Uncertain future of fusion, and remarks on the DSM

View 772 Sunday, April 28, 2013

Last night’s mail had a reference to a fusion project. Today we have

ITER and fusion

Hello Jerry,

I too saw this linked on Drudge: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-unlimited-energy-8590480.html

and after reading the article concluded that it was Solyndra cubed (at least).

Instead of a few ‘Friends of Obama’ (Solyndra) getting a half billion dollars laundered through the DOE and quickly going broke (except for the principles, who most assuredly DIDN’T go broke), we have an international version with the following schedule: "There is at least another decade of building work and a further decade of testing before the reactor will be allowed to “go nuclear”, with the following caveat: "Even if everything goes to plan, the first demonstration power plant using nuclear fusion will not be ready until at least the 2030s, meaning commercial reactors could not realistically be built until the second half of the century.

In other words, an endless money pit (tons of managers, topflight scientists drawing topflight salaries, lots of support staff, gorgeous headquarters buildings and other infrastructure, international conferences in exotic locations, briefings to multiple governments, ad infinitum) whose success cannot even be QUESTIONED for at least 40 years, lest the questioner be accused of being a Luddite who is against scientific progress. And manna.

Bob Ludwick

During the 1960-1970 period I was a big promoter of nuclear fusion research, and I wrote several columns about the foolishness of Carter’s big cuts in the fusion research program. I had to take a lot closer look at fusion after 1980 because my essays were read in the White House; and I took some time to tour fusion labs. At that time there were a number of fusion programs. The most spectacular was “laser trigger” fusion reaction, which is a subset of the entire “inertial confinement” approach. The notion is to zap a small enough area with enough energy transmitted by one of any number of means – laser (photons), electrons, plasmas, and some even more exotic – to spark one of a number of theoretical fusion reactions; and that trigger would spark more fusions. The result might be a weapon, but the real goal would be “controlled fusion”. The problem with controlling fusion is that it’s fusion – the direct conversion of matter into energy. Since e = mc squared, that’s a lot of energy, and that much energy tends to melt the mechanisms that are producing it as well as the structure that is defining it. An unconfined fusion reaction is either a fizzle or a fairly spectacular bomb. Discovery of a laser trigger mechanism for producing a thermonuclear explosion would lead to very cheap nuclear weapons. They wouldn’t have been cheap in those days – lasers were expensive and the control electronics for making all this happen equally so — but we could all foresee a great fall in the costs of electronics.

As an aside: in those times the most expensive part of an intercontinental ballistic missile was the warhead, followed very closely by the inertial guidance system with its high precision gyros, very accurate multiple axis accelerometers, memory to keep track of the data from the gyros and accelerometers, more memory to keep track of the “ideal” course the bird should have flown as opposed to that course it did fly, and computers to determine what changes in course need to be performed to drive the bird back onto the proper course so that it will hit its target. All this has to happen in boost phase while the motors are still hot, and of course the acceleration of the bird changes – rises dramatically – every tenth of a second as fuel is burned and blown out the back end thus reducing the mass to be accelerated. It is now possible to buy the equipment to do all that very cheaply: the gyros and the accelerometers are built into chips, memory is nearly free, and most of the computer is a single chip.

Thus laser trigger fusion would be a mixed blessing, and the arms control community argued that we’d be better off without it – that such research ought to be forbidden by treaty. Stefan T. Possony and Francis X. Kane began a work called The Strategy of Technology which argued that the march of technology is inexorable: you can’t stop it by forbidding research, and you may very well be losing the decisive war if you rely on that strategy. I joined that team and became a co-author of the book, which is still available free through Baen Books (the address given in the forward is no longer one I receive mail from).

There were extensive experiments in inertial confinement fusion, and some continue to this day, but progress has proven to be a great deal slower than we had hoped.

The other major line of fusion research was “magnetic confinement”: enormously expensive reactors (one of the most popularly known was the Tokamak) which used enormous input power to keep the reaction confined, and more to trigger and control the reactions. These certainly “worked” in the sense that fusion was stimulated and took place. There is controversy over whether any of those ever produced more energy than it consumed while in operation, and I think no one has claimed that any such reactor has ever produced more energy than was required to build as well as to operate it.

As of the late 1980’s the consensus of fusion reaction research directors was that you could produce an experimental reactor that would by brute force produce more energy than it consumed, but it would be difficult to operate. The most optimistic estimate of when an operational reactor might go on line to add energy to a power grid was thirty years. That had been the estimated time to break even in the Carter administration and remained the most optimistic prediction over the decades: it was always about thirty years.

The US Navy continues to support a small effort in “cold fusion”. I have no direct information, but I believe this is at about the proper level: there are some results worth pursuing, but nothing to be excited about or pour money into crash programs for.

Bob Guccione of Penthouse Magazine as well as the US Navy supported research by Dr. Robert Bussard into various fusion projects including a scheme to use modified existing fission reaction designs to produce power, and using fusion power to “recharge” the fission fuel elements. He had other reactor designs. He got encouraging results, and announced that his”Polywell” design was advanced enough to warrant going directly to an actual commercial scale reactor, but died shortly thereafter of cancer. Bob used to visit me whenever he was in Los Angeles, but I have heard nothing of progress since his death, although I understand that research efforts and fund raising continue. I have heard no estimates of the time required to “go commercial” without Bussard at the helm, and I don’t know how the funding is going. Bob died about the time I was being successfully treated for brain cancer, and I had pretty well lost touch with nearly everyone during that period.

I always had confidence that if anyone was going to produce commercial fusion energy it would be Doc Bussard, but I’ve heard little about the effort since his death.

Note that the above is an off the tip of my head outline, not intended to be more than background. The history of fusion research is complex, and while the summary “It’s always thirty years to commercial fusion” is a fair summary it’s no more than that.

* * *

Obviously the development of controlled fusion would change the world. The capital costs would be important in determining just how large a change would happen over what period of time.

I have received this not long after posting the story. As background, the Navy funded Dr. Bussard’s work but the grant was ending when I lost track of the work there.  I am not a source for any of this information, but perhaps I should look into it.  As I observe below, any commerci9al fusion would be a world changing event.  It would also be a factor in the climate change debates.

Polywell research is still on-going. Since they’re so inexpensive in comparison to the big boys, the Navy is still funding that particular avenue. Here’s some example: http://www.nuclearfusionpower.us/blog/?p=268

BigFire

Regarding climate change and global warning, Fallen Angels by Niven, Pournelle, and Flynn http://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Angels-ebook/dp/B005BJTZ1U/ref=tmm_kin_title_0 has something to say on the subject.  Comes now

Thought you might get a kick out of this blog post:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/27/good-news-elevated-co2-may-extend-interglacial-prevent-next-ice-age/

We have this comment on the DSM (which was also discussed in last night’s mail bag):

Hello Jerry,

Your link about psychiatry, science, the DSM and the commentary thereon, along with a lot of discussion about how the government will go about keeping us ‘safe’ from folks like the recent slaughterer of grade school kids, reminds me of this that I sent to a local friend recently:

"’Keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental problems’ sounds like a no-brainer. And, if you think about it a moment, it IS a no-brainer. Enacting legislation forbidding people with ‘mental problems’ from buying or possessing weapons is like twenty Christmases arriving simultaneously for the gun-grabbing totalitarians who have been hoping for such a bonanza for years. After all, which political persuasion will be deciding exactly what behavior qualifies you as ‘mentally ill’, and, by extension, unqualified to own a gun?

Take a look at DSM IV, with DSM V on the way (both compiled EXCLUSIVELY by liberals), with their ever growing laundry list of ‘mental disorders’. How long will it be after the ‘Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill’ legislation is enacted, with the enthusiastic cooperation of the ‘gun rights’ groups, before the following takes place?:

Customer: I’d like to buy this gun.

Merchant: I’m sorry sir, I would like to sell it to you, but under the current law, you are forbidden to purchase or possess a gun.

Customer: What’s wrong with you? I have NEVER had a run in with the law, not even a parking ticket. I work for an organization that requires a full background investigation and a polygraph examination for its JANITORS, never mind what actual employees like me have to endure, just to get a job there, and you tell me that I am not qualified to buy or possess a weapon?

Merchant; Yes sir, I understand, but according to the law, citizens with ‘mental conditions’ are forbidden to purchase or own firearms.

Customer; But I don’t HAVE a ‘mental condition’.

Merchant: Check out DSM V. According to the authoritative, government certified listing of behaviors indicative of mental instability, the desire to own a firearm is one of the most prominent. You want a gun; therefore you are mentally unstable and forbidden to own one.

Customer: So how do you stay in business, if you are a gun dealer forbidden to sell guns?

Merchant; Oh, I am selling guns like hotcakes, except that all of my customers are government employees who are purchasing them for ‘official duty’, using government funds. They have a really generous monthly allowance for ammo, too. Seems that they require a LOT of training.

This is DEFINITELY one of those ‘be careful what you wish for’ moments."

Bob Ludwick=

I trust that everyone understands that the above is a work of satire.

However, I have this comment from a long time subscriber:

Jerry,

That is NOT satire to an increasing number of military veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD and denied the right to keep their firearms.