[lbo-talk] Cheap, safe, clean fusion ...

[Tim Francis-Wright]

Jordan Hayes wrote:
> http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199703602
>
> It's a little geeky, but there's a pointer to a talk that the guy
> gave at Google (which is also a great intro into the issues, plus
> funny commentary, but again, fairly geeky) ... but it's an
> interesting take on "how do we power the future?" ... also
> interesting is that he's not interested in making money on it,
> though he says of course there's plenty of that in there, too.
> ---
>      Now, in a proposal titled "Should Google Go Nuclear?"
>       [ video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606 ],
>       Bussard presents an alternative to thermonuclear fusion. He
>       claims an inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) reactor
>       can provide fusion power that is simpler, cleaner and cheaper
>       than would be possible under the various routes now being
>       pursued by the Department of Energy.
>
>      "Everything [the DOE] is doing is highly radioactive and
>       expensive--measured in tens of billions of dollars, with
>       projected run-out costs of greater than $12 billion, plus
>       another $30 billion over the next 20 or 30 years. The
>       United States has already spent $18 billion [on fusion],"
>       said Bussard. "And there is no end in sight."
>
>      By contrast, Bussard estimates startup costs of $200 million
>       for an IEC fusion reactor that would operate at 95% efficiency.

Sigh.  Boron-proton fusion is certainly something that has gotten a good
deal of funding to date (though not nearly as much as deuterium-tritium
fusion).  The problems it faces are certainly daunting, and the claim
of a $200 million reactor is almost risible.  (DOE has spent a lot
of money in inertial confinement in nuclear weapons research--and
it would be doing a lot more of it if it were really easy.)

For one thing Boron-proton fusion, when it works, generates X-rays:
the process of converting X-rays into electricity is not trivial.
For another, if the proton stream is contaminated with deuterium, the
resulting reaction creates neutrons, so even though the process
is theoretically aneutronic, in practice the neutrons will need to be
dealt with.

But the biggest problem is that the initial energy required for B-p
fusions are far higher than the energies required for D-T fusion.
Those lower energies have to date proven daunting in laboratory
settings; it is hard to see how a manifold increase will not face
similar difficulties.

--tim francis-wright