Layman's Guide to Nuclear Fusion

Layman’s Guide To Nuclear Fusion V1.0: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0

.∞§ §∞.
Part 1: Why Fusion? Humanity’s Growing Resource Problem
Part 2: Fusion – A Primer
Part 3: Fusion Energy Cycles
Part 4: Fusion Confinement Devices
Part 5: Public Awareness Of Fusion
Part 6: Conclusion
Part 7: Appendixes

“But if you wanted to know what the perfect energy source is? The perfect energy source is one that doesn't
take up much space, has a virtually inexhaustible supply, is safe, doesn't put any carbon into the atmosphere,
doesn't leave any long lived radioactive waste, it's fusion. But there is a catch. Of course there is always a
catch in these cases. Fusion is very hard to do. We've been trying for 50 years. .. And we have 30 million
years worth of fusion fuel in sea water..”

– Prof. Steven Cowley – Director of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Culham
Laboratory
- Source: TED Talks http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_cowley_fusion_is_energy_s_future.html

Introduction:

This
project
is
intended
as
a
primer
on
nuclear
fusion
and
is
written
in
mostly
non-‐
technical
language
for
the
non
scientific
reader.
It
is
a
research
project
on
the

applications
of

nuclear
fusion
as
a
power
source.

This
is
a
large
area
of
science,
but
I

have
done
my
best
to
condense
the
large
amount
of
available
information
into
an

easily
understandable
format.

As
a
research
document
this
work
is
compiled
from
a
variety
of
sources,
adding
my

own
commentary
in
the
context
of
this
work.
Though
much
of
this
is
my
own
work,
I

make
no
assumptions
or
claims
to
any
of
it
–
I
have
credited
the
authors
whenever
I

have
used
information
they
have
provided

I
will
not
discuss
the
application
of
fusion
in
weaponry.
The
world
has
seen
the
effects

of
this
already
and
there
is
ample
information
on
it.

This
document
is
not
intended
to
discuss
the
entire
field
in
great
detail,
which
is
far

beyond
the
scope
of
a
short
document
like
this.
It
is
instead
a
carefully
arranged,

ordered
primer
and
a
signpost.

Ample
links
provide
further
roads
for
the
intrigued

reader
to
explore
fusion
on
his
own
terms.
There
is
far
more
coherent
information

than
I
could
reasonably
express,
or
fit
in
to
the
document.

On
another
note,
I
am
not
a
fusion
scientist,
simply
a
very
interested
undergraduate.

I

have
done
my
best,
but
have
probably
made
mistakes,
I
acknowledge
this.

I
hope
that
you
find
this
information
both
useful
and
informative.
The
energy
shortfall

and
pollution
problems
are
huge
hurdles
to
human
progress.
The
realisation
of

commercially
viable
fusion
presents
a
very
real
solution.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
writing@xijindustries.com
|

www.writing.xijindustries.com


Why
fusion?
Humanity’s
worsening

resource
problem

In grossly simple terms, there are two problems quickly becoming apparent that effect modern civilization.
These problems are:

1) Increasing energy costs due to limited availability of fuels with finite deposits.
2) Increasing pollution due to increased economic development and global energy usage

Both problems clearly derive from the our reliance upon, and the burning of fossil fuels, which are finite,
cause atmospheric pollution and in some areas are unable to be obtained in quantities fully able to satisfy
demand.

In 2007, the world consumed an estimated 531 exajoules of energy [one exajoule, [denoted as EJ], is 10
exponential 18 joules]. This is equivalent to the energy released by detonating about 9.73 million A-bombs.
Sources:
EIA:
www.eia.doe.gov/

BP:
www.bp.com/

World
Energy
Shortfall
Predictions
–

Note:
prediction
around
2050
of
a
beginning
of
a
shortfall.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Even
an
‘acceptable’
release
of
C02
is
double
the
amount
the
world
faced
before
fossil

fuels
became
widely
used
in
industry!

Modern
man
consumes
around
35
times
the
amount
of
yearly
energy
of
primitive,
pre-‐
agricultural
man.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



World
Energy
Consumption
2006
by
Fuel
Type
[Sources:
BP,
EIA]

Note:
In
2006
around
86%
of
our
energy
came
from
fossil
sources.

Evolution
of
World
Total
Fuel
Consumption
by
type

Note:
energy
usage
roughly
doubles
between
1972
and
2005.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



World
Energy
Use
and
Reserves
circa
2001
–
Source:
WEA

Note:
in
2001
renewables
comprised
less
than
14%
of
our
energy
supply.

UN
Predicted
world
growth
1950-‐2050.
Note
that
the
scale
is
logarithmic
and

the
population
value
is
given
in
millions!
-‐
Source
data
calculated
from:

http://esa.un.org/unpp/

According
to
the
U.S.
Energy
Information
Administration
(EIA),
the
demand
for

global
energy
is
projected
to
grow
44%
between
2005
and
2030.
This
will
be

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



caused
by
a
number
of
factors,
such
as
continuing
economic
growth
and

increasing
populations
in
developing
countries.

-‐
Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

This
same
report
also
stated
that
China
is
the
largest
consumer
of
the
world’s

coal
supply,
and
since
2000
it’s
coal
usage
has
doubled.
Given
the
country’s

expanding
economy,
and
large
coal
reserves,
China’s
demand
for
coal
is

expected
to
remain
strong.
In
the
reference
case,
world
coal
usage
grows
by
2%

every
year,
between
2005
and
2030,
with
coal’s
share
of
the
world’s
total
needs

reaching
29%
by
2030.

Two
of
the
main
consumers
of
energy
will
be
China
and

India,
as
they
are
both
developing
very
quickly
and
have
very
large

populations.
In
1990
both
the
countries
where
consuming
on
average,
10%
of

the
world’s
total
energy
expenditure,
but
in
2006
their
combined
share
had

grown
to
19%.
It
is
expected
that
with
continued
strong
economic
growth,

both
countries
will
increase
their
energy
consumption
twofold,
making
up

28%
of
total
world
consumption
by
2030.

Fission
reactors
have
been
suggested
as
an
alternative
to
this
problem.
But

nuclear
fission
power
has
its
own
problems.
Licensing
and
building
reactors

take
a
very
long
time.
If
the
fuel
were
used
directly
(non-‐breeder
reactors),
the

finite
Uranium
sources
would
limit
the
available
operation
in
a
relative
short

time
(several
decades).
Going
to
breeder
reactors
can
greatly
extend
this
time,

breeder
reactors
can
utilize
more
abundant
Thorium
in
fission,
and
consume

Uranium
at
a
slower
rate.
However,
these
reactors
produce
Plutonium,
which
is

very,
very
dangerous.
Concerns
about
the
safety
of
nuclear
fission
reactors

include
the
possibility
of
radiation-‐releasing
nuclear
accidents,
the
problems
of

radioactive
waste
disposal,
and
the
possibility
of
contributing
to
nuclear

weapon
proliferation.
Spent
fuel
elements
contain
plutonium-‐239.
This

plutonium
could
be
separated
chemically
and
diverted
to
nuclear
weapons

production.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Remaining
oil
reserves
by
source.

Over
38%
is
unrecoverable.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Chernobyl
Nuclear
Power
Plant,
reactor
4–
site
of
the
April
1986
disaster
and

along
with
Three
Mile
Island
in
the
USA,
a
significant
reason
why
nuclear

fission’s
reputation
amongst
the
lay
public
(at
least
in
the
USA)
retains
a

negative
stain.
(Yim
2003)

Decay
timeline
of
fission
biproducts.

Note:
the
immense
amounts
of
time
taken
for
radioactivity
to
decay
to
0.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Diagram
comparing
radiotoxocity
of
materials
in
various
fission
and
fusion
reactors.

Note
two
points.

1.

The
extremely
steep
decline
in
fusion
radiotoxicity
relative
to
fission
radiotoxicity.

Fusion
reactors
have
much
shorter
radioactive
half
lives

than
fission
reactors

2.

A
fusion
reactor
with
a
vanadium
alloy
is
no
more
radioactive
than
coal
plant
ashes

after
around
50
years.

Renewables

Renewable
energy
sources
are
an
excellent
alternative
to
finite
and
polluting
fuels,

being
sustainable
and
a
lot
more
environmentally
friendly.
However
on
average
they

do
not
provide
energy
as
cheaply
as
fission
or
other
finite
resources.
Furthermore,
they

are
not
always
suitable
in
many
locations.
For
example,
geothermal
plants
can
only
be

sighted
in
areas
where
geological
conditions
allow
for
subterranean
heat
to
be

accessed.
Solar
panels
are
not
as
effective
in
countries
which
receive
on
average,
less

sunlight,
and
wind
farms,
obviously
require
a
significant
amount
of
wind.

It
should
be
emphasized
that
all
alternative
methods
of
generation
of
electricity
on

Earth,
wind
energy,
wave
energy
from
the
sea,
solar
radiation
converted
by
solar
cells,

etc,
are
all
indirectly
derived
from
the
energy
emitted
by
the
Sun,
i.e.
they
originate

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



from
solar
fusion.
Even
the
atmosphere,
the
rivers
and
the
forests
providing
other

energy
alternatives
for
electric
power
are
driven
by
heat
and
light
from
solar
fusion.

Great
efforts
will
be
needed
to
achieve
the
sustainable
energy
surplus
we
require
in

the
time
we
have
available,
before
other
options
begin
to
run
down.

-‐Source:
Met
Office
Hadley
–
Datasets
|

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

Environmentally
speaking,
I
believe
it
would
be
prudent
to
hedge
our
bets
in
regards

to
climate
change,
as
the
many
of
the
predictions
brought
about
by
climate
change

could
be
disastrous
if
they
turn
out
to
be
accurate.

One
must
remember
that
a

reduction
in
atmospheric
CO2
levels
would
take
many
years
even
if
emissions
were

drastically
reduced
today.
Economically
speaking;
we
require
the
economic

infrastructure
in
place
to
make
up
the
shortfall
that
a
combination
of
increased

consumption
and
declining
fossil
stocks
will
present
in
the
coming
decades.

Energy
is
undoubtedly
the
food
of
civilization.
With
enough
cheap
and
clean
energy,

we
can
produce
unlimited
clean
drinking
water
from
desalinating
the
oceans,
grow

almost
unlimited
food
in
the
desert,
and
reverse
environmental
damage
through

terraforming.
We
can
easily
power
the
technological,
electronic
systems
that
are
so

essential
in
both
our
personal
lives,
and
to
society
as
a
whole.
With
planning
we
can

live
in
a
world
where
our
needs
are
met,
and
not
at
the
expense
of
the
environment.

The
path
to
an
infinitely
abundant
energy
source?
Nuclear
Fusion.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Fusion
–
a
primer
on
possibly
the
world’s

most
useful
energy
source

It
may
almost
seem
too
good
to
be
true,
but
fusion
has
a
number
of
properties
that,

technological
challenges
aside,
make
it
the
most
promising
energy
source
yet.

Plasma
being
channelled
in
a
fusion
torus

Fusion
–
The
Benefits

SAFE

• If
there
is
an
accident
and
the
magnetic
containment
is
breached,
the
reaction

immediately
stops!
The
metallic
walls
of
the
vessel
surrounding
the
plasma
would

cool
the
expanding
plasma
in
a
short
period,
collapsing
the
reaction
cleanly
and

quickly.

• A
fusion
reactor
is
like
a
gas
burner
–
the
fuel
which
is
injected
into
the
system
is

burnt
off.
There
is
very
little
fuel
in
the
reaction
chamber
at
any
given
moment
(about

1g
in
a
volume
of
1000
m3)
and
if
the
fuel
supply
is
interrupted,
the
reactions
only

continue
for
a
few
seconds.
Any
malfunction
of
the
device
would
cause
the
reactor
to

cool
and
the
reactions
would
stop.

• These
instabilities
in
the
plasma
act
as
an
inherent
safety
mechanism.
A
fusion
reactor

cannot
melt
down
like
a
conventional
nuclear
reactor,
it
simply
degrades
to
gas

• Though
fusion
is
the
main
energy
source
of
hydrogen
bombs,
fusion
alone
has
never

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



produced
a
bomb;
the
hydrogen
bomb
requires
a
fission-‐
based
atomic
bomb
to
set
it

off.

This
uncontrolled
fusion
reaction
used
in
a
bomb
is
a
completely
different

mechanism
to
the
controlled
fusion
which
is
utilized
in
peaceful
fusion.

• Day-‐to-‐day-‐operation
of
a
fusion
power
station
would
not
require
the
transport
of

radio-‐active
materials

•

There
are
no
byproducts
that
could
be
adapted
for
military
purposes.

CLEAN
AND
ABUNDANT

• No
carbon
emissions
are
generated
by
fusion.

• The
raw
fuels
are
abundant
and
equally
distributed
around
the
globe.
This
prevents

geopolitical
and
economic
issues
such
as
countries
gaining
political
advantages
from

the
scarcity
of
the
resource

•
It
also
prevents
economic
inequalities.
Fusion’s
raw
materials
are
available
to
all.

• Raw
materials
for
hydrogen
will
last
for
millions
of
years.
They
are
a
type
(isotope)
of

hydrogen
–
deuterium
(found
in
seawater)
–
and
lithium
(a
light
metal
which
is
found

in
the
Earth’s
crust
and
in
seawater).
The
lithium
in
the
fusion
reactor
wall
produces

tritium
(another
isotope
of
hydrogen)

• The
waste
product
from
a
deuterium-‐tritium
fusion
reactor
is
ordinary
(and
harmless)

helium.

There
are
no
complicated
nuclear
byproducts
and
therefore
no
nuclear

reprocessing,
or
complicated
fuel
cycling
is
required.

• Although
radioactive
materials
will
be
generated
in
the
walls
of
a
fusion
power
plant

they
would
decay
with
half-‐lives
of
about
10
years
and
the
whole
plant
could
be
re-‐
cycled
within
100
years.
There
is
no
long-‐lasting
radioactive
waste
to
burden
future

generations.

EFFICIENT

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



The
oceans
offer
us
an
effectively
limitless
source
of
Deutirium.

• Fusion
is
a
very
efficient
form
of
energy
production.
1
kg
of
deuterium
and
tritium

would
supply
the
same
amount
of
energy
as
10
million
kg
of
coal.

• The
fuel
consumption
of
a
fusion
power
station
will
be
extremely
low.
A
1
GW
fusion

plant
will
need
about
100
kg
of
deuterium
and
3
tons
of
natural
lithium
to
operate
for

a
whole
year,
generating
about
7
billion
kWh.

• The
lithium
in
one
laptop
battery
plus
the
deuterium
from
half
a
bathtub
of
water

would
provide
the
UK’s
per
capita
electricity
production
for
30
years.

Source
-‐

Culham
Centre
For
Fusion
Energy-‐
fusion.org.uk/fusion_energy.pdf

Fusion
–
The
Drawbacks

Though
I
argue
that
fusion
is
extremely
promising,
it
would
not
be
balanced
for
me
to

leave
out
the
shortcomings
of
nuclear
fusion.

As
an
energy
source,
fusion
has
very
few
fundamental
shortcomings.
The
main

problem
with
fusion
today
is
that,
technologically
it
is
still
beyond
our
grasp.
Though

great
advancements
have
been
made,
most
expert
sources
believe
that
commercially

viable
fusion
is
many
decades
away.
And
at
the
current
rate
of
funding,
this
will

remain
to
be
a
problem…

PROBLEM:
Escalating
research
costs

Many
countries
perceive
fusion
funding
as
a
research
risk.
Essentially
it
is

seen
to
have
a
huge
possible
payoff
in
the
far
future,
and
the
timescales

involved
are
too
long.
The
energy
problem
is
pressing
and
we
need

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



results
now!
Other
renewable
energy
sources
compete
with
fusion
for

finite
R&D
funding.
Sadly,
many
green
energy
advocates
have
yet
to
catch

on.
Many
commentators,
particularly
those
greens
who
have
fought
long

campaigns
against
nuclear
fission,
are
deeply
suspicious
of
fusion.
They

doubt
fusion
will
deliver
and
believe
the
money
earmarked
for
research

would
be
better
spent
on
renewables,
such
as
wind,
wave
and
solar

energy.
Many
of
these
other
resources
are
already
in
commercial
use,

which
makes
them
perceived
as
a
more
credible
source
of
funding.

“The
ITER
fusion
reactor
was
originally
costed
at
€10bn
(£9bn),
but
the
rising
price
of

raw
materials
and
changes
to
the
initial
design
are
likely
to
see
that
bill
soar,
officials

confirmed
today.

The
warning
came
as
scientists
gathered
in
Finland
to
unveil
the
first
component
of
the

reactor,
which
will
effectively
act
as
its
exhaust
pipe.
The
reactor
is
expected
to
take

nearly
10
years
to
build
and
is
scheduled
to
be
switched
on
in
2018.

It
began
as
a
US-‐Russian
project
in
the
1980s,
but
has
since
grown
to
include
the
EU,

China,
India,
Japan
and
South
Korea.”
(Sample
2009)
–
Ian
Sample,
The
Guardian

SOURCE
-‐
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/29/nuclear-‐fusion-‐power-‐
iter-‐funding

SOLUTION:
CONSIDER
THE
ALERNATIVES!

There
is
no
‘real’
solution
to
this.
However,
there
is
an
alternative
way
to
consider
the

issue.

1.
Fusion
may
be
expensive
but,
how
expensive
would
it
be
to
transfer
most
of

humanity
away
from
low-‐laying
coastal
areas,
assuming
that
global
warming
raises

sea
levels
over
the
next
100
years?

2.
Fusion
should
be
considered
an
investment.
Simple
economics
suggests
that
the

growing
scarcity
of
fossil
fuels
will
result
in
rising
prices
to
provide
power
from
these

sources
over
time,
assuming
they
become
harder
to
source
and
extract.

Extending
this
idea
further,
the
raw
materials
of
fusion;
deuterium
and
tritium
are

abundant
enough
to
be
practically
considered
infinite.
As
technology
improves,
costs

of
extracting
deuterium
and
lithium
and
converting
them
to
energy
should
fall.

Eventually
we
could
see
fusion
to
be
a
source
of
extremely
cheap
power:
no
scarcity,

massively
efficient
energy
transfer.

3.
Commercial
fusion
reactors
greatly
outperform
other
renewable
energy
sources.

PROBLEM:
Net
Energy
Gain

In
experimental
fusion
reactors
the
main
goal
is
to
achieve
a
net
energy
gain.

Essentially,
we
want
to
generate
more
power
from
the
fusion
reactions
within
reactor

than
we
put
in
to
start
and
maintain
those
reactions.
At
the
moment,
incredible

amounts
of
energy
are
expended
to
create
the
conditions
for
fusion
to
occur,
and
as
of

yet,
no
reactor
has
yet
produced
a
gain.
Running
a
nuclear
fusion
reactor
costs
more

energy
than
it
generates.
At
the
moment,
a
fusion
reactor
expends
energy.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



SOLUTION:
Continue
research!

Reactor
energy
efficiency
has
increased
every
decade
since
fusion
research

began(Andreani
2000).

In
fusion
research,
achieving
a
fusion
energy
gain
factor
Q
=
1
is
called
breakeven,

and
is
the
current
goal
in
fusion
research.
With
every
year
the
value
of
Q
that
we

obtain
climbs
closer
to
1.
In
a
commercial
fusion
reactor,
a
value
around
Q
=
20
would

be
more
suitable.
Some
external
power
will

be
required
for
things
that
help
us

regulate
the
plasma,
such
as
like
current
drive,
refueling,
profile
control,
and
burn

control.

Encouragingly,
in
1997
The
JET
tokamak
at
Culham
in
the
UK
produced
16
MW
of

fusion
power
–
which
is
the
current
world
record
for
fusion
power.

The
interior
of
the
JET
torus.

PROBLEM:
Heat/
Thermal
Pollution

An
unusual
yet
still
valid
argument
against
freely
available
cheap
energy
is
a

phenomenon
known
as
heat
pollution.

The
idea
is
that
with
cheap
abundant
energy,

most
will
be
wasted
as
heat.
This
can
have
detrimental
effects
on
marine
life.

Thermal
Pollution’s
Implications
For
Marine
Ecosystems

Thermal
pollution
can
have
a
great
influence
on
the
aquatic
ecosystem.

There
are
various
effects
on
the
biology
of
the
ecosystems
when
heated
effluents

reach
the
receiving
waters.
The
species
that
are
intolerant
to
warm
conditions
may

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



disappear,
while
others,
rare
in
unheated
water,
may
thrive
so
that
the
structure
of
the

community
changes.

Respiration
and
growth
rates
may
be
changed
and
these
may

alter
the
feeding
rates
of
organisms.
The
reproduction
period
may
be
brought
forward

and
development
may
be
speeded
up.
Parasites
and
diseases
may
also
be
affected.

An
increase
of
temperature
also
means
a
decrease
in
oxygen
solubility.
Any
reduction

in
the
oxygen
concentration
of
the
water,
particularly
when
organic
pollution
is
also

present,
may
result
in
the
loss
of
sensitive
species.

For
example,
in
summer
fish
may
have
high
metabolic
rates
because
their
body

temperatures
are
elevated
in
the
warm
water.
At
the
same
time
they
are
faced
with

relatively
low
oxygen
availability
because
warm
water
holds
less
dissolved
oxygen

than
cold
water.
The
interaction
of
these
factors
may
prove
critical.

Heated
water
can
kill
animals
and
plants
that
are
accustomed
to
living
at
lower

temperatures.

-‐
Source:
http://www.lenntech.com/aquatic/heat.htm#ixzz0drT24IFS

SOLUTION:
Ecological
Safeguards

The
technology
already
exists
to
cool
water
before
it
is
returned
to
the
ecosystem.

Heat
pollution
isn’t
really
a
problem
with
effective
planning.

The
problem
is
not

complicated
but
may
be
expensive;
redesign
of
sites
which
are
discharging
hot
water

may
be
required.
Installing
the
following
hardware
at
offending
sites
would
be
an

effective
solution
to
heat
pollution:

Cooling
ponds:
man-‐made
bodies
of
water
designed
for
cooling
by
evaporation,

convection,
and
radiation

Cooling
towers:
which
transfer
waste
heat
to
the
atmosphere
through
evaporation

and/or
heat
transfer

Cogeneration:
a
process
where
waste
heat
is
recycled
for
domestic
and/or
industrial

heating
purposes.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



A
cooling
pond
in
Novovoronezh,
Russia.
Many
such
sites
have
secondary,
recreational

purposes
that
include
fishing,
swimming,
boating,
camping
and
picnicking.
The
warm

waters
are
often
used
as
a
fish
hatchery.

PROBLEM:
Neutron
Production
in
a
DT

Fusion
Reaction

DT
fusion
reactions
produce
free
neutrons
moving
at
high
speed.
These
fast
neutrons

create
radioactivity
when
they
bombard
the
materials
of
which
the
fusion
reactor
is

constructed.
Thus,
while
the
fusion
process
does
not
produce
nuclear
waste
directly,

the
fusion
reactor
itself
does
become
radioactive,
and
its
components
must
be

disposed
of
safely
when
the
reactor
is
finally
shut
down,
after
the
normal
life
of
an

electric
power
plant.

SOLUTION:
Utilize
Unreactive
Materials
in

Reactor
Construction

Neutron
shielding
is
rather
simple.
Neutrons
are
easily
shielded
with
24
inches
or
so

of
water,
plastic,
or
anything
else
with
high
levels
of
hydrogen
to
provide
collision

partners
of
nearly
equal
mass
for
the
neutrons
to
collide
into.

The
problem
with
radioactive
materials
are
not
a
particular
hurdle.
This
problem
can

be
minimized
by
deliberately
choosing
construction
materials
that
either
produce
less

radioactivity
or
produce
radioactivity
that
dies
away
more
rapidly.
Such
materials
are

estimated
to
lose
their
radioactivity
within
50-‐100
years,
as
oppose
to
the
thousands

of
years
required
for
fission
waste.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Due
to
it’s
low
level
of
radioactive
activation
in
neutron
bombardment,
vanadium
is
a

promising
candidate
for
DT
fusion
reactors.

Part 3.

Fusion
Energy
Cycles

The
fusion
process
can
occur
in
a
number
of
different
‘energy
cycles’.
Each
one
fuses

different
materials,
with
different
quantities
of
matter,
and
releases
energy
in
different

ways.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



A
graph
comparing
the
performance
of
the
3
main
reactions;
The
Deutritium-‐Tritium

reaction,
The
Deutirium-‐Deutrium
process
and
the
proton-‐Boron11
process.

Note: A Deuterium – Deuterium (DD) fusion reactor would provide limitless
energy; it requires only water as a resource. However, even higher temperatures
would be required for a DD reaction, it is unlikely to be considered in the near
future.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Helium
3
fusion
(3He3He)
though
another
promising
aneutronic
reaction,
is
rare
on
the

earth.
Helium
3
fusion
has
been
proposed
for
confinement
in
both
magnetic
or
inertial

fusion
reactors.
This
isotope
of
helium
is
thought
to
be
common
on
the
moon!

THE
DT
FUEL
CYCLE

The
DT
Fusion
reaction.
The
release
of
the
neutron
is
the
main
drawback
of
this
power

cycle.

According
to
the
Lawson
Criterion,
the
DT
fuel
cycle
is
the
easiest
fusion
process
to

start
and
maintain
within
a
terrestrial
reactor.
It
also
has
the
highest
power

production
rate
of
the
fusion
reactions.
The
generated
power
density
is
about
1
W
per

cm3.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



In
simple
terms,
the
‘extra’
neutrons
on
the
D
and
T
nuclei
make
them
"larger"
and

less
tightly
bound,
and
the
result
is
that
the
cross-‐section
for
the
D-‐T
reaction
is
the

largest.
Also,
because
they
are
only
singly-‐charged
hydrogen
isotopes,
the
electrical

repulsion
between
them
is
relatively
small.

It
is
relatively
easy
to
throw
them
at
each

other,
and
it
is
relatively
easy
to
get
them
to
collide
and
stick.
Furthermore,
the
D-‐T

reaction
has
a
relatively
high
energy
yield.(Kobres
1994)

Disadvantages

However,
the
D-‐T
reaction
has
the
disadvantage
that
it
releases
an
energetic
neutron.

Neutrons
can
be
difficult
to
handle,
because
they
will
"stick"
to
other
nuclei,
causing

them
to
become
radioactive,
or
causing
secondary
reactions.

ANEUTRONIC
FUSION

Aneutronic
fusion
means
fusion
that
does
not
produce
neutrons
as
a
by-‐product.

There
are
several
candidates
for
aneutronic
fusion,
but
at
current
the
Hydrogen
and

Boron
11
cycle
seem
to
be
the
most
credible.

As
energy
equation
below
shows
-‐
no
neutrons
are
produced,
however
this
cycle

requires
more
energy
to
start
than
the
DT
cycle.

p
+
B11
-‐>
3
He4
+
8.7
MeV

The
pB11
cycle
is
the
most
promising
candidate
for
aneutronic
fusion.

The
nuclear
energy
from
the
p-‐B
reaction
is
different
because
it
comes
from
the

proton-‐
triggered
fission
of
a
light
element,
and
no
neutrons
are
released.
(Light

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



elements
are
considered
to
be
those
with
a
mass
number
less
than
56,
which
is
the

mass
number
of
iron.)

This
is
unusual
for
at
least
four
reasons:

1.
Light
elements
more
often
“combine”
or
fuse
to
make
heavier
elements;
they
don’t

normally
fission
to
make
elements
that
are
lighter
yet.

2.
Heavy
elements
such
as
235U
(Uranium
isotope
–
mass
number
235)
are

traditionally
considered
to
be
the
more
likely
candidates
for
fission
reactions.

3.
Fission
reactions
are
normally
triggered
by
the
absorption
of
a
neutron,
not
a

proton.

4.
Fissions
usually
result
in
the
emission
of
neutrons.

“Focus
Fusion”
refers
to
electricity
generation
using
a
Dense
Plasma
Focus
(DPF)

nuclear
fusion
generator.
It
uses
the
aneutronic
hydrogen-‐boron
fuel
(pB11)
cycle.

If
Focus
Fusion
reactors
are
made
to
work,
they
will
provide
virtually
unlimited

supplies
of
cheap
energy
in
an
environmentally
sound
way
-‐
no
greenhouse
gases,
and

no
radiation
-‐
because
the
reaction
of
pB11
is
aneutronic.

Focus
Fusion
faces
two
main
technical
challenges:

•
It
requires
much
higher
ion
temperatures
and
plasma
density-‐confinement

time
product
than
Deuterium-‐Tritium
fuel;

•
and
x-‐rays
produced
by
the
reaction
reduce
temperatures.

The
plasma
focus
device
consists
of
two
cylindrical
copper
or
berillyum
electrodes

nested
inside
each
other.
The
outer
electrode
is
generally
no
more
than
6-‐7
inches
in

diameter
and
a
foot
long.
The
electrodes
are
enclosed
in
a
vacuum
chamber
with
a
low

pressure
gas
(the
fuel
for
the
reaction)
filling
the
space
between
them.

Focus
fusion
reactors
are
expected
to
be
less
expensive
for
the
same
amount
of
power.

Using
this
power
cycle,
a
wheelbarrow
load
of
the
Boron
in
Boraxo,
a
brand
of

American
hand
soap
would
be
sufficient
to
provide
all
the
electrical
needs
of
a
small

city
for
a
year.

-‐Sources:
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/focus_fusion_reactor/

William
W.
Flint
-‐
http://www.polywellnuclearfusion.com/Clean_Nuclear_Fusion/Download_Book.html

MAGNETISED
TARGET
FUSION
/

SPHEROMAK
FUSION

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



General
Fusion's
reactor
design
consists
of
220
pistons
that
simultaneously
ram
a
metal

sphere.
This
creates
a
shock
wave
inside
the
sphere,
so
that
plasma
rings
in
the
center

create
a
fusion
reaction.

General
Fusion
plans
to
try
a
relatively
low-‐tech
approach
to
fusion
called
magnetized

target
fusion
(MTF).

The
reactor
consists
of
a
metal
sphere
with
a
diameter
of
three
meters.
Inside
the

sphere,
a
liquid
mixture
of
lithium
and
lead
spins
to
create
a
vortex
with
a
vertical

cavity
in
the
centre.
Then,
the
researchers
inject
two
donut-‐shaped
plasma
rings
called

spheromaks
into
the
top
and
bottom
of
the
vertical
cavity
-‐
like
"blowing
smoke
rings

at
each
other,"
explains
Doug
Richardson,
chief
executive
of
General
Fusion,
the

Canadian
energy
company
that
is
driving
the
MTF
project.

The
last
step
is
mainly
well-‐timed
brute
mechanical
force.
220
pneumatically

controlled
pistons
on
the
outer
surface
of
the
sphere
are
programmed
to

simultaneously
ram
the
surface
of
the
sphere
one
time
per
second.
This
force
sends
an

acoustic
wave
through
the
spinning
liquid
that
becomes
a
shock
wave
when
it
reaches

the
spheromaks
in
the
center,
triggering
a
fusion
burst.
Specifically,
the
plasma's

hydrogen
isotopes
-‐
deuterium
and
tritium
-‐
fuse
into
helium,
releasing
neutrons
that

are
trapped
by
the
lithium
and
lead
mixture.
The
neutrons
cause
the
liquid
to
heat
up,

and
the
heat
is
extracted
through
a
heat
exchanger.
Part
of
the
resulting
heat
is
used
to

make
steam
to
spin
a
turbine
for
power
generation,
while
the
rest
goes
back
to

recharge
the
pistons.

General
Fusion
has
just
started
developing
simulations
of
the
project,
and
hopes
to

build
a
test
reactor
and
demonstrate
net
gain
within
five
years.
If
everything
goes

according
to
plan,
they
will
then
build
a
100-‐megawatt
prototype
reactor
to
be

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



finished
five
years
after
that,
which
would
cost
an
estimated
$500
million.

Source:
Lisa
Zyga,
Physorg.com
|
http://www.physorg.com/news168623833.html

INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION/
INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY [IFE]

While
magnetic
confinement
seeks
to
extend
the
time
that
ions
spend
close
to
each

other
in
order
to
facilitate
fusion,
the
inertial
confinement
strategy
seeks
to
fuse
nuclei

so
fast
that
they
don't
have
time
to
move
apart

Directed
onto
a
tiny
deuterium-‐tritium
pellet,
the
enormous
energy
influx
evaporates

the
outer
layer
of
the
pellet,
producing
energetic
collisions
that
drive
part
of
the
pellet

inward.
The
inner
core
is
increased
a
thousandfold
in
density
and
its
temperature
is

driven
upward
to
the
ignition
point
for
fusion.
Accomplishing
this
in
a
time
interval
of

10^-‐11
to
10^-‐9
seconds
does
not
allow
the
ions
to
move
appreciably
because
of
their

own
inertia;
hence
the
name
inertial
confinement.

Atmosphere Formation
Laser beam rapidly heats the surface of the fusion target forming a surrounding plasma envelope.

Compression
Fuel is compressed by the rocket-like blowoff of the hot surface material.

Ignition

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



During the final part of the laser pulse, the fuel core reaches 20 times the density of lead and ignites at
100,000,000 degrees Celcius.

Burn
Thermonuclear burn spreads rapidly through the compressed fuel, yielding many times the input energy.

Key:
Laser
energy

Blowoff

Inward
transported
thermal
energy

The
National
Ignition
Facility
(NIF)
at
Lawrence
Livermore
Laboratory
is
exp-‐
erimenting
with
using
laser
beams
to
induce
fusion.
In
the
NIF
device,
192
laser

beams
will
focus
on
single
point
in
a
10-‐meter-‐diameter
target
chamber
called
a

hohlraum.
A
hohlraum
is
"a
cavity
whose
walls
are
in
radiative
equilibrium
with
the

radiant
energy
within
the
cavity"

A
hohlraum
mock
up
to
be
used
on
the
NIF
laser

Other
effects
like
the
symmetry
of
the
implosion
are
also
important
for
the
ignition.

The
IFE
laser
must
operate
at
five
to
ten
shots
a
second
depending
on
the
target
yield

per
shot
and
the
desired
electric
output
of
the
power
plant.
Currently
two
classes
of

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



laser
are
being
considered
in
the
United
States:
the
krypton-‐fluoride
(KrF)
gas
laser

and
the
diode-‐pumped
solid
state
laser
(DPSSL).

Like
the
magnetic-‐confinement
fusion
reactor,
the
heat
from
inertial-‐confinement

fusion
will
be
passed
to
a
heat
exchanger
to
make
steam
for
producing
electricity.

-‐
Source:
Rochster
University
|

http://www.lle.rochester.edu/02_visitors/02_grad_inertialconf.php

In
the
resulting
conditions
—
a
temperature
of
more
than
100
million
degrees
Celsius

and
pressures
100
billion
times
the
Earth’s
atmosphere
—
the
fuel
core
will
ignite
and
a

thermonuclear
burn
will
quickly
spread
through
the
compressed
fuel,
releasing
ten
to

100
times
more
energy
than
the
amount
deposited
by
the
laser
beams.
Only
a
few
NIF

experiments
can
be
conducted
in
a
single
day
because
the
facility's
optical
components

need
time
to
cool
down
between
shots.
In
an
IFE
power
plant,
targets
will
be
ignited

five
to
ten
times
a
second!

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



In
direct-‐drive,
the
capsule
is
directly
irradiated
by
the
laser
beams.
In
indirect-‐
drive,
the
capsule
is
placed
inside
a
hohlraum;
made
with
high-‐atomic-‐mass
materials

like
gold
and
lead
with
holes
on
the
ends
for
beam
entry.

Source:
Rick
Hodgin
-‐
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/national-‐ignition-‐facility-‐
preps-‐self-‐sustaining-‐fusion-‐tests-‐for-‐2010-‐20090415/

The
HiPER
Laser
Fusion
Reactor

HiPER
is
a
European
ICF
facility
being
designed
to
demonstrate
the
feasibility
of
laser

driven
fusion
as
a
future
energy
source.

This
is
made
feasible
by
the
advent
of
a

revolutionary
approach
to
laser-‐driven
fusion
known
as
'Fast
Ignition'.
HiPER
will

use
a
unique
laser
configuration,
currently
estimated
at
200kJ
long
pulse
laser

combined
with
a
70kJ
short
pulse
laser.

The
HiPER
Science
Programme

It
will
also
enable
the
investigation
of
the
science
of
truly
extreme
conditions
–
creating

environments
which
cannot
be
produced
elsewhere
on
Earth
(temperatures
of
hundreds

of
millions
of
degrees,
billion
atmosphere
pressures,
and
enormous
electric
and
magnetic

fields).

The
new
research
programs
will
include
the
following
areas

• Astrophysics
in
the
laboratory

• Behavior
of
matter
in
truly
extreme
conditions

• Material
science
in
the
challenging
“warm
dense”
regime

• Nuclear
physics
and
nucleosynthesis

• Atomic
physics

• Turbulent
flow
at
very
high
Mach
numbers

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



• Relativistic
particle
beam
studies
and
applications
•
plasma
physics
at
high

energy
density

• Laser
plasma
interaction
physics

• Quantum
vacuum
studies

• Fundamental
physics
in
ultra-‐strong
electric
fields.

Artist’s
impression
of
the
HiPER
facility

The
project
was
accepted
onto
the
‘European
Roadmap’
in
October
2006,
with
the
UK

agreeing
to
take
a
leadership
role
in
January
2007.The
HiPER
facility
is
anticipated
to

open
towards
the
end
of
the
next
decade
dependent
on
the
success
of
the

preparatory
phase
project.
The
UK
is
the
leading
contender
to
host
the
HiPER
laser

facility.

Source:
The
Hiper
project
|
http://www.hiper-‐laser.org/keyfacts/KeyFacts.asp

Fusion
Confinement
Devices

Regardless
of
the
energy
cycle
of
nuclear
fusion
we
use,
certain
conditions
are
required

to
start
the
reaction
and
contain
the
temperamental
plasma
environment
in
which
the

atomic
process
takes
place.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Another
view
inside
the
JET
torus,
a
tokamak
design.

THE
TOKAMAK

The
Tokamak
was
first
discussed
in
the
1950s
by
Igor
Tamm
and
Andrei
Sakharov
in

the
Soviet
Union.
The
word
Tokamak
is
actually
an
acronym
derived
from
the
Russian

words
toroid-‐kamera-‐magnit-‐katushka,
meaning
“the
toroidal
chamber
and

magnetic
coil.”

This
donut-‐shaped
configuration
is
principally
characterized
by
a
large

current,
up
to
several
million
amps,
which
flows
through
the
plasma.

The
plasma
is

heated
to
temperatures
more
than
a
hundred
million
degrees
centigrade
(much

hotter
than
the
core
of
the
sun)
by
high-‐energy
particle
beams
or
radio-‐frequency

waves.

The
Problem
and
Importance
of
Heat
In
The
Tokamak

In
an
operating
fusion
reactor,
part
of
the
energy
generated
will
serve
to
maintain
the

plasma
temperature
as
fresh
deuterium
and
tritium
are
introduced.
However,
in
the

startup
of
a
reactor,
either
initially
or
after
a
temporary
shutdown,
the
plasma
will

have
to
be
heated
to
100
million
degrees
Celsius.

In
current
tokamak
(and
other)
magnetic
fusion
experiments,
insufficient
fusion

energy
is
produced
to
maintain
the
plasma
temperature.
Consequently,
the
devices

operate
in
short
pulses
and
the
plasma
must
be
heated
afresh
in
every
pulse.

Ohmic
Heating

Since
the
plasma
is
an
electrical
conductor,
it
is
possible
to
heat
the
plasma
by
passing

a
current
through
it;
in
fact,
the
current
that
generates
the
poloidal
field
also
heats
the

plasma.
This
is
called
ohmic
(or
resistive)
heating;
it
is
the
same
kind
of
heating
that

occurs
in
an
electric
light
bulb
or
in
an
electric
heater.

Neutral-‐Beam
Injection

Neutral-‐beam
injection
involves
the
introduction
of
high-‐energy
(neutral)
atoms
into

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



the
ohmically
-‐-‐
heated,
magnetically
-‐-‐
confined
plasma.
The
atoms
are
immediately

ionized
and
are
trapped
by
the
magnetic
field.
The
high-‐energy
ions
then
transfer
part

of
their
energy
to
the
plasma
particles
in
repeated
collisions,
thus
increasing
the

plasma
temperature.

Radio-‐frequency
Heating

In
radio-‐frequency
heating,
high-‐frequency
waves
are
generated
by
oscillators
outside

the
torus.
If
the
waves
have
a
particular
frequency
(or
wavelength),
their
energy
can

be
transferred
to
the
charged
particles
in
the
plasma,
which
in
turn
collide
with
other

plasma
particles,
thus
increasing
the
temperature
of
the
bulk
plasma.

The
Magnetic
Field
In
a
Tokamak

Because
of
the
electric
charges
carried
by
electrons
and
ions,
a
plasma
can
be

confined
by
a
magnetic
field.
In
the
absence
of
a
magnetic
field,
the
charged
particles

in
a
plasma
move
in
straight
lines
and
random
directions.
Since
nothing
restricts
their

motion
the
charged
particles
can
strike
the
walls
of
a
containing
vessel,
thereby

cooling
the
plasma
and
inhibiting
fusion
reactions.
But
in
a
magnetic
field,
the

particles
are
forced
to
follow
spiral
paths
about
the
field
lines.
Consequently,
the

charged
particles
in
the
high-‐temperature
plasma
are
confined
by
the
magnetic
field

and
prevented
from
striking
the
vessel
walls.

The
flow
in
the
plasma
is
mainly
used
to
generate
the
enclosing
magnetic
field.
In

addition,
it
provides
effective
initial
heating
of
the
plasma.
The
flow
in
the
plasma
is

normally
induced
by
a
transformer
coil.

This
simplified
diagram
of
a
tokamak
describes
what
part
each
component
plays
in

confining
plasma.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



In
order
to
minimize
particle
losses
caused
from
leaking
along
the
magnetic
field
lines,

the
chamber
is
bent,
which
also
bends
the
magnetic
field
lines.
This
creates
the

distinctive
torus
shape
also
known
as
a
“toroidal
pinch”.
However,
the
curvature
of
the

magnetic
field
lines
introduces
new
problems.
Strong
externally
produced
toroidal

magnetic
fields
are
necessary
to
stabilize
the
plasma.
These
are
generated
by
the

solenoidal
magnet

The
solenoid
works
by
passing
a
current
through
an
electromagnet
wrapped,
one
turn

after
the
other,
along
the
full
length
of
the
tube.
It
reduces
the
kinking
problem
in
the

plasma
by
adding
an
external
source
of
magnetic
field
that
"stiffens"
the
plasma

column.

A
solenoid
is
a
3
dimensional
coil
which
creates
the
magnetic
field
that

envelopes
the

torus.

A
tokamak
consists
mainly
of
a
toroidal
tube
big
enough
to
hold
the
plasma
that
serves

as
fuel;
a
solenoidal
magnet
wrapped
around
the
tube;
and
a
transformer
to
drive
a

current
in
the
plasma.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Diagram
showing
how
particles
are
trapped
within
the
cross
section
of
plasma

constrained
within
a
tokamak.

The
Energy
Generation
Process
Within
The
Tokamak

• The
fusion
reactor
heats
a
stream
of
deuterium
and
tritium
fuel
to
form
high-‐
temperature
plasma.
It
squeezes
the
plasma
so
that
fusion
can
take
place.

• The
lithium
blankets
outside
the
plasma
reaction
chamber
absorb
high-‐energy

neutrons
from
the
fusion
reaction
to
make
(‘breed’)
more
tritium
fuel.
The

blankets
will
also
get
heated
by
the
neutrons.

• The
heat
will
be
transferred
by
a
water-‐cooling
loop
to
a
heat
exchanger
to

make
steam.

• The
steam
will
drive
electrical
turbines
to
produce
electricity.

• The
steam
will
be
condensed
back
into
water
to
absorb
more
heat
from
the

reactor
in
the
heat
exchanger.

Source:
Princton
Plasma
Physics
Laboratory
|
http://www.pppl.gov/fusion_basics/

At
this
time,
of
all
the
fusion
projects,
tokamak
confinement
is
getting
the
most

funding
and
the
most
media
attention.
There
are
2
major
new
tokamak
projects
under

construction,
ITER
in
Europe
and
SST-‐1
in
India.
Both
are
designed
to
showcase

current
advancements
in
magnetic
confinement
technology
to
the
world,
and
to

provide
the
environment
to
research
the
next
phase
of
tokamak
technology.

THE
POLYWELL/
BUSSARD
FUSION

REACTOR

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Robert
W.
Bussard
(August
11,
1928
–
October
6,
2007)
was
an
American
physicist
who

worked
primarily
in
nuclear
fusion
energy
research,
and
who
pioneered
the
polywell

concept.

The
name
polywell
is
a
portmanteau
of
"polyhedron"
and
"potential
well."

The

Polywell
is
spherical
instead
of
the
donut
shape
of
the
Tokamak.

The
polywell
method

of
achieving
fusion
has
often
been
referred
to
as
the
“long
shot
to
fusion”
and
sadly,

has
been
treated
this
way
by
the
fusion
community
at
large

As
a
fusion
source,
polywell
researchers
compete
with
tokamak
derived
technology

for
funding.
And
in
the
funding
battle,
the
polywell
is
definitely
losing,
However
in

2009
a
R&D
contract
worth
$2
million
a
year
from
the
US
Navy
was
issued,
who

believe
the
polywell
may
be
a
useful
power
source
for
ships.
This
is
promising,
and

many
polywell
advocates
have
stated
that
positive
results
can
be
seen
with
a
fraction

of
the
funding
expended
on
Tokamak
technology
(which
is
a
good
thing
because
it

looks
like
that’s
what
they
will
get!).

Source:
Federal
Business
Opportunities.gov
|

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fc9fd44171017393510d
46e2f8154296&tab=core&_cview=0&cck=1&au=&ck=

The
Polywell
community
is
a
small
but
vocal

‘open
source‘
collective
of
scientific

enthusiasts
and
independent
researchers.

Confinement
Within
The
Polywell

The
Polywell
uses
inertial
electrostatic
confinement
(IEC)
to
create
the
conditions

for
fusion.

When
all
six
electromagnets
within
the
polywell
are
energized,
the
magnetic
fields

meld
into
a
nearly
perfect
sphere.
Electrons
are
injected
into
the
sphere
to
create
a

superdense
core
of
highly
negative
charge.
Given
enough
electrons,
the
electrical
field

can
be
made
strong
enough
to
induce
fusion
in
selected
particles.
Positively
charged

protons
and
boron-‐11
ions
are
injected
into
the
sphere
and
are
quickly
accelerated

into
the
centre
of
the
electron
ball
by
its
high
negative
charge.
Protons
and
boron
ions

that
overshoot
the
centre
are
pulled
back
with
an
oscillatory
action
of
a
thousand
or

more
cycles.

Source:
R.
Colin
Johnson
|
EE
Times

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199703602

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



The
current,
third-‐generation
prototype
uses
six
doughnut-‐shaped
electromagnets
to

create
a
cube
in
which
to
confine
the
fusion
reactions
in
a
strong
magnetic
field.
The

original
prototype
operated
in
air
and
was
just
centimetres
in
diameter;
the
current

design
operates
in
a
vacuum
chamber
and
measures
roughly
a
cubic
yard.

A
2D
representation
of
the
magnetic
fields
operating
in
a
polywell.
The
coils
trap

electrons
and
keep
them
in
a
very
small,
tightly
packed
group
called
a
potential
well.

This
well
attracts
and
accelerates
the
Hydrogen
and
Boron
nuclei.
When
they
collide,
the

nuclear
reaction
is
triggered.
If
there
is
a
system
failure,
the
polywell
simply
loses
its

magnetic
field
and
the
process
stops.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



Conclusion

It
is
evident
that
there
are
a
great
many
different
possibilities
for
fusion;
in
both
the

choice
of
fuel
cycle
and
confinement
method
used.
Though
now
over
50
years
old,
the

field
is
still
very
young.
A
great
deal
of
emerging
technologies
look
promising
within

fusion.
Advances
in
other
areas
such
as
materials
technology,
could
be
a
boon
to
the

efforts
of
fusion
researchers
looking
to
create
more
efficient
reactors.
Similarly,

disruptive
technology
such
as
the
polywell
and
the
plethora
of
projects
lumped
under
the

term
‘cold
fusion’
could
have
payoffs,
though
the
odds
of
this
are
not
considered
certain.

It
appears
that
within
the
fusion
community,
current
preference
is
towards
the
DT
cycle,

magnetically
confined
in
a
tokamak
environment.
This
is
obvious
in
the
amounts
of

money
being
spent
on
in
Europe
on
the
ITER
project,
although
the
USA
is
actively

researching
a
variety
of
inertial
confinement
technologies
in
tandem
with
their
own

tokamak
efforts.

With
advancements
in
future
we
may
be
looking
at
aneutronic
fusion,

though
the
road
to
commercial
fusion
is
‘still’
some
decades
off.

The
next
section
addresses
public
awareness
and
opinion
of
fusion,
with
data
gathered

from
Europe
and
the
USA.

Public
awareness
of
fusion
-‐
Getting
The

Message
Out
Obviously,
informed
public
and
political
awareness
of
nuclear
fusion
will
be
an

extremely
important
factor
in
ensuring
that
fusion
gets
the
attention
it
deserves.
To
be

viable
as
an
energy
source,
fusion
must
be
understood,
at
least
at
some
level,
by
the

lay
public
who
would
one
day
reap
its
benefits.

Policymakers
in
energy
must
better
understand
what
the
fusion
is,
its
economic

implications,
and
long
term
performance
predictions.

Educators
and
thought
leaders

such
as
teachers
need
to
be
given
a
clear
understanding
of
the
subject
so
that
the

message
is
communicated
properly
by
these
vocal,
credible
sections
of
the

population.

Furthermore,
it
is
important
to
educate
the
public
on
the
distinctions
between
fusion

and
fission,
especially
as
the
definition
nuclear
(especially
thermonuclear)
has
a

negative
association
with
weaponry,
which
is
unavoidable.

Finally,
the
obvious
benefits
of
fusion
must
be
communicated
in
a
compelling,
but

impartial
and
factual
manner.
I
believe
that
encouraging
public
support
and
indeed,

approval
of
fusion
could
help
contribute
to
maintaining
political
pressure
that
ensures

fusion
gets
the
economic
support
that
it
needs
to
become
a
reality.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|



However,
it
is
clear
that
competition
for
public
mindshare
is
extremely
tough.
In
this

time
of
mass
media
the
amount
of
information
the
average
person
is
exposed
to
is

greater
than
ever
before.
The
fusion
message
has
to
contend
with
popular
culture,

constant
marketing,
and
the
concerns
of
normal
day
to
day
life;
a
great
many
global

and
personal
issues
take
up
the
average
person’s
attention
and
time.
Fusion
is
simply

not
a
priority
for
most
people.
This
is
understandable
perhaps
in
the
context
of
a
low

awareness
of
the
extent
of
the
energy
problem
facing
us
in
the
coming
decades.

Worse
still,
certain
anti
nuclear
pressure
groups
approach
fusion
in
the
same

combative
manner
they
have
reserved
for
fission.
For
example,
a
consortium
of
French

pressure
groups
Sortir
du
Nucleaire
(Get
Out
of
Nuclear
Energy),claimed
that
ITER

was
a
hazard
because
“scientists
did
not
yet
know
how
to
manipulate
the
high-‐energy

deuterium
and
tritium
hydrogen
isotopes
used
in
the
fusion
process.”

-‐
Source:
Deustch
Welle
-‐
http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,,1631650,00.html

In a report entitled Public Information in European Fusion Energy Research: Methods
and Challenges, released by specialists working at fusion policy and research institutions
around the EU, the opinions and awareness of the public in the EU towards fusion where
measured. The following social groups where identified as communication targets. Each
requires a different outreach strategy and message.
Note: PI: Public information

• Decision makers: due to direct link between the EU energy policy and the European
fusion research this group needs to be informed on both European and national levels about
the mission progress. The group consists of judicious, motivated, busy people.
• Media: as a key intermediate to pro-active communication with general public, media
(TV, radio, newspapers, journals) deserve high priority PI, namely personal relations. In
fusion, media relations are established, as a rule, on national levels.
• Schools & Universities: Teachers act as efficient intermediates to young people who
will probably decide about the industrial future of fusion. Even before, fusion R&D will
need a supply of new determined experts. Notice that fusion has relatively sparse
professional links to Universities compared to other major research projects.
• Interested Public: Although fusion cannot hope for a major pro-active influence of
general public, any of those who are interested and request information must feel free to
obtain it, hence the passive PI must be very broad and highly responsive.
• Industry: Nowadays, the main topics in fusion research have expanded from basic
plasma physics towards more technological tasks, e.g. to material research, which calls for
direct involvement of different industries including their R&D. PI activities have to follow
these developments and promote the opportunities.
• Fusion Community: Due to international dimension of the research it is vital to
foster good relations among fusion centres, calling for broad communications.
• Scientific Community: support from the influential category of “other scientists” can
be expected only if fusion community manages to inform them properly about the fusion
research, its mission, results and strategy, as well as about joint interests.

Source:
http://www.iop.org/Jet/fulltext/EFDP05027.pdf

Findings:
The
report’s
findings
on
the
public
awareness
of
nuclear
fusion
where

not
very
promising.

Material
by
Jack
Oughton
–
available
for
writing
assignments,
contact:
|
|


Layman's Guide to Nuclear Fusion

Layman's Guide to Nuclear Fusion

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Layman's Guide to Nuclear Fusion

Ähnlich wie Layman's Guide to Nuclear Fusion (6)

Mehr von Jack Oughton

Mehr von Jack Oughton (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Layman's Guide to Nuclear Fusion