table top. Others are our nastiest bombs.

What we can't do yet is build a fusion reactor that can reliably produce more power than it takes to run it. It will take several more decades to produce a practical fusion power reactor.

[The Saint]

Has there been any progress on devices that claim to tap into free energy from the "Aether" eg the Marinov Motor, Aspden Generator etc?

[Argos]

Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)

Thereīs only one kind of ethanol, and thereīs nothing better than sugar-cane to produce it. If the US just take a look around it will see that ethanol technology is already a reality that only oil addicts canīt see.

[Jules]

Successful fusion? Absolutely. We have had devices that could produce fusion reactions for many decades. Some can even fit on a table top. Others are our nastiest bombs.

What we can't do yet is build a fusion reactor that can reliably produce more power than it takes to run it. It will take several more decades to produce a practical fusion power reactor.

Ahhh, that makes sense now - the program was about creating 'clean' unlimited energy for mass consumption.

A quick question: they were trying to create fusion by transmitting sound waves through a bubble suspended in a liquid (H2o?). What is this called? I would like to read up further on it ( I am a noob).

[Swift]

A quick question: they were trying to create fusion by transmitting sound waves through a bubble suspended in a liquid (H2o?). What is this called? I would like to read up further on it ( I am a noob).

The effect is called sonofusion. It has been know for quite some time that when you expose a solution to very high energy acoustic energy (basically sound waves) that you create bubbles - this is the cavitation that you get in the wake of ships and submarines. As these bubbles collapse, the temperatures in their interior rise. They can get high enough to glow, an effect called Sonoluminescence. There is some evidence that in certain systems, the pressure and temperature inside the collapsing bubbles is enough to create fusion (A physorg.com article ). This sonofusion effect is still controversial, and even if real, may not lead to a practical power source.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Thereīs only one kind of ethanol, and thereīs nothing better than sugar-cane to produce it. If the US just take a look around it will see that ethanol technology is already a reality that only oil addicts canīt see.

One of the big advantages of an ethanol economy is that it
would only require minor changes to existing infrastructure.

[Argos]

Straight to the point.

[korjik]

Successful fusion? Absolutely. We have had devices that could produce fusion reactions for many decades. Some can even fit on a table top. Others are our nastiest bombs.

What we can't do yet is build a fusion reactor that can reliably produce more power than it takes to run it. It will take several more decades to produce a practical fusion power reactor.

I seem to remember that they have hit the breakeven point energy-wise.

[Sammy]

I seem to remember that they have hit the breakeven point energy-wise.

My understanding is that energy-breakeven has only been demonstrated for fractions of a second. The "break-through" needed is the ability to maintain that condition for extended operation at large scale, with a resulting large excess of net energy production.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this one.