One of our commentariat mentioned ‘Bussard Fusion’ several times and I did not at first pay much attention. I assumed it was yet another of the long line of ideas which might work out but probably will not. Still, with the name Bussard attached to it, I thought a quick look might be worthwhile.
It was. I did not realize that not only is Dr. Bussard still around: he has been developing his ideas with ‘under the radar’ money from the Navy for fifteen years and he took it far enough to show the physics is understood and works. They blew up the demo machine but when they analyzed the data they found it had managed to do what it needed to do before it performed its self-disassembly.
Another interesting facet is the radiation free P-11B fusion path. I never paid any attention to it in my own readings because even the D-3He I am familiar with requires perhaps a hundred times the confinement constant of the D-T fusion everyone has been working on for 50 years.
It turns out there is another way to fuse an atom. It is cheaper, smaller and avoids the basic problem which makes the whole Tokamuk family of fusion reactors into eternal research cash cows.
If you want to learn more, not only about the physics behind it, but also of yet another way in which the State screws up everything it touches, set aside the next hour and a half and listen to “Should Google Go Nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear power (no, really)” presented by Dr. Bussard himself.
For those who have not spent a lifetime watching the world of Physics, Dr. Bussard is one of the elders of the field. He is no outsider and no crank. He is one hell of a serious physics dude.
I did not realize that not only is Dr. Bussard still around
Sadly, Dr Bussard passed away last October. His research group is still funded and carrying on his research without him.
Three “ifs” Dale…
1. They’re very confident and rightly so of getting the new machine running this year but there’s still a niggling doubt… So, I’ve not got the champagne on ice just yet. If it works then it’s a really big deal of course and that’s why I’m possibly over-cautious.
2. Cheap. The Bussard group reckon that if the current experiment works then they should be able to have a full-scale prototype in about five years. I suspect that’s the time to really start seriously looking into the economics of this. I suspect it might not be as cheap as all that.
3. Timing. I suspect the UK is not alone in facing a very near term energy crunch. We have to replace our current fission stations like yesterday already. This is a big investment and I can see it detracting from and putting back the commercial development of Bussard Fusion in the UK at least. They’ll probably just build more effing wind farms and we can all shiver in the dark. Basically, UK energy policy is a mess. Bussard Fusion could be the needed White Knight but I can see a complete Horlicks being made of it.
Sorry to be on a downer. I’m just very cautious because if the two key technologies – fusion & quantum computing can be realized then our future is very bright indeed.
Just thought I’d add that the LHC comes online at CERN this year (yah boo sucks to your poxy Tevatron America!) and it just might confirm some of the predictions of this guy.
See, Dale why I can’t get my hopes up too high – it just all seems to good to be true… Commercial spaceflight, fusion, qubits and E8.
My great hope is predicated upon the pols not messing with stuff they haven’t a hope in hell of even getting to first base with – not that that has ever stopped ’em in the past.
Nuclear fission, with all the pressure of WWII & Cold War, took about 25 years to go from initial physics demonstration to first commercial-scale energy production. No reason to expect more complex fission to go faster.
Busard fusion is very interesting, but we ought to keep that real world time scale in mind. There are apparently a number of “downstream” issues with it — once the fusion reaction is working, how to get the energy into usable form? Nothing that is expected to be a showstopper, but a whole lot of difficult new engineering ground to be plowed.
The nearer-term benefits of a successful demonstration might actually lie elsewhere:
a. An end to subsidizing renewables, since they would be seen as having no future. Let them compete on a level playing field, and win or lose as the fundamentals dictate. This would allow society to make more productive use of its limited financial resources.
b. An aggressive push by oil exporters to get their oil out the ground and sold before it is rendered valueless by the approaching competition from fusion. This could keep energy prices reasonable for the several decades while development of commercial fusion proceeded.
Unfortunately, D-3He wouldn’t give us radiation-free fusion, because, in a tokamak, it would occur simultaneously with D-D -> T, and then D-T fusion, as Frank Close argues here. (Scroll down to the paragraphs subtitled “Helium errors”). I don’t know whether a similar problem would apply to p-11Be fusion.
Sorry, that link didn’t work. Hopefully, this will.
I’ve been banging on about Bussard for over a year now…
And, yes, I do want a medal.
DK
According to the paper proceedings I have just pulled off the bookshelf on my desk, the side reactions of D-D and D-T is 4% at Te=50KeV of total energy in neutrons for a 50:50 D-3He mix. It is there but it is small.
The beauty of the more energetically difficult P-11Be reaction is that there are no side reactions at all, so secondary radiation due to fast neutrons is zip, zero, nada. Absolutely wonderful if we can get there.
For those unfamiliar with these technologies, if a fusion reaction gives off its energy in fast neutrons, you use a blanket to slow them down and turn their speed into heat in the blanket. That gives you three things; a radioactive blanket; radiation damaged structures and heat for use in a heat engine that is not much different in concept from a steam driven electric generator.
If on the other hand, the energy is carried away in charged particles, usually protons, it is a wholly different story. The energy in these can be extracted in a magnetic field. That means you go direct from nuclear energy to electricity with no intervening heat engine. This makes the efficiency higher and the infrastructure much smaller.
The only downside to the 11Be reaction is one that I have not seen mentioned yet. You do not want to get the stuff into your body. It is really nasty stuff… but we are well familiar with it because Beryllium is used for tools for environments where a spark just must not happen. Industry knows how to handle the stuff.
I read the article by Dr. Close and am rather disappointed in it. The concept of forming black holes and stranglets in the LHC is indeed sensationalism.
D-3He fusion is not. It has been quite well studied by physicists. One document I keep on my shelf which covers it and other energy generation ideas is NASA Technical Memorandum 101652, Report of NASA Lunar Energy Enterprise Case Study Task Force, July 1989.
Dr Close is absolutely right about the factor of 100… I even mentioned that as the shortcoming. It is why I have not been holding my breath. I assumed D-3He fusion would come along some decades after D-T was commercialized.
Where Dr. Close stands is quite obvious though: he refers repeatedly to Tokamuks and ITER. They are part of the eternal scientific research project that ensures fusion is only twenty years in the future and always will be.
I have pretty much come to the conclusion that Tokamuks are not viable. If they were a business venture the idea would long ago have become the laughing stock of the Venture markets.
ITER will generate a lot of good science, but if you really think it will give us commercial fusion power… you are in for a very big disappointment. It will give us a follow on international research device to explore the new physics uncovered by it. That’s it.
I have long hoped that some one would come along with a new idea and develop it outside the confines of and in competition with the fusion research industry. After waiting a couple decades I had become rather unhopeful of even that.
The Bussard concept has piqued my interest and raised my hopes. Slightly.
ERROR CORRECTION: IMPORTANT!
As I was reading the materials off of slides shown on video shown over the internet, I did not get the fusion path correct. I was a bit curious about the Be so I started doing some more research and found that it is P-11B. That is BORON not BERYLLIUM. Both are fairly light but I did somewhat wonder about why it would be Be… Since it is B for Boron that is even better as Boron has no particular deleterious effects and requires no particular special handling that I am aware of.
Of course if it has been purified isotopically, it will require careful handling to keep it pure as I expect a lifetime supply of the stuff will be a rather pricey investment… although cheap in terms of the energy content!
Dale,
Two potential downsides to P-11B fusion (according to Wikipedia) :
1. 4He-11B fusion is a potential neutronic side-reaction (since P-11B fusion produces alpha particles, ie. 4He nucleii). Still, the energies required for this are significantly higher than for P-11B, so it shouldn’t be too large a proportion of the reaction.
2. Net energy production is not theoretically viable for the P-11B reaction, due to ion thermalisation. Still, Dr. Bussard seemed to think that this problem could be resolved.
Personally, I think that ITER/Tokamak will eventually produce a viable reactor – but P-11B, if it can be made to work, will be cheaper, cleaner and available much sooner.
The state-funded big science tortoise or the hare?
Actually, I’m wondering whether an isotopically impure supply might be a better bet, as 10B (the other main isotope) is a fine neutron absorber and might therefore reduce neutron emission from side reactions…
Here is a description of the current experiments with a reply by one of the experimenters (Dr. Nebel) in the comments at the linked MSNBC article:
WB-7 First Plasma
If you are in to the engineering and physics may I suggest:
IEC Fusion Technology blog
There are links in the sidebar to most of the major discussion groups focused on the topic.
Even if polywell fusion doesn’t pan out, even if tokamak and other fusion approaches fail, there’s still an innovative fission approach that can provide thousands of years worth of electricity: the thorium fuelled Rubbia Energy Amplifier / Accelerator Driven System.
Some further info here
and here.
Carlo Rubbia’s presentation about it in pdf format here.
Energy for high-tech civilization is not a problem; if only the over-regulators and green luddites can be got out of the way.
Those of us paying attention have known about inertial electrostatic fusion for some years. High school students have produced neutrons from home made Farnsworth fusors and you can buy similar devices commercially as neutron sources although for not very subtle reasons (physical grids) they cannot produce nett power.
There were hints that Doc Bussard had ideas to overcome these problems but no details until the Google talk which I highly recommend to everyone.
To some of the objections raised: Oil won’t be obsolete overnight. It will be a while before we have Bussard fusion airplanes but even that ought to feasible for large aircraft.
Getting the energy out of the reactor isn’t hard as detailed in the talk. Even if p-B11 doesn’t work at first, D-D ought to work and you can convert existing electrical generation plants to work on this, as detailed in the talk.
The thermalisation issue isn’t, according to Bussard. This keeps getting dragged up and rebutted. We will know for sure very soon.
If this works(I think it is a good chance) I doubt it will take 25 years to commercialisation. This thing looks to me more like the development of aircraft gas turbines – first run successfully in 1937 – 38, powering aircraft very soon in 1939 and operationally deployed in 1944 with numbers of manufacturers with different designs in development well before that.
Again as detailed in the talk, Tokamaks ain’t where it is at. A very large one might eventually be coaxed into producing nett power to the grid but these things do not ever look like being commercially feasible power sources.
I see M.Simon has posted. Follow his links and become well informed. Thank you, sir, for your efforts in publicising Bussard’s work.
once the fusion reaction is working, how to get the energy into usable form?
The polywell produces DC. In this respect it acts like a very large battery, doesn’t even need a turbine or generator. Convert the output to AC and put it straight onto the grid.
Dale,
Did you come across these slides from Tom Ligon, one of the Bussard team?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/11/fusion-propulsion-if-bussard-iec-fusion.html
$27/kilo to LEO
$50/Kilo Earth surface to Luna surface
A month to Mars, 80 days to Titan.
As a BTW – I have Google Alerts set up to trawl for new postings on Bussard fusion, and when I awoke this morning it pointed me directly to Samizdata.
it just all seems to good to be true… Commercial spaceflight, fusion, qubits and E8.
Nick,
Add to this molecular meccano sets of DNA based(Link) components(Link). printable electronics(Link) and nanotube based materials.
Very interesting video indeed on oh so many levels!
Dale: ¨The energy in these can be extracted in a magnetic field. ¨
From what I understand, the result of p-B11 fusion are three alpha particles, which you just collect on two big anodes (DC). With sustained fusion, you collect millions of these things, current flows and presto a 10Mv dc battery. (APL´s idiots guide to bussard fusion).
Anyway, I see Mr Simon is over here. Also recommended his power & control blog.
Alice:
1. Physics lab Fusor fusion was demonstrated by Farnsworth in the 60’s. Bussard’s are not the first step but at least the second.
2. The development of fission was focussed on bombs; civil nuclear power was useful but not necessary to that endeavour. It is at least possible that Fusion research focussed on power generation, and exploiting modern computation power could move faster.
I will have to read a great deal more before I understand why that would be so and why allowing the particles to strike the anode would not cause thermalization of some of the energy and the possibility of radioactive low level by-products.
The magnetic field energy extraction was posited for the protons in a D-3He Tokamuk; since this is not a Tokamuk, perhaps these 4He (Alpha’s) can be treated differently in this type of reactor. I’d be interested in knowing more.
Dale,
You put a charge on the anodes so the alphas just kiss them gently. No radioactive by products.
So, they get the energy out via MHD?
So, they get the energy out via MHD?
Sounds more like flipping marbles from the floor to the table top with a fusion spoon. Lots of potential energy there.
It is intended to produce extremely high voltage DC, AFAIK. Much higher voltages than in typical 24/7/365/50 years use so far. No reason why it can’t be done — but equally no reason to expect that it will be easy either. Remember the old rule — the less we know, the easier it looks.
Yes, it is possible. But it is equally possible that there will be some unexpected technical problems to solve, especially in scaling up a new process to commercial scale — which could slow things down.
And remember — there is a whole hell of a lot of bureaucracy to surmount today that was not around during/after WWII. Further, all the fat cats getting rich off wasteful subsidized wind turbines will see practical fusion as a threat to their income streams — and those bastards are politically well-connected. With a little political nudging, it could take the US Federal Govt about a decade just to decide on the necessary review process for commercial fusion installations. And the EU’s bureaucracy will make even that seem like a dangerously truncated schedule.
Full disclosure — I personally would love to see Bussard fusion and a whole lot more alternate energy sources commercialized ASAP. But let’s not kid ourselves: tough as the technical problems may be, the real barriers are political. That’s why the hope for human technological progress now lies in countries like China, where they treat Greenpeace and their ilk with the respect they have truly earned.
If you buy the latest issue of ANALOG January/February 2008, it has a long explanation by Tom Ligon (The ‘Science Fact’ section) about this very subject. He thinks it’s a lot more likely to work than other fusion reactors. It even has drawings.
Alice, despite what you say about bureaucracy, etcetera – if developers in the US reach that critical point where the system works (produces net power, reliably) but are hung up on red tape, how long do you think it will take China or India to either steal it or buy it? It’s not like these guys are going to keep their results a secret, after all…
The major problem I see is that we simply red-tape ourselves into economic hardship (like we’re doing now – one set of emissions targets for Europe/US, a different set for India/China/everywhere else) by refusing to licence this technology while everyone sane just gets on with it.
As Nick points out, Bussard was expecting that after this final research completes his team would need another five years to complete the first full scale device and all he relevant work with it.
My question is, why?
If all the tech heads in the US were to successfully badger their congresscritters into taking note of this would it be possible to reduce this time? Or is the five years a hard limit? In the months I have been searching I have not found any indication of what the five year project plan covers.
Will chucking dollars help? Or is it like a pregnancy? Where it doesn’t matter how many women are available to help, nine months is what it will take.
Chucking State dollars at something might give you the impression of a speed up… but the output product will not be a commercial one, it will be a political one.
We have been waiting 50 years for fusion. A mere 5 years (which I will suggest actually is more like 7-10 in real life engineering) is not too much to wait, especially if you have a system in which the physics is all understood and confirmed by prototype.
Keep in mind who has been funding it so far: The US Navy. If you want to answer the question, “Why?”, go back to the earlier article on rail guns. If these power plants pan out, you could put a separate generate in each 5″ gun replacement turret. There is almost no end to the things the Navy could do with it.
The US Army could have portable power supplies it could drive right in behind the advancing forces. You might even be able to replace the main gun on a tank with a railgun. You could power the tank and the gun off one of these. Just think of how that would shrink “the long tail”! Dorsai tanks anyone?
The USAF could bring one in on a C-130 and use it to power a forward base.
That is your answer to the constituency in government. If this can be built, it will be built.
But let’s take our time and do the engineering right. I am allergic to IBM Man Years.
Not yet. This technology needs to be proven. Then maybe.
Meanwhile, another, proven technology suffers from political barriers: fission. It’s political barriers that keep this technology from being implemented, and from advancing and improving.
Analog also had an article about this almost a decade ago, say ’99 or ’00. Had pictures then too and proposed the boron fuel mix and producing electricity by running the exhaust of a fusor rocket over an anode mesh.
Is the 2008 article merely a reprint, or does it bring something new to the table?
An irrelevant, but nonetheless pleasant thought to contemplate, is the side issue of the reaction of George Monbiot and his acolytes. A high tech solution eliminating their problem with CO2 will make their heads explode.
A drastic reduction in the level of CO2 production alongside an increase in both energy consumption and the standard of living will be counter to everything they are working towards.
A mere 5 years (which I will suggest actually is more like 7-10 in real life engineering) is not too much to wait
Five years before the full sized prototype is declared a success, including I would guess, a year or two as power supply for a fusion powered warship, and then another five years before the first commercial plants start contributng power to the grid?
Dunno. I think it will be more a matter that as soon as it is seen as a viable source of power there will be a big push to bring it into production.
Analog also had an article about this almost a decade ago, say ’99 or ’00.
This Analog article, by Tom Ligon again, included instructions for building a low energy fusion generator as a high school project.
It is available on the net, but I can’t remember where I found it. I leave finding it again as an exercise for the reader.
If they can be bothered.
It turns out there is another way to fuse an atom.
If memory serves there are actually quite a few ways to fuse atoms, some occuring at relatively low temperatures (Muon Fusion(Link)).
For Muon fusion I think it’s been studied and demonstrated since the 70s by, amongst others, Andrei Sakharov.
Arthur C Clarke uses it as the propulsion system in 2010 and 2063 Odyssey Novels.
The challenge is nobody has yet found a way to extract enough energy to make it worth while.
Engineering experience has delivered the “Rule of Ten” — it is risky to scale up a prototype by more than about a factor of about 10, because often new issues come up & have to be resolved as the beast is made larger. Can’t jump from the first kid floating a coconut to building the QE II in one step.
If Bussard fusion (or anything else) works on a lab scale, there would probably have to be 2 or 3 intermediate-sized prototypes before reaching the Gigawatt scale of a commercial power plant. “Design, build, operate, learn” cycle for each generation of prototype would probably take 5 – 10 years — which is why a quarter century is a good first guess at the the time from demonstration to commercial scale.
And then the successful commercial plant would need to be replicated many, many times to provide the energy human beings need. Current total global energy demand is equal to about 15,000 Gigawatts. Even if the world could marshall the resources to complete a 1 Gigawatt-scale fusion plant every day, that is a 40-year build-out.
Not trying to be a downer here, but recall that California was building tax-subsidized windmills in Altamont Pass a quarter century ago — and wind power today is still no more than a footnote in US energy supplies.
Jacob is right — smart thing to do would be to start building lots of fission power plants now, while continuing R&D on other non-fossil energy sources. We have the technology & resources for large-scale nuclear fission today. But first we would need to get over the political barriers. That’s why, very regretfully, we have to conclude that the future of the human race lies in Chinese hands which are untainted by Political Correctness.
It is amazing to think we could well see another moment in history some time soon right up there in significance with the start of the bronze age, the iron age, the printing press, global shipping, internal combustion engine, electricity, powered flight, computers… fusion power.
With a Manhattanized budget and the authority to spend it to keep things moving along, I can envision 6 to 20 test reactors of various sizes and power to the grid in 3 years. Production units rolling off assembly lines 3 years after that.
This means work goes on 24/7 365. Experimental work especially.
Lots of stuff going on in parallel.
Assuming of course current experiments green light the effort.
I’d like to see international pressure on this, but so far 90% or more of the political stuff is American. (BTW I contacted a Brit MP with a blog – nothing happened).
Technically the interest is more evenly divided.
You Brits (if I may be so impertinent) don’t even have an IEC program. But plans for a huge friggen laser set up are moving right along. The EU is beyond hopeless. ITER and bust is their motto.
Sorry, but I do not agree. A ‘Manhattan Project’ is great if all you want is to win a war at any cost.
If you throw money at it, you will not get a simple affordable reactor for use by the general public. You will get something that is very large; something with parts built and designed in multiple States (if American) or countries (if the EU) regardless of how it affects the cost.
You will get design compromises that are political, rather than engineering: just like the Space Shuttle.
This is too important a technology to be built by the politicians. Work with the Navy to get it up to a proof of concept, then pick some partners and do an IPO on the London Stock Exchange. (Why not the New York Exchange? Because you want nothing to do with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements)
You will find no support here for State mega-programs. If it is that important (and it is) it is worth a great deal of money. For early days you even have an ‘anchor tenant’ because the Navy will certainly buy them if you can make them.
Look what State megaprograms did to Fusion already. It put us back 50 years because they could keep beating on Tokamuks and had funds to block any and all competition.
For Liberty’s sake, do this the right way.
One of the really nice things about the Bussard reactor if it works out is that it is likely to work well at the 100MW level. Think lots of distributed smaller power plants.
For the military, forget about the C130 delivering a plant: power the C130 with it and make the C130 ten times the size. You may not even need wings.
While I would pay money to see George Monbiot’s head explode at the thought of clean cheap energy, the sticking point for his ilk has already been thought of(thanks again to M.Simon) and needs to be countered. Hint: If this works for p-B11, it will work just dandy for D-D which produces neutrons – lots and lots of neutrons. What pray tell can you do with those?
I just wanted to comment briefly as I’ve been interested in different types of fusion for some time now. I first learned about the hydrogen/boron interaction from (Link) a couple of years back. It looks as if they are working on a very similar, if not the exact same process.
The Bussard reactors get around the problems of Hirsch style fusors acting more like huge ohm resistors, which happen to produce neutrons, by getting rid of the grids and therefore the way that ions would eventually end up at the girds. Grid losses where not the only problem with Fusors however has there been anything that gets around all of the problems outlined in the Todd Harrison Rider paper “Fundamental Limitations on Plasma Fusion Systems not in Thermodynamic Equilibrium”? Have there been holes found in this paper’s logic?
I remember reading that computer simulations at MIT where the ions stay beam like configurations, rather than coming in from all sides at all times as in normal Fusors, seemed to eliminate thermalisation of the ions and therefore minimised the losses due to breaking radiation. Is that right?
@Dale
You could always try to claim you where being a smart arse and had got mixed up with the intermediate stage of this reaction which does involve an unstable form of Be existing for a few nanoseconds.
The full reaction path is:
P + B11 -> He4 + Be8 -> 3He4