New Jersey Start-up Publishes Major Advance in Fusion Energy

[Jon]

New Jersey Start-up Publishes Major Advance in Fusion Energy in Leading Physics Journal

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics has published peer reviewed results in Physics of Plasmas showing that the firm has achieved two of three criteria for net fusion energy, meaning garage-sized fusion generators could be possible in as few as five years.

Fusion researchers at a small NJ research company (hey, that's us!) report heating and confining an ionized gas at record temperatures equivalent to over 1.8 billion degrees C, as described in a paper published March 23rd in Physics of Plasmas, the most highly cited journal devoted to plasma physics. The temperatures observed are high enough to ignite the nuclear fusion of “aneutronic” fuels like hydrogen and boron. Such aneutronic fuels, which produce no neutrons, could generate energy that can be converted directly into electricity, without going through the expensive cycle of generating steam and putting it through turbines. This would make LPP's "Focus Fusion" technology potentially cheaper, cleaner and safer than any energy source now available.

“The research reported in this paper shows that we have achieved two of the three conditions needed to scientifically demonstrate net energy production with aneutronic fuels,” explains Eric Lerner, Chief Scientist at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. “We have demonstrated the extremely high ion energies needed to ignite this fuel, and the confinement time of tens of nanoseconds that we need to burn it. We are still far from having sufficient density in the tiny hot regions to get net energy, but that is our next goal.”

Read more: http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.c ... &Itemid=90

I’m a bit dubious on claims of ‘garage-sized fusion generators could be possible in as few as five years.’ but what are your thoughts on this method of nuclear fusion, is that final obstacle going to be the one that throws a spanner in the works here?

[Rabid]

[obligatory reference to General Fusion's work for cross comparison of private efforts to industrialize fusion power]

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, if it means that the reactor core itself will be the size of a three-car RV garage in some American exurb encased in a much larger safety containment and then larger still operating plant, I can accept the hyperbole as reasonably accurate, actually. Also, congratulations, they've managed to get as far as government research has gotten--to the stage of fusion without net energy gain. Plausible, precisely because it doesn't mean nearly as much as they make it out to.

[HMS Conqueror]

No need for containment. Even ordinarily in the sense of a fission plant, but the p-B reaction is aneutronic so there is essentially no radioactivity involved here. They also plan to not use turbine machinery to generate electricity, although I haven't read in to how.

[Imperial528]

You would still need a large amount of shielding for a sustainable reaction. If not for neutron radiation, then simply because of the heat.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No need for containment. Even ordinarily in the sense of a fission plant, but the p-B reaction is aneutronic so there is essentially no radioactivity involved here. They also plan to not use turbine machinery to generate electricity, although I haven't read in to how.

There's a couple ways they could do that, but they won't necessarily make the plant smaller. Anyway, it isn't radiation that I'm talking about for containment, but the fact that anything operating at these temperatures (presumably magnetically contained, which means magnetic flux of the containment needs itself to be contained), producing this kind of heat, light, energy, etc, needs to be separated from the people, electronics, and so on in the plant, which requires a reactor vessel in the same way that chemical reactor vessels exist for chemical plants. It's very silly to associate containment with purely radioactive concerns, to be honest.

[HMS Conqueror]

Magnetic fields are rarely dangerous and drop off quickly with distance even in a vacuum.

You can put a "contained" (like, the fuel isn't burning in open air or something; that's certainly a non-standard usage) chemical generator in a garage.

The absolute temperature is misleading. The temperature of the ionosphere is also extremely high, but both environments are highly rarified. The heat flux of the reactor is important, and it will need to be cooled, but not differently to any other generator of given power rating.

[Akhlut]

I imagine the electronics for the actual plant itself need to be shielded, thus, the core will need containment. :v

Plus, ohhai, you probably want at least some measure of exclusion around the thing, to keep some random jackass from driving his FORD TOUGH pick-up truck into the reactor and then killing how ever many jiggawatts you're producing.

[Imperial528]

Magnetic fields are rarely dangerous and drop off quickly with distance even in a vacuum.

Like many things it's a matter of strength, really. I don't know how powerful the magnets used to contain a sustainable proton-boron fusion reaction would be, but IIRC the ITER reactor in France, which is only 1/3 of the volume required for a sustainable hydrogen reaction, actually requires a decent amount of reinforcement to keep the steel blocks used as reactor siding from being moved out of place by the electromagnets. Of course it is also a very large reactor.

[HMS Conqueror]

If it doesn't turn out as small as they claim it will be because they have problems with confinement that demand a larger reaction vessel. They haven't committed some outright howler like forgetting they need to convert the heat to electrical power or that they need to put the device in a casing or something like that.

[Sea Skimmer]

Magnetic fields are rarely dangerous and drop off quickly with distance even in a vacuum.

It doesn't really take that much though to completely ruin the functioning of computer systems though. It still has to be sealed in. The shear amount of high precision high voltage equipment that's bound to be involved in an industrial scale plant also presents its own safety and containment issues.

You can put a "contained" (like, the fuel isn't burning in open air or something; that's certainly a non-standard usage) chemical generator in a garage.

A lot of kinds of chemical generators exist, like say, humans are massively complex ones and completely not at risk for exploding unless they die, rot and have the chest burst open via methane generation. But it is completely true that chemical refineries have some very massive vessels that are built with six and eight inch thick steel like nuclear reactor pressure vessels are.

The absolute temperature is misleading. The temperature of the ionosphere is also extremely high, but both environments are highly rarified. The heat flux of the reactor is important, and it will need to be cooled, but not differently to any other generator of given power rating.

Well, you might notice the boilers on normal coal and oil burning thermal power plants are completely massive contractions, often the similar in size to the very first 'skyscrapers'. The multiple layer walls and insulation and all the boiler piping are pretty serious constructions even though the grate area is but a small fraction of the whole. More then a few of them, actually maybe well over a majority are as big or bigger then modern nuclear reactors and containment structures. So yeah, the actual reaction chamber being very small is not much indication of the true size of the required plant.

[someone_else]

dunno about the tech, but boron?

It's not a particularly abundant element isn't it?

They also plan to not use turbine machinery to generate electricity, although I haven't read in to how.

Given that they are working with plasma, I'd speculate MHD generators, conveniently high efficiencies, and no moving parts.

[Sea Skimmer]

dunno about the tech, but boron?

It's not a particularly abundant element isn't it?

Its plenty abundant, abundant enough in fact that the USAF in the 1950s was totally intent on using hydro-boron based jet fuel, basically because it increased density, until they figured out the exhaust fumes were highly toxic, plus some other problems. World production is in the millions of tons per year. Now, very high purity boron is very hard to create, but its still no deal killer.

Given that they are working with plasma, I'd speculate MHD generators, conveniently high efficiencies, and no moving parts.

Maybe, but they could also just have something like a Sterling engine in mind.

[HMS Conqueror]

Magnetic fields are rarely dangerous and drop off quickly with distance even in a vacuum.

It doesn't really take that much though to completely ruin the functioning of computer systems though. It still has to be sealed in. The shear amount of high precision high voltage equipment that's bound to be involved in an industrial scale plant also presents its own safety and containment issues.

Like what? It's all very fuddy-duddy. Magnetic shielding of computers is necessary but that isn't bulky or heavy; it's not like shielding against neutrons or gamma rays.

You can put a "contained" (like, the fuel isn't burning in open air or something; that's certainly a non-standard usage) chemical generator in a garage.

A lot of kinds of chemical generators exist, like say, humans are massively complex ones and completely not at risk for exploding unless they die, rot and have the chest burst open via methane generation. But it is completely true that chemical refineries have some very massive vessels that are built with six and eight inch thick steel like nuclear reactor pressure vessels are.

The absolute temperature is misleading. The temperature of the ionosphere is also extremely high, but both environments are highly rarified. The heat flux of the reactor is important, and it will need to be cooled, but not differently to any other generator of given power rating.

Well, you might notice the boilers on normal coal and oil burning thermal power plants are completely massive contractions, often the similar in size to the very first 'skyscrapers'. The multiple layer walls and insulation and all the boiler piping are pretty serious constructions even though the grate area is but a small fraction of the whole. More then a few of them, actually maybe well over a majority are as big or bigger then modern nuclear reactors and containment structures. So yeah, the actual reaction chamber being very small is not much indication of the true size of the required plant.

Garaged-sized 5MW generators already exist. Here is one:



It's just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

[Zixinus]

No need for containment. Even ordinarily in the sense of a fission plant, but the p-B reaction is aneutronic so there is essentially no radioactivity involved here.

It can, depending on what reaction you choose. Proton-Boron reaction in particular part of the reacted fusion produce gamma rays, so containment will still be necessary.

Of course, that is a massive leap compared to the problems a fission plant has (the fuel does not need refinement and processing as much, there is little to no radioactive waste, spent fuel is normal helium and is safe, etc). So it is still a massively desirable outcome.

They also plan to not use turbine machinery to generate electricity, although I haven't read in to how.

Capturing the charged helium atoms and decelerating them by magnetic fields, I think. This results in about 90-95% energy gain (probably less in practice) than the theoretical maximum of 30% with turbines and stuff.

Plus, ohhai, you probably want at least some measure of exclusion around the thing, to keep some random jackass from driving his FORD TOUGH pick-up truck into the reactor and then killing how ever many jiggawatts you're producing.

While a wise precaution, the resulting implosion (I think?) would likely damage mostly the equipment, the car and perhaps cause some hearing problems for the driver due to the the idiot banging into a vacuum chamber.

The gas is quite rare compared to regular air. I would guess that the plasma, lacking containment, would quench in a nasty way. I am not sure about the electrical portion, but I would reckon that the damage may range from a scorch mark to damage comparable to welder's torch (just done faster). There is likely to be some braking radiation too, but I have no idea how much and how lethal.

However, if I think about it, more damage might be caused by the car than the reactor's power. Why? Because the plasma that has the fusion is in a very small area point in a vacuum environment. If you disrupt that by letting air in, the air will take the brunt of the damage.

[Beowulf]

I'm not sure containment is the correct term. Gamma radiation doesn't cause secondary radiation via activation like neutrons do. You just need shielding. They're not the only one's working on non-thermal fusion approaches. EMC2 is working on their polywell reactor (and have gotten funding from the USN for it). The creation of power using a non-thermal approach should work, and present significantly better conversion rate than something that has to obey the Carnot limit. I'd expect something similar to the ratio between mechanical input and electrical output from a standard generator.

[Sky Captain]

The creation of power using a non-thermal approach should work, and present significantly better conversion rate than something that has to obey the Carnot limit.

Or if charged particles are directed through a magnetic nozzle you could get rocket thrust with extremely high specific impulse and possibly with little waste heat generation allowing for fusion engines with very high power to mass ratio.