Figure 1. Good Looking n-U Fusion Plant in Central California An uppity choir member has castigated me for not mentioning Trialpha in the piece on fusion. But Trialpha's interesting concept is based on blasting Boron-11 with a proton, which then splits into three heliums. How can he call that fusion?
Actually, for all the NRC fuss about radiation exposure, why aren't they concerned about radon emissions from coal burning power plants and from the fly ash landfills? Oxidized Uranium salts are soluble, reduced Uranium salts are not, hence there is a reasonable level of Uranium in coal. Indeed, I seem to rember reading decades ago about the value of a lot of low grade coal deposits are Uranium reserves.
Good points, but science stopped being a factor in political decisions at least 60 years ago. They just make stuff up and call it science. So, the answer is not technical or logical, but it is embedded in how long it takes Americans to choose sensible and caring leaders. Now, I expect to see commercial fusion before I see that, given our recent track record, but anything is possible. I am a health physicist and can make a case that radiation is not dangerous to health at levels 10,000 times the levels we protect to today. Again, it is a political fairy tale, but people are as susceptible to conjured fear in current times than I have ever seen in my lifetime.
However you look at it, the physics is pretty defined. If it is fusion, it is using light atoms and is initiated with a proton. If it is fission, it is heavy atoms and initiated with a neutron. I have never, until today, heard of fusion described as "proton fission", or fission defined in any way as fusion. Fusion is harder because it takes a lot of energy for a proton to touch the nucleus to initiate the fusion event (much more for boron than hydrogen). Yes, boron has advantages in that no extra neutron is produced, but it is much harder to initiate because so much more energy must be present to overcome the coulombic forces needed to allow a proton to touch the nucleus. Fusion is far off still because they have not solved the basic problems, let alone the heat transfer problems. Lots of engineering is needed to make it viable and profitable, most of which has not been done yet. I admire the companies that are moving the dream forward, but the same claims have been made for decades and yet, we are only incrementally closer to success. I predict that private funding will be successful far sooner than Government funding because there is no impetus to produce results with Government funding. Nevertheless, it will eventually break through, but it will be on a time frame much longer than fission, which is a proven commercial technology already. So, go ahead and get your hopes up, but I would not buy futures in a commercial fusion reactor quite yet. I will take a bet that it will not happen in my lifetime, but I would never be able to cash in on that bet. Maybe my children would benefit.
Practical fusion is a nuncupatory power source totally outside of the current cycopede, due to its tardigradous development; pushed by constant babblement and hopeful illaqueation by fopdoodles. And you can quote me on that.
Excellent spoof. I was a little puzzled by the statement that this new fusion process is only ten times better than the old processes - magnetic and laser confinement. Lasers just recently reached "break even" :) The comparable number for the new n-U process would be energy out (203 MeV) over neutron energy in ( 1 to 2 MeV). That's a gain of over 100X. :)
A more brutal comparison might be power plant output over power to run the pumps, magnets, lasers, etc. 1000X for a nuclear plant, 0.001X for fusion. Even if we think like solar salesmen, and assume Moore's law will apply forever to fusion, with a slope of 10X per decade, we are looking at six decades before fusion can catch up to fission. Clearly we need a breakthrough in fusion. Maybe they will figure out how to separate quarks, and get yields closer to the theoretical maximum E = mc^2. :) :) :)
New subscriber. I don't understand "n-U Fusion plant". I guess this is a joke? Are you saying that our nuclear fission power plants could be considered 'fusion' power because of one step in the chain (as I remember) from U235 to lead? I'll have to brush up on my physics, but can you help clarify my thinking?
Welcome to the choir. However, I must warn you that Gordian Knot News has a very strict diversity of opinion policy. All statements are treated with the greatest respect without regard to the Boolean true/false metric, which is an artificial social construct. To call any statement a joke is not consistent with GKN standards. Pls conduct yourself accordingly.
I would point out that neutron fusion goes back quite a ways. Deuterium is the main fuel in old-style fusion. How was deuterium formed? By fusing a neutron to a proton, early in the Big Bang.
You didn't answer my question. At all. I'm still lost. What is a n-U plant? You say there are about 90 of them in US, so I assume you're talking about our nuclear (fission) power generators that work very well, but I don't understand the post.
I see you live in the little town of Stevenson WA, a stone's throw from my Sandy OR.
Yes, the 90 odd n-U plants are conventionally called fission plants.
The piece is a bit of a spoof, but like all caricatures to be funny it has to be based on a germ of truth. All nuclear reactions operate by creating an unstable nucleus which then splits apart releasing energy. If the unstable nucleus is created by pushing together two charged particles we focus on teh first step and call it fusion.
If the unstable nucleus is created by pushing together a neutron and a heavy isotope, we focus on the second step and call it fission. So in that sense it is a matter of convention.
Literally laughed out loud at this.
lol. So Fermi was the first to have a sustained/controlled fusion reaction.
Actually, for all the NRC fuss about radiation exposure, why aren't they concerned about radon emissions from coal burning power plants and from the fly ash landfills? Oxidized Uranium salts are soluble, reduced Uranium salts are not, hence there is a reasonable level of Uranium in coal. Indeed, I seem to rember reading decades ago about the value of a lot of low grade coal deposits are Uranium reserves.
Good points, but science stopped being a factor in political decisions at least 60 years ago. They just make stuff up and call it science. So, the answer is not technical or logical, but it is embedded in how long it takes Americans to choose sensible and caring leaders. Now, I expect to see commercial fusion before I see that, given our recent track record, but anything is possible. I am a health physicist and can make a case that radiation is not dangerous to health at levels 10,000 times the levels we protect to today. Again, it is a political fairy tale, but people are as susceptible to conjured fear in current times than I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Now don't kid us like that.
It is not April 1st for a few weeks yet. :-)
Unlike Matt Ball, my reaction to this piece was to contemplatively rub my beard and think "this just might work."
I have started viewing P-B11 "fusion" as aneutronic fission.
However you look at it, the physics is pretty defined. If it is fusion, it is using light atoms and is initiated with a proton. If it is fission, it is heavy atoms and initiated with a neutron. I have never, until today, heard of fusion described as "proton fission", or fission defined in any way as fusion. Fusion is harder because it takes a lot of energy for a proton to touch the nucleus to initiate the fusion event (much more for boron than hydrogen). Yes, boron has advantages in that no extra neutron is produced, but it is much harder to initiate because so much more energy must be present to overcome the coulombic forces needed to allow a proton to touch the nucleus. Fusion is far off still because they have not solved the basic problems, let alone the heat transfer problems. Lots of engineering is needed to make it viable and profitable, most of which has not been done yet. I admire the companies that are moving the dream forward, but the same claims have been made for decades and yet, we are only incrementally closer to success. I predict that private funding will be successful far sooner than Government funding because there is no impetus to produce results with Government funding. Nevertheless, it will eventually break through, but it will be on a time frame much longer than fission, which is a proven commercial technology already. So, go ahead and get your hopes up, but I would not buy futures in a commercial fusion reactor quite yet. I will take a bet that it will not happen in my lifetime, but I would never be able to cash in on that bet. Maybe my children would benefit.
Practical fusion is a nuncupatory power source totally outside of the current cycopede, due to its tardigradous development; pushed by constant babblement and hopeful illaqueation by fopdoodles. And you can quote me on that.
Excellent spoof. I was a little puzzled by the statement that this new fusion process is only ten times better than the old processes - magnetic and laser confinement. Lasers just recently reached "break even" :) The comparable number for the new n-U process would be energy out (203 MeV) over neutron energy in ( 1 to 2 MeV). That's a gain of over 100X. :)
A more brutal comparison might be power plant output over power to run the pumps, magnets, lasers, etc. 1000X for a nuclear plant, 0.001X for fusion. Even if we think like solar salesmen, and assume Moore's law will apply forever to fusion, with a slope of 10X per decade, we are looking at six decades before fusion can catch up to fission. Clearly we need a breakthrough in fusion. Maybe they will figure out how to separate quarks, and get yields closer to the theoretical maximum E = mc^2. :) :) :)
New subscriber. I don't understand "n-U Fusion plant". I guess this is a joke? Are you saying that our nuclear fission power plants could be considered 'fusion' power because of one step in the chain (as I remember) from U235 to lead? I'll have to brush up on my physics, but can you help clarify my thinking?
Al,
Welcome to the choir. However, I must warn you that Gordian Knot News has a very strict diversity of opinion policy. All statements are treated with the greatest respect without regard to the Boolean true/false metric, which is an artificial social construct. To call any statement a joke is not consistent with GKN standards. Pls conduct yourself accordingly.
I would point out that neutron fusion goes back quite a ways. Deuterium is the main fuel in old-style fusion. How was deuterium formed? By fusing a neutron to a proton, early in the Big Bang.
You didn't answer my question. At all. I'm still lost. What is a n-U plant? You say there are about 90 of them in US, so I assume you're talking about our nuclear (fission) power generators that work very well, but I don't understand the post.
I see you live in the little town of Stevenson WA, a stone's throw from my Sandy OR.
Al,
Yes, the 90 odd n-U plants are conventionally called fission plants.
The piece is a bit of a spoof, but like all caricatures to be funny it has to be based on a germ of truth. All nuclear reactions operate by creating an unstable nucleus which then splits apart releasing energy. If the unstable nucleus is created by pushing together two charged particles we focus on teh first step and call it fusion.
If the unstable nucleus is created by pushing together a neutron and a heavy isotope, we focus on the second step and call it fission. So in that sense it is a matter of convention.
And that's called thinking outside the box!