Skip to content

Extraordinary Potential of Fusion

October 21, 2014

Lockheed Martin made an astonishing claim on October 15, that they had developed an approach that would make energy from fusion a reality in the next decade or so.

Fusion has long been the Holy Grail of nuclear physics.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), has been a multinational project for developing a fusion reactor. The project has been funded by seven countries, including the United Sates.

Suddenly, in addition to ITER, there are two new approaches for developing a fusion reactor.

There is the Lockheed announcement, and a project under development by the University of Washington that was announced last spring.

Simply stated, fusion is the process of two atoms fusing together when subjected to tremendous heat and pressure, and where the combination creates new atoms and releases huge amounts of energy.

Fusion is the opposite of fission. Fission is where an atom is split and releases large quantities of energy. All current nuclear reactors use fission, the splitting of atoms, to generate the heat to produce steam that drives turbine generators that produce electricity.

The basic problem in developing a fusion reactor is that it has required more energy to control the plasma in which the reaction takes place, than the amount of energy produced by the reaction.

The proposals from Lockheed and UW will supposedly create ten times more energy than the energy required to run the process.

The Lockheed lab unit, called the compact fusion reactor (CFR), is only a few square feet in size. It supposedly can be increased in size so that a 100 MW reactor would measure around 23 by 43 feet, and could be mounted on a trailer.

All of this is highly theoretical, and Lockheed admits it will take five years in which to develop a prototype. They also say it will take an additional ten years to produce a working installation.

Needless to say, many scientists are very skeptical of the Lockheed announcement.

The University of Washington design uses a concept called a “spheromak” that drives the electrical currents into the plasma to create the magnetic fields to contain the plasma.

The University of Washington experimental unit is about one-tenth the size of an operational unit, so an operational unit would fit into a space of less than 60 by 60 feet.

More importantly, according to researchers at the University, a large working unit would cost slightly less than a coal-fired power plant of equal output, or about $2,700 per KW.

Then there is ITER, a project that has benefitted from 20 years of previous experimentation with Tokamak coils.

ITER Tokamak from ITER Web Site

ITER Tokamak from ITER Web Site

The Tokamak design utilizes a vacuum vessel, shaped like a huge donut, with a massive magnetic field constraining the plasma.

The entire Tokamak unit, consisting of electromagnets, vacuum vessel, blanket modules, solenoid (transformer) and correction coils, is contained in a cryogenic vessel, depicted above, which is essentially a thermal insulating blanket, 91 feet tall, 89 feet in diameter, and weighing 23,000 tons.

Thus far, it has cost $50 billion. The ITER construction and development program is to take until around 2030, and is intended to merely prepare for the building of a demonstration power plant.

The Lockheed and University of Washington programs have the potential to develop fusion power generation more rapidly than the ITER project, and at far less cost.

Fusion power generation holds out the prospect of unlimited power using easily obtained materials, deuterium, i.e., heavy water, and tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The deuterium is separated from water, while the tritium can be produced in existing nuclear reactors using lithium rods in place of control rods. It may also be possible to produce tritium from within the fusion reactor using lithium.

Diagram from ITER

Diagram from ITER

Only small quantities of deuterium and tritium are required, with Lockheed estimating that a mere 25 pounds of deuterium and tritium, combined, will be needed to operate a 1,000 MW power plant for a year.

While the potential of fusion is staggering, the facts are not very encouraging.

When compared with the work being done by Lockheed and the University of Washington, the ITER project would seem to be an expensive boondoggle, where success could take many decades.

The Lockheed announcement consisted of more hype than substance, and Lockheed will need to answer many questions before its proposal can be taken seriously.

The University of Washington’s proposal, however, has been couched in conservative terms, and the announcement last spring was not given much attention. If a prototype could be developed in five years, as the Lockheed team is claiming for its approach, it would seem very worthwhile to supply the needed funding.

DOE has provided grants for many bad ideas, but this one has the potential to change the world.

The consequences of fusion power will be examined in the next article.

* * * * * *

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. October 21, 2014 10:12 am

    Hey Donn,

    Excellent and very useful analysis as usual. I tire quickly of “vaporware” announcements.

    I wonder if you might care to affirm or debunk this claim (yes, I sooo want it to be true!):

    • October 21, 2014 10:40 am

      Very interesting. I had not seen this, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.
      I can’t say whether it’s a valid claim, but it’s interesting if it proves to be true.
      Not sure about the cost, as that isn’t mentioned, but the extended life would be an important step forward.

  2. donb permalink
    October 21, 2014 4:10 pm

    Fusion power may have potential, but in spite of enormous effort and cost, it has not yet yielded viable power. The Lockheed design utilizes the nuclear reaction of 3H + 2H = 4He + neutron. this proceeds at about 200 kev (kilo-volts) of kinetic energy, which is still much lower than other potential fusion reactions. But there are two significant problems the Lockheed design must overcome. First, 200 kev is equivalent to a plasma temperature of about 2 billion degrees (that’s with a b). Unlike previous fusion reactors that attempt to contain this exceeding hot plasma inside a rather small magnetic torus that has limited power output capacity (e.g., the Tokomak design), the Lockheed design proposes to allow the plasma to occupy a much larger volume. No solid material can withstand anything near that temperature, so the non-material confinement issues multiply. The second problem is that the neutron liberated in the above reaction (the so-call Cockcroft-Walton reaction that was awarded a Nobel prize) has an energy of 14.7 million ev. Neutrons, being uncharged, are not confined by magnetic fields. These neutrons will undergo nuclear reactions with many different substances and produce abundant radioactive species in the surrounding reactor, unless they are stopped by abundant and specialized shielding (even more than a fission reactor).

    • October 21, 2014 4:40 pm

      I agree with your comments.
      Lockheed has a lot of explaining to do.
      Lockheed has, in the past, not made extravagant claims, so I can only hope there is more to their proposal than hype.
      The University of Washington’s approach seems to be better grounded in science, so perhaps they will be successful.
      The ITER project is rife with bureaucracy. Look at their web site and see all they have done that isn’t directly applicable to the project. For $50 billion they should have accomplished a lot more, especially since they have been able to take advantage of 200 earlier Tokamak projects.

  3. Catcracking permalink
    October 21, 2014 9:17 pm

    Excellent and very informative article on the subject.
    While I have little experience on the fusion subject, I share the skepticism on the claims that so frequent our various media. Following “new” alternative energy project claims over the last 15 years, it seems to me that most (if not all) of the releases and articles are no more than an effort to get more funding.
    Your article and comments are a rare clarification of specific energy initiatives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s