DOCSLIB.ORG

Problems with P Li Plasma in a Fusion Reactor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Problems with P Li Plasma in a Fusion Reactor Vol. 12(16), pp. 194-198, 30 August, 2017 DOI: 10.5897/IJPS2017.4639 Article Number: 75DD9E465789 International Journal of Physical ISSN 1992 - 1950 Copyright ©2017 Sciences Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS Full Length Research Paper Problems with p6Li plasma in a fusion reactor J. Bahmani*, B. Eslami and F. Mohammad Jafari Department of Physics, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran. Received 16 May, 2017; Accepted 27 July, 2017 Problems of using proton-Lithium-6 (p6Li) fuel are energy losses that occur in a fusion reactor. Investigating the energy balance equation in this fuel is significant. The p6Li reaction is termed aneutronic, as it produces relatively few neutrons and requires none for breeding. The energy from the charged reaction products can be directly converted to electrical power at a much higher efficiency than Deuterium-tritium (DT). In this paper, the approach of optimum performance of p6Li fuel in fusion reactors was presented investigating the energy balance equations for ions and electrons. The n optimum fuel mixture is almost p 3 . The performance was determined to be p6Li and is favorable for n 6 Li Ti=800 keV. Key words: Fuel, reactor, energy, radiation. INTRODUCTION Choice of suitable fuel for fusion reactors is subject to reproduction of tritium has more problem and it produces several conditions especially in terms of economic, safety a radial space resulting from blanket of lithium (Stott, and environmental parameters, while it is very difficult to 2005). The deuteron-deuteron (DD) fusion plasmas are satisfy all of them. Risks resulting from the release of very attractive since deuterium is abundant and it radioactive materials run as a result of activation of eliminates the need for breed tritium. The produced equipment and presence of tritium in the plasma system. neutrons are not a lot and they have less energy than DT Each fusion plasma Deuterium-tritium (DT) releases 17.6 plasma. However, there is atmospheric pollution due to MeV which turn into a kinetic energy with 3.5 MeV helium tritium production through DD fusion plasmas. D3He and 14.1 MeV neutron (Yu and Yu, 2009). plasma is called aneutronic which produces relatively few neutrons and nothing is needed for breeding. Energy 23D T 4 He(3.5 MeV) n(14.1MeV) resulted from the charged products (1) can directly change 1 1 2 (1) into the electric power in a much higher efficiency than DT. Thus, to do the same radioactivity as the DT, higher DT reaction has two major disadvantages: (1) It hurts the temperatures 50 to 100 keV are needed. In general, one reactor equipments due to the production of neutron, (2) of the most important alternatives in future fusion reactors *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License Bahmani et al 195 2D 2 D 3 He(0.82MeV) n 2.45 MeV (4) 1 1 2 (4) Since tritium does radioactive decay and neutron irradiation influences the reactor equipment, it is necessary to take some methods to limit the radioactivity caused by neutrons in order to prevent from releasing radioactive tritium. Another aneutronic fusion plasma is the plasma of proton with the lithium-6 (p6Li). This plasma: p6 Li 4 He(1.7MeV) 3 He(2.3MeV) (5) 32 2 (5) is proposed due to the little load of both components. Helium-3 would regress to plasma in the catalyzed mode and the plasma d3 ( ni Ti ) P ci +P si P Li P ie 0 (7) Figure 1. Cross -section as a function of energy for dt 2 (6) different plasmas (Momota et al., 1980). provides a very attractive net Q-value. This plasma is not ignitable in low temperatures and it has a very much energy losses in a fusion reactor. Therfore, the study of problems with p6Li plasma in a fusion reactor is significant. THE PROPERTIES OF P6LI PLASMA DT fusion reactors inherently encounter with economic and environmental challenges. Therefore, it is strongly emphasized to use a proper alternative among the advanced plasmas. In aneutronic fusion, instead of neutron, most of the energy is released through charged particles. In case of aneutronic plasmas such as D3He, the released tritium and the problems with radioactive wastes decreased. Neutron is produced indirectly through DD and DT side plasmas. D3He fusion reactor suffers from the following disadvantages: (1) Helium-3 is only available through the decay of tritium in proton bomb and also in the future space exploitation programs while just a few countries can afford it or it is produced in the fusion Figure 2. Average reactivity as a function of ion temperature 3 for different plasmas (Momota et al., 1980). of deuterium-tritium; (2) D He needs a higher temperature, a more beta and a better containment than 6 DT plasma. p Li fusion reaction is an aneutronic is D3He plasma. advanced fuel. Figures 1 and 2 show a cross-section in terms of energy and average reactivity versus ion 6 21D3 He 4 He(3.6MeV) H(14.7 MeV) temperature for different plasmas, (2) respectively. The p Li 12 2 1 (2) fusion plasma has advantages: (1) decreases neutron production; (2) no need for Lithium blanket requirement; However, the share of “cleanless” has not been done in 3 (3) reduces tritium inventory; (4) direct electrical D He completely due to production of neutrons and conversion; (5) optimum chain plasma features. tritium through the DD side fusion plasma with equal Unfortunately, it has disadvantages including: (1) high probability as follows: bremsstrahlung radiation; (2) produces indirect 7 11 2 2 3 1 radioactive Be and C; (3) utilizes condensable plasma D D T(1.01MeV) H(3.02 MeV) 6 (3) 1 1 1 1 (3) ( Li); and (4) high-temperature for ignition (Mily, 1981). 196 Int. J. Phys. Sci. ENERGY BALANCE IN P6LI PLASMA magnetic field in an inertial fusion reactor. The calculations show that the amount of T =800keV and It is necessary in the reactors that the input power be i are almost ideal conditions with considered sufficiently low when it is compared to the power output Te 300keV for production of a great net power. The study of the p6Li criteria. Fusion power per unit volume produced is: plasma is important in equilibrium state. The conditions is W different for "ideal ignition" and "ignition" cases. In "ideal P n n συ E 1.602.1019 n 2 συ E (11) f p6 fus 23e fus ignition" which are lower sets for the operating Li ( 3 ) cm (11) temperature in the plasma. In “ignition” mode is restricted; the pressure, energy confinement time, and n temperature for the plasma in stable mode under real where E is the released energy (in eV) and p . fus n condition. The mode of ignition is more practical in this 6 Li plasma. It is assumed without external power for P is equal with P . Investigations indicate that P is 6 f p6 Li f sustentation of the p Li plasma. Here, ion and electron 6 energy balance equations reviewed for this plasma. Ion maximized for p Li plasma by assuming 3 with energy balance equation as: and n= 1025 cm -3 . The results show that e P and P increase with high T and n . Figure 3a f B e e d3 display( ns T )the Pideal +P T P is P 800 0 keV . In this state , P is (7) (7) dt 2 ii ci sii Li ie B minimized. Figure 3b shows that the ideal fuel mixture is 3 . In this factors, P is more than P . Figure 4a where Pci is the amount of energy transferred from B f charged particles to ions per unit of time, P is the shows that PB reduces with low . Figure 4b indicates si P ie injected power, PLi is expended energy of each ion per that decreases with and low lnΛ P . f unit of time and Pie is the rate of energy losses by ions as the follow (Spitzer, 1940): The investigations show is also important in 3 2 2 28 Zi n i lnΛTmee i 0.3T W value. reduces with in low . P decreases in low Pie 7.61 10 n e 1 1 T i T e (8) B 3 m T m c23 cm i μT2 i e e ie (8) and it makes an enhancement in . Electron and ion temperature Te , Ti and the electron rest 2 energy mce are in eV , mi is the ion mass CONCLUSION ( mi μm i p , m p is the proton mass) and density n is in 6 -3 ne This study is showed that for the ignition of p Li fuel in a cm . The Coulomb logarithm is lnΛ 31 ln( ) Te fusion reactor, two important problems would emerge; the (Fundamenski and Garcia, 2007). Electron energy lossed energy and the need for high-temperature balance equation is: P electrons and ions. is obtained by the use of B . It P d3 f ( ne Te ) = P ce +P se +P ie -P Le -PBC -P =0 has been determined that the operation (9) is almost 800 d2t (9) keV. Coulomb logarithmic decreased to lnΛ5 and In comparison with Equation 8, bremsstrahlung and improved p6Li plasma performance. In this case, is cyclotron power are the different quantities. PB is more than . At high Te , radiation losses are very bremsstrahlung radiation power as follows (Nevins, 1998): much. Calculations show and increase with high and .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Fusion
    Copyright © 2016 by Gerald Black. Published by The Mars Society with permission NUCLEAR FUSION: THE SOLUTION TO THE ENERGY PROBLEM AND TO ADVANCED SPACE PROPULSION Gerald Black Aerospace Engineer (retired, 40+ year career); email: [email protected] Currently Chair of the Ohio Chapter of the Mars Society Presented at Mars Society Annual Convention, Washington DC, September 22, 2016 ABSTRACT Nuclear fusion has long been viewed as a potential solution to the world’s energy needs. However, the government sponsored megaprojects have been floundering. The two multi-billion- dollar flagship programs, the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the National Ignition Facility (NIF), have both experienced years of delays and a several-fold increase in costs. The ITER tokamak design is so large and complex that, even if this approach succeeds, there is doubt that it would be economical. After years of testing at full power, the NIF facility is still far short of achieving its goal of fusion ignition. But hope is not lost. Several private companies have come up with smaller and simpler approaches that show promise. This talk highlights the progress made by one such private company, namely LPPFusion (formerly called Lawrenceville Plasma Physics). LPPFusion is developing focus fusion technology based on the dense plasma focus device and hydrogen-boron 11 fuel. This approach, if it works, would produce a fusion power generator small enough to fit in a truck. This device would produce no radioactivity, there would be no possibility of a meltdown or other safety issues, and it would be more economical than any other source of electricity.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Physics: Science, Technology and Applications
    Prof. Kim Molvig April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) DDD-T--TT FusionFusion D +T → α + n +17.6 MeV 3.5MeV 14.1MeV • What is GOOD about this reaction? – Highest specific energy of ALL nuclear reactions – Lowest temperature for sizeable reaction rate • What is BAD about this reaction? – NEUTRONS => activation of confining vessel and resultant radioactivity – Neutron energy must be thermally converted (inefficiently) to electricity – Deuterium must be separated from seawater – Tritium must be bred April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) ConsiderConsider AnotherAnother NuclearNuclear ReactionReaction p+11B → 3α + 8.7 MeV • What is GOOD about this reaction? – Aneutronic (No neutrons => no radioactivity!) – Direct electrical conversion of output energy (reactants all charged particles) – Fuels ubiquitous in nature • What is BAD about this reaction? – High Temperatures required (why?) – Difficulty of confinement (technology immature relative to Tokamaks) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) DTDT FusionFusion –– VisualVisualVisual PicturePicture Figure by MIT OCW. April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) EnergeticsEnergetics ofofof FusionFusion e2 V ≅ ≅ 400 KeV Coul R + R V D T QM “tunneling” required . Ekin r Empirical fit to data 2 −VNuc ≅ −50 MeV −2 A1 = 45.95, A2 = 50200, A3 =1.368×10 , A4 =1.076, A5 = 409 Coefficients for DT (E in KeV, σ in barns) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) TunnelingTunneling FusionFusion CrossCross SectionSection andand ReactivityReactivity Gamow factor . Compare to DT . April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) ReactivityReactivity forfor DTDT FuelFuel 8 ] 6 c e s / 3 m c 6 1 - 0 4 1 x [ ) ν σ ( 2 0 0 50 100 150 200 T1 (KeV) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) Figure by MIT OCW.
    [Show full text]
  • Retarding Field Analyzer (RFA) for Use on EAST
    Magnetic Confinement Fusion C. Xiao and STOR-M team Plasma Physics Laboratory University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Canada \ Outline Magnetic Confinement scheme Progress in the world Tokamak Research at the University of Saskatchewan 2 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Magnetic Confinement Scheme 3 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Charged particle motion in straight magnetic field A charged particle circulates around the magnetic field lines (e.g., produced in a solenoid) Cross-field motion is restricted within Larmor radius 푚푣 푟 = 퐿 푞퐵 Motion along the field lines is still free End loss to the chamber wall Chamber Wall 4 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Toriodal geometry is the solution However, plasma in simple toroidal field drifts to outboard on the wall 5 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Tokamak Bend solenoid to form closed magnetic field lines circular field line without ends no end-loss. Transformer action produces a huge current in the chamber Generate poloidal field Heats the plasma Tokamak: abbreviation of Russian words for toroidal magnetic chamber 6 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Stellarator • The magnetic field are generated by complicated external coils • No plasma current, no disruptions • Engineering is challenge 7 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Wendelstein 7-X, Greifswald, Germany • Completed in October 2015 • Superconducting coils • High density and high temperature have been achieved 8 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Reversed Field Pinch • Toroidal field reverses direction at the edge • The magnetic field are generated by current in plasma • Toroidal filed and poloidal field are of similar strength.
    [Show full text]
  • NIAC 2011 Phase I Tarditti Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture Final Report
    NASA-NIAC 2001 PHASE I RESEARCH GRANT on “Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture” Final Research Activity Report (SEPTEMBER 2012) P.I.: Alfonso G. Tarditi1 Collaborators: John H. Scott2, George H. Miley3 1Dept. of Physics, University of Houston – Clear Lake, Houston, TX 2NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 3University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Executive Summary - Motivation This study was developed because the recognized need of defining of a new spacecraft architecture suitable for aneutronic fusion and featuring game-changing space travel capabilities. The core of this architecture is the definition of a new kind of fusion-based space propulsion system. This research is not about exploring a new fusion energy concept, it actually assumes the availability of an aneutronic fusion energy reactor. The focus is on providing the best (most efficient) utilization of fusion energy for propulsion purposes. The rationale is that without a proper architecture design even the utilization of a fusion reactor as a prime energy source for spacecraft propulsion is not going to provide the required performances for achieving a substantial change of current space travel capabilities. - Highlights of Research Results This NIAC Phase I study provided led to several findings that provide the foundation for further research leading to a higher TRL: first a quantitative analysis of the intrinsic limitations of a propulsion system that utilizes aneutronic fusion products directly as the exhaust jet for achieving propulsion was carried on. Then, as a natural continuation, a new beam conditioning process for the fusion products was devised to produce an exhaust jet with the required characteristics (both thrust and specific impulse) for the optimal propulsion performances (in essence, an energy-to-thrust direct conversion).
    [Show full text]
  • Fission and Fusion Can Yield Energy
    Nuclear Energy Nuclear energy can also be separated into 2 separate forms: nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is the splitting of large atomic nuclei into smaller elements releasing energy, and nuclear fusion is the joining of two small atomic nuclei into a larger element and in the process releasing energy. The mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together (Figure 1). As figures 1 and 2 below show, the energy yield from nuclear fusion is much greater than nuclear fission. Figure 1 2 Nuclear binding energy = ∆mc For the alpha particle ∆m= 0.0304 u which gives a binding energy of 28.3 MeV. (Figure from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html ) Fission and fusion can yield energy Figure 2 (Figure from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html) Nuclear fission When a neutron is fired at a uranium-235 nucleus, the nucleus captures the neutron. It then splits into two lighter elements and throws off two or three new neutrons (the number of ejected neutrons depends on how the U-235 atom happens to split). The two new atoms then emit gamma radiation as they settle into their new states. (John R. Huizenga, "Nuclear fission", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:3725) There are three things about this induced fission process that make it especially interesting: 1) The probability of a U-235 atom capturing a neutron as it passes by is fairly high.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Public Meeting Slides-03302021-FINAL
    TitleDeveloping Lorem a Regulatory Ipsum Framework for Fusion Energy Systems March 30, 2021 Agenda Time Topic Speaker(s) 12:30-12:40pm Introduction/Opening Remarks NRC Discussion on NAS Report “Key Goals and Innovations Needed for a U.S. Fusion Jennifer Uhle (NEI) 12:40-1:10pm Pilot Plant” Rich Hawryluk (PPPL) Social License and Ethical Review of Fusion: Methods to Achieve Social Seth Hoedl (PRF) 1:10-1:40pm Acceptance Developers Perspectives on Potential Hazards, Consequences, and Regulatory Frameworks for Commercial Deployment: • Fusion Industry Association - Industry Remarks Andrew Holland (FIA) 1:40-2:40pm • TAE – Regulatory Insights Michl Binderbauer (TAE) • Commonwealth Fusion Systems – Fusion Technology and Radiological Bob Mumgaard (CFS) Hazards 2:40-2:50pm Break 2:50-3:10pm Licensing and Regulating Byproduct Materials by the NRC and Agreement States NRC Discussions of Possible Frameworks for Licensing/Regulating Commercial Fusion • NRC Perspectives – Byproduct Approach NRC/OAS 3:10-4:10pm • NRC Perspectives – Hybrid Approach NRC • Industry Perspectives - Hybrid Approach Sachin Desai (Hogan Lovells) 4:10-4:30pm Next Steps/Questions All Public Meeting Format The Commission recently revised its policy statement on how the agency conducts public meetings (ADAMS No.: ML21050A046). NRC Public Website - Fusion https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/fusion-energy.html NAS Report “Key Goals and Innovations Needed for a U.S. Fusion Pilot Plant” Bringing Fusion to the U.S. Grid R. J. Hawryluk J. Uhle D. Roop D. Whyte March 30, 2021 Committee Composition Richard J. Brenda L. Garcia-Diaz Gerald L. Kathryn A. Per F. Peterson (NAE) Jeffrey P. Hawryluk (Chair) Savannah River National Kulcinski (NAE) McCarthy (NAE) University of California, Quintenz Princeton Plasma Laboratory University of Oak Ridge National Berkeley/ Kairos Power TechSource, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2002.12686V1 [Physics.Pop-Ph] 28 Feb 2020 SOI Sphere of Influence VEV Variable Ejection Velocity
    Achieving the required mobility in the solar system through Direct Fusion Drive Giancarlo Genta1 and Roman Ya. Kezerashvili2;3;4, 1Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy 2Physics Department, New York City College of Technology, The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA 3The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA 4Samara National Research University, Samara, Russian Federation (Dated: March 2, 2020) To develop a spacefaring civilization, humankind must develop technologies which enable safe, affordable and repeatable mobility through the solar system. One such technology is nuclear fusion propulsion which is at present under study mostly as a breakthrough toward the first interstellar probes. The aim of the present paper is to show that fusion drive is even more important in human planetary exploration and constitutes the natural solution to the problem of exploring and colonizing the solar system. Nomenclature Is specific impulse m mass mi initial mass ml mass of payload mp mass of propellant ms structural mass mt mass of the thruster mtank mass of tanks t time td departure time ve ejection velocity F thrust J cost function P power of the jet α specific mass of the generator γ optimization parameter ∆V velocity increment DFD Direct Fusion Drive IMLEO Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit LEO Low Earth Orbit LMO Low Mars Orbit NEP Nuclear Electric Propulsion NTP Nuclear Thermal Propulsion SEP Solar Electric Propulsion arXiv:2002.12686v1 [physics.pop-ph] 28 Feb 2020 SOI Sphere of Influence VEV Variable Ejection Velocity I.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fusion Power – an Overview of History, Present and Future
    International Journal of Advanced Network, Monitoring and Controls Volume 04, No.04, 2019 Nuclear Fusion Power – An Overview of History, Present and Future Stewart C. Prager Department of Physics University of Wisconsin – Madison Madison, WI 53706, USA E-mail: [email protected] Summary—Fusion power offers the prospect of an allowing the nuclei to fuse together. Such conditions almost inexhaustible source of energy for future can occur when the temperature increases, causing the generations, but it also presents so far insurmountable ions to move faster and eventually reach speeds high engineering challenges. The fundamental challenge is to enough to bring the ions close enough together. The achieve a rate of heat emitted by a fusion plasma that nuclei can then fuse, causing a release of energy. exceeds the rate of energy injected into the plasma. The main hope is centered on tokamak reactors and II. FUSION TECHNOLOGY stellarators which confine deuterium-tritium plasma In the Sun, massive gravitational forces create the magnetically. right conditions for fusion, but on Earth they are much Keywords-Fusion Energy; Hydrogen Power; Nuclear Fusion harder to achieve. Fusion fuel – different isotopes of hydrogen – must be heated to extreme temperatures of I. INTRODUCTION the order of 50 million degrees Celsius, and must be Today, many countries take part in fusion research kept stable under intense pressure, hence dense enough to some extent, led by the European Union, the USA, and confined for long enough to allow the nuclei to Russia and Japan, with vigorous programs also fuse. The aim of the controlled fusion research underway in China, Brazil, Canada, and Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • Compact Fusion Reactors
    Compact fusion reactors Tomas Lind´en Helsinki Institute of Physics 26.03.2015 Fusion research is currently to a large extent focused on tokamak (ITER) and inertial confinement (NIF) research. In addition to these large international or national efforts there are private companies performing fusion research using much smaller devices than ITER or NIF. The attempt to achieve fusion energy production through relatively small and compact devices compared to tokamaks decreases the costs and building time of the reactors and this has allowed some private companies to enter the field, like EMC2, General Fusion, Helion Energy, Lockheed Martin and LPP Fusion. Some of these companies are trying to demonstrate net energy production within the next few years. If they are successful their next step is to attempt to commercialize their technology. In this presentation an overview of compact fusion reactor concepts is given. CERN Colloquium 26th of March 2015 Tomas Lind´en (HIP) Compact fusion reactors 26.03.2015 1 / 37 Contents Contents 1 Introduction 2 Funding of fusion research 3 Basics of fusion 4 The Polywell reactor 5 Lockheed Martin CFR 6 Dense plasma focus 7 MTF 8 Other fusion concepts or companies 9 Summary Tomas Lind´en (HIP) Compact fusion reactors 26.03.2015 2 / 37 Introduction Introduction Climate disruption ! ! Pollution ! ! ! Extinctions Ecosystem Transformation Population growth and consumption There is no silver bullet to solve these issues, but energy production is "#$%&'$($#!)*&+%&+,+!*&!! central to many of these issues. -.$&'.$&$&/!0,1.&$'23+! Economically practical fusion power 4$(%!",55*6'!"2+'%1+!$&! could contribute significantly to meet +' '7%!89 !)%&',62! the future increased energy :&(*61.'$*&!(*6!;*<$#2!-.=%6+! production demands in a sustainable way.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Concepts Reactor Subgroup Summary J
    LA-UR-99-5178 Emerging Concepts Reactor Subgroup Summary J. Hammer and R. Siemon Emerging Concepts offer unique reactor features, which may lead to a qualitative improvement in cost and maintainability, with associated increased attractiveness to the customer. Table 3 shows some of these unique features grouped by concept: Concept Motivation RFP Low external field; no disruptions Spheromak, FRC Simple geometry; small size; open axial divertor MTF, Flow Pinch Low development cost; compatible with liquid walls Levitated Dipole, Centrifugally confined High β, classical confinement; no current drive Mirrors Low physics risk; linear geometry Electrostatic, IEC, POPS Small unit size; low-cost development; high mass power density; alternate applications Fast Igniter High gain; low recirculating power Table 3: Reactor features of Emerging Concepts. Again, many examples of reactor advantages associated with Emerging Concepts could be given. As one such, there appears at first examination to be a greater accessibility for incorporating liquid walls into many such reactors. This follows from the linear, open geometry of several of the concepts, including FRC, MTF, Flow Pinch, and Mirrors. Organization The reactor subgroup, jointly with the Physics subgroup, heard presentations arranged before the conference on the 11 concepts listed below. These covered a wide range in physical parameter space with radically different reactor embodiments. The reversed field pinch and spheromak talks were held jointly with the Magnetic Confinement sessions. For each concept, a presenter introduced the concept and reviewed progress to date and important physics and reactor issues. The presenter was followed by a reviewer who brought additional insights. Concept Presenter Reviewer RFP S.
    [Show full text]
  • Aneutronic Fusion
    Aneutronic Fusion The most efficient and ecologically safest energy source 1p + 11B → 3*4He + 8.7 MeV Michael Esuabana Agenda • Why Aneutronic • Theory • LPP • TriAlpha • Polywell • Space propulsion Why Aneutronic Fission reactor 1M x more efficient than coal but! • Expensive (Mining, Turbine, Cleanup/Storing) • Large amount of Highly Radioactive byproducts • Proliferation (Thorium doesn’t help either U232) D-T Fusion reactors Tokamak /(Laser not shown) • 3-4 times more efficient than a Fission reactor • Produces high number of Neutrons • Still requires expensive Turbine system. • Storing problem, irradiated from Neutrons. Pros • Lower temperature to ignite 400MK • Higher Cross section ITER Proton + 11Boron Fusion Pros • Has no Neutron emission < 1%, just Helium Ions. • Energy can be directly converted without Turbine • No Storage worry • Still 10:1 input output ratio as D-T fusion reaction. • Cheaper Cons • Higher Temperature required to fuse 1.6BK • Lower cross section than D-T He3 is scarce on earth, must mine in space(moon) Li7 has no advantages to B11, and has lower cross section! Theory • Emittied n is < 1% of total energy emitted from fusion. • Q value is 3.07 MeV amount of energy released from decay C12 • P colliding Boron11 A=11 Z=5 produces radioactive ion C12 A=12 Z=6. • No γ rays, no neutrons. Ideal for • C12’s half life 20 minutes, everday use around populace. decays into stable He4 ions. • Z=6 is large state of electric charge, • With boron at rest, proton easy to convert directly into needs large velocity to fuse. electricity. By cyclotron or reverse Resonance at 675 keV has linear accelerator.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Laser Pulses for Possible Development of Boron Fusion Power Reactors for Clean and Lasting Energy
    Extreme laser pulses for possible development of boron fusion power reactors for clean and lasting energy H. Hora*1, S. Eliezer2, G. J. Kirchhoff3, G.Korn4, P. Lalousis5, G. H. Miley6 and S. Moustaizis7 1Department of Theoretical Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia 2SOREQ Research Centre, Yavne, Israel 3UJG Management GmbH, 85586 Poing, Germany 4 ELI-Beam, Prague, Czech Republic. 5Institute of Electronic Structure and Lasers FORTH, Heraklion, Greece 6Dept. Nuclear, Plasma & Radiol. Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana IL, USA 7Technical University Crete, Laboratory of Matter Structure and Laser Physics, Chania, Greece *[email protected] ABSTRACT Extreme laser pulses driving non-equilibrium processes in high density plasmas permit an increase of the fusion of hydrogen with the boron isotope 11 by nine orders of magnitude of the energy gains above the classical values. This is the result of initiating the reaction by non-thermal ultrahigh acceleration of plasma blocks by the nonlinear (ponderomotive) force of the laser field in addition to the avalanche reaction that has now been experimentally and theoretically manifested. The design of a very compact fusion power reactor is scheduled to produce then environmentally fully clean and inexhaustive generation of energy at profitably low costs. The reaction within a volume of cubic millimetres during a nanosecond can only be used for controlled power generation. Keywords: boron laser fusion, ultrahigh acceleration, ultrahigh magnetic fields, avalanche HB11 reaction, 1. INTRODUCTION The pollution of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide CO2 was early recognized in a profoundly precise way by Al Gore [1] – when beginning his leadership in this field – with warning into what catastrophe the climate change will go by threatening the whole mankind [2].
    [Show full text]