DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamental Limitations on Advanced-Fuel Fusion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamental Limitations on Advanced-Fuel Fusion Presented at 1998 APS Plasma Physics Conference Fundamental Limitations On Advanced-Fuel Fusion Todd H. Rider November 19, 1998 Abstract Several fundamental physical limitations which apply to a very broad range of advanced-fuel fusion approaches will be considered. [1,2] Effects to be discussed include bremsstrahlung radiation and particle scattering due to ion-ion, ion-electron, and electron-electron collisions. A variety of advanced fuels will be considered, including D-3He, 3He-3He, p-11B, and p-6Li. Results will be given for fusion plasmas which are substantially out of thermodynamic equilibrium, as well as for plasmas which are close to equilibrium. [1] T.H. Rider, Ph.D. thesis, MIT (1995). [2] T.H. Rider, Phys. Plasmas 4, 1039 (1997). 1 Yet each man kills the thing he loves, By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! --Oscar Wilde, “The Ballad of Reading Gaol” Part I, Stanza 7 (1898) 2 Outline • Basic approach and assumptions • Fundamental constraints on all foreseeable reactors 1. Possible fusion fuels 2.Bremsstrahlung radiation power loss from plasmas in thermodynamic equilibrium 3.Minimum power to keep plasmas out of thermodynamic equilibrium • Conclusions - Fusion schemes which cannot work - Best remaining schemes 3 Approach •Focus on design-independent fundamental physical constraints and make calculations as broadly applicable as possible. •Fusion power, bremsstrahlung power, and collisional energy transfer rate are all µÚd3x [n(x)]2, so their ratios are independent of density, density profiles, and plasma volume (apart from weak density dependence of Coulomb log). • Assume regions of appreciable Úd3x [n(x)]2 are approximately isotropic, to prevent Weibel, counterstreaming, and other instabilities. (Effects of anisotropy will be discussed too.) • Assume fuel ion energy is the only source of energy for the electrons. (Optimistic assumption.) • Assume plasma is quasineutral and optically thin to bremsstrahlung. (It is not helpful to violate those assumptions--see author’s thesis for details.) 4 Constraint 1: Possible Reactions Reactions to be considered in this work: • D + T Æ 4He (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV) • D + D Æ T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) [50%] Æ 3He (0.82 MeV)+ n (2.45 MeV) [50%] [Can derive further energy from T and 3He.] • D + 3He Æ 4He (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV) [D+D side reactions.] • 3He + 3He Æ 4He + 2 p (12.9 MeV total) • p + 11B Æ 3 4He (8.7 MeV total) • p + 6Li Æ 4He (1.7 MeV) + 3He (2.3 MeV) [Can derive further energy from 3He.] Reactions not considered further here (significant neutron production and difficulty in burning): • D + 6Li Æ 2 4He (22.4 MeV total) [Neutrons from D+D and D+6Li side reactions.] • p + 7Li Æ 2 4He (17.3 MeV total) [20%] Æ 7Be + n (-1.6 MeV net) [80%] • p + 9Be Æ 4He + 6Li (2.1 MeV total) 5 Constraint 2: Bremsstrahlung Power Loss Input energy Ions High-energy ions Fusion acquire collide and fuse output energy energy (Pfus) Ion-electron energy transfer (Pie) Electrons acquire energy High-energy electrons emit soft X-ray bremsstrahlung radiation (Pbrem) Energy loss • Pbrem/Pfus is essentially independent of fusion design for plasmas in thermodynamic equilibrium. • Pbrem cannot be reflected back and reabsorbed. • Pbrem cannot be converted at high efficiency. 6 Ion-Electron Energy Transfer (Pie), Bremsstrahlung (Pbrem), and 11 Fusion (Pfus) Powers for p+ B • Pbrem/Pfus=1.74 in equilibrium (Pie=Pbrem). 11 • Optimum conditions (Ti=300 keV and 5:1 p: B). • lnL=15 (optimistic for magnetic confinement). • Includes relativistic corrections and ion-induced partial depletion of slow electrons. • Relatively insensitive to changes in Pie and Pbrem formulas--would need to reduce Pie by ~50x or Pbrem by ~5x for feasible power production. 7 Bremsstrahlung Losses in Equilibrium Fuel <Ei> <Ee> Pbrem/Pfus D+T (1:1) 75 keV 63 keV 0.007 D+3He (1:1) 150 keV 110 keV 0.19 D+D 750 keV 314 keV 0.35 3He+3He 1500 keV 411 keV 1.39 p+11B (5:1) 450 keV 206 keV 1.74 p+6Li (3:1) 1200 keV 384 keV 4.81 • <Ei>=(3/2)Ti and <Ee>=(3/2)Te. • <Ee> found by setting Pie=Pbrem. • Optimized <Ei> and fuel ratio. • Coulomb logarithm lnL=15. • Assumes no burnup of D+D and p+6Li products (3He or T breeders). Burnup improves D+D and makes p+6Li marginal at best. • Now we will examine plasmas which are kept significantly out of thermodynamic equilibrium... 8 Interesting Types of Nonequilibrium Plasmas I. Isotropic, non-Maxwellian velocity distributions. f(v) vts vtf 0 v0 v A. Electrons with: • slow electrons (v<v0~ion thermal speed) depleted to reduce ion-electron energy transfer. •nearly Maxwellian shape (v0<<vtf~electron thermal speed) to be easy to maintain. B. Beamlike ions or electrons (vt≡vts=vtf>>v0) as in colliding-beam fusion, inertial-electrostatic confinement, etc. II. Plasma with different particle species at radically different temperatures/mean energies. A. Lower electron temperature to reduce bremsstrahlung. B. Two fuel ion species at different energies to boost fusion reactivity and minimize side reactions. 9 Constraint 3: Minimum Recirculating Power Needed to Maintain Nonequilibrium Plasmas To maintain a non-Maxwellian distribution despite collisions, a minimum recirculating power must be extracted from particles which have become too fast and given to particles which have become too slow. f(v,t=0) f(v,t>0) if collisional f(v) effects are not counteracted v accelerate slow particles decelerate fast particles Ê∂fˆ Ë∂t¯col Nslow vd Nfast v Nslow Nfast add extract energy energy Precirc • 2 2 Precirc ≡ Ú (dv 4pv ) (mv /2) (∂f/∂t)col Q[J(v)] , 0 where J(v) is the particle flux in velocity space due to collisions: (∂f/∂t)col = -—v⋅J(v) . 10 Minimum Recirculating Power Needed To Deplete Slow Electrons Fuel <Ei> <Ee> Pbrem/Pfus Precirc/Pfus D+3He 150 keV 39 keV 0.093 5.2 D+D 750 keV 170 keV 0.18 2.6 3He+3He 1500 keV 160 keV 0.50 5.6 p+11B 450 keV 35 keV 0.50 52 p+6Li 1200 keV 22 keV 0.50 330 •Applies to all recirculation methods--direct electric converters, resonant heating systems, etc. • Foreseeable methods may need to recirculate even more than this power, due to difficulty with fine manipulation of particles in phase space. • Foreseeable methods will lose too much power during recirculation to be feasible. • It is not very desirable to have to recirculate Precirc>>Pfus even with an efficient recycling system. • The power required to maintain beamlike electrons is even larger. 11 Minimum Recirculating Power Needed To Maintain Beamlike Ions Fuel <Ei> Precirc/Pfus Precirc/Pfus for v0/vt=2 for v0/vt=10 D+T 75 keV 0.3 3 D+3He 150 keV 2 20 D+D 750 keV 1.1 9.6 3He+3He 1500 keV 4.3 38 • At best ions can only be kept in a modestly non- Maxwellian state, and then only for D+T and maybe D+D. • Collisional effects are much faster than fusion reactions (tfus~100-1000tion collisions), so anisotropic systems will have this same problem (as well as instabilities). •For ion species with isotropic velocity distributions and the same mean energy, beamlike distributions would have approximately the same fusion reactivity as Maxwellian distributions--no advantage. (See author’s thesis for details.) 12 Minimum Recirculating Power Needed To Actively Cool Electrons Fuel ions (high energy) Pie Precirc=Pie-Pbrem Electrons (low energy) Pbrem Fuel <Ei> <Ee> Pbrem/Pfus Precirc/Pfus D+3He 150 keV 39 keV 0.093 1.9 D+D 750 keV 170 keV 0.18 0.9 3He+3He 1500 keV 160 keV 0.50 6.2 p+11B 450 keV 35 keV 0.50 33 p+6Li 1200 keV 22 keV 0.50 320 • Prohibitive to actively cool electrons below equilibrium temperature to reduce bremsstrahlung. • Isotropy assumption not needed--Pie remains same if ion or electron velocity distributions anisotropic but symmetrical. (See author’s thesis for details.) • All other approaches to reduce Pbrem -- applied electromagnetic fields, operation without electrons, etc. -- also fail. (See thesis for details.) 13 Minimum Recirculating Power To Keep Two Ion Species at Different Energies • Two fuel ion species i1 and i2 equilibrate in mean energy long before they fuse (tfus~100-1000ti1-i2). • Maintaining significant energy difference requires active power recirculation by some mechanism. • No assumptions about isotropy--collisions only depend on speed of fast ions relative to slow ions. i1 fuel ions (high energy) Pi1-i2 Precirc=Pi1-i2 i2 fuel ions (low energy) p+11B at reaction resonance peak: • Eprotons = 620 keV >> Eboron (optimum conditions) • Monoenergetic ions and lnL=15 (optimistic) • Pi1-i2/Pfus=1.4 D+3He with cold D to suppress D+D side reactions: • Ehelium = 675 keV >> Edeuterium (optimum conditions) • Monoenergetic ions and lnL=15 (optimistic) • Pi1-i2/Pfus=2 14 Approaches That Cannot Work At All*: • Any highly nonequilibrium system without means of recirculating power to stay out of equilibrium (e.g. colliding-beam fusion reactor1, migma2, inertial- electrostatic confinement3, and Polywell4). • Any highly nonequilibrium system with means of recirculating power to stay out of equilibrium (e.g. multipolar traps that remove thermalized particles5). • Any (equilibrium or nonequilibrium) system using 3He+3He, p+11B, or p+6Li as fuel (e.g. Plasmak6 and p+11B inertial-confinement fusion7). • Any D+3He system which attempts to be cleaner than those which will be described next. * Loopholes for future research: • Very efficient, “hands-off” methods of recirculating power to keep plasmas out of equilibrium.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Nuclear Fusion Enhances Cancer Cell Killing Efficacy in a Protontherapy Model
    Nuclear fusion enhances cancer cell killing efficacy in a protontherapy model GAP Cirrone*, L Manti, D Margarone, L Giuffrida, A. Picciotto, G. Cuttone, G. Korn, V. Marchese, G. Milluzzo, G. Petringa, F. Perozziello, F. Romano, V. Scuderi * Corresponding author Abstract Protontherapy is hadrontherapy’s fastest-growing modality and a pillar in the battle against cancer. Hadrontherapy’s superiority lies in its inverted depth-dose profile, hence tumour-confined irradiation. Protons, however, lack distinct radiobiological advantages over photons or electrons. Higher LET (Linear Energy Transfer) 12C-ions can overcome cancer radioresistance: DNA lesion complexity increases with LET, resulting in efficient cell killing, i.e. higher Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE). However, economic and radiobiological issues hamper 12C-ion clinical amenability. Thus, enhancing proton RBE is desirable. To this end, we exploited the p + 11Bà3a reaction to generate high-LET alpha particles with a clinical proton beam. To maximize the reaction rate, we used sodium borocaptate (BSH) with natural boron content. Boron-Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) uses 10B-enriched BSH for neutron irradiation-triggered alpha-particles. We recorded significantly increased cellular lethality and chromosome aberration complexity. A strategy combining protontherapy’s ballistic precision with the higher RBE promised by BNCT and 12C-ion therapy is thus demonstrated. 1 The urgent need for radical radiotherapy research to achieve improved tumour control in the context of reducing the risk of normal tissue toxicity and late-occurring sequelae, has driven the fast- growing development of cancer treatment by accelerated beams of charged particles (hadrontherapy) in recent decades (1). This appears to be particularly true for protontherapy, which has emerged as the most-rapidly expanding hadrontherapy approach, totalling over 100,000 patients treated thus far worldwide (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Maximizing Specific Energy by Breeding Deuterium
    Maximizing specific energy by breeding deuterium Justin Ball Ecole Polytechnique F´ed´eralede Lausanne (EPFL), Swiss Plasma Center (SPC), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Specific energy (i.e. energy per unit mass) is one of the most fundamental and consequential properties of a fuel source. In this work, a systematic study of measured fusion cross-sections is performed to determine which reactions are potentially feasible and identify the fuel cycle that maximizes specific energy. This reveals that, by using normal hydrogen to breed deuterium via neutron capture, the conventional catalyzed D-D fusion fuel cycle can attain a specific energy greater than anything else. Simply surrounding a catalyzed D-D reactor with water enables deuterium fuel, the dominant stockpile of energy on Earth, to produce as much as 65% more energy. Lastly, the impact on space propulsion is considered, revealing that an effective exhaust velocity exceeding that of deuterium-helium-3 is theoretically possible. 1. Introduction The aim of this work is to investigate the basic question \What fuel source can provide the most energy with the least mass?" For this question, we will look into the near future and assume that the current incremental and steady development of technology will continue. However, we will not postulate any breakthroughs or new physical processes because they cannot be predicted with any certainty. It is already well-known that the answer to our question must involve fusion fuels [1,2], but nothing more precise has been rigorously establishedz. A more precise answer may be useful in the future arXiv:1908.00834v1 [physics.pop-ph] 2 Aug 2019 when the technology required to implement it becomes available.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear-Physics Aspects of Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion: Analysis of Promising Fuels and Gamma-Ray Diagnostics of Hot Plasma V
    Physics of Atomic Nuclei, Vol. 63, No. 12, 2000, pp. 2051–2066. Translated from Yadernaya Fizika, Vol. 63, No. 12, 2000, pp. 2147–2162. Original Russian Text Copyright © 2000 by Voronchev, Kukulin. REVIEW Nuclear-Physics Aspects of Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion: Analysis of Promising Fuels and Gamma-Ray Diagnostics of Hot Plasma V. T. Voronchev1) and V. I. Kukulin Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, Vorob’evy gory, Moscow, 119899 Russia Received February 15, 2000 Abstract—A brief survey of nuclear-physics aspects of the problems of controlled thermonuclear fusion is given. Attention is paid primarily to choosing and analyzing an optimal composition of a nuclear fuel, reliably extrapolating the cross sections for nuclear reactions to the region of low energies, and exploring gamma-ray methods (as a matter of fact, very promising methods indeed) for diagnostics of hot plasmas (three aspects that are often thought to be the most important ones). In particular, a comparative nuclear-physics analysis of hydro- gen, DT, and DD thermonuclear fuels and of their alternatives in the form of D3He, D6Li, DT6Li, H6Li, H11B, and H9Be is performed. Their advantages and disadvantages are highlighted; a spin-polarized fuel is consid- ered; and the current status of nuclear data on the processes of interest is analyzed. A procedure for determining cross sections for nuclear reactions in the deep-subbarrier region is discussed. By considering the example of low-energy D + 6Li interactions, it is shown that, at ion temperatures below 100 keV, the inclusion of nuclear- structure factors leads to an additional enhancement of the rate parameters 〈σv〉 for the (d, pt) and (d, nτ) chan- nels by 10–40%.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Reactions Initiated by Laser-Accelerated Particle Beams in a Laser-Produced Plasma
    ARTICLE Received 24 Jan 2013 | Accepted 27 Aug 2013 | Published 8 Oct 2013 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3506 Fusion reactions initiated by laser-accelerated particle beams in a laser-produced plasma C. Labaune1, C. Baccou1, S. Depierreux2, C. Goyon2, G. Loisel1, V. Yahia1 & J. Rafelski3 The advent of high-intensity-pulsed laser technology enables the generation of extreme states of matter under conditions that are far from thermal equilibrium. This in turn could enable different approaches to generating energy from nuclear fusion. Relaxing the equili- brium requirement could widen the range of isotopes used in fusion fuels permitting cleaner and less hazardous reactions that do not produce high-energy neutrons. Here we propose and implement a means to drive fusion reactions between protons and boron-11 nuclei by colliding a laser-accelerated proton beam with a laser-generated boron plasma. We report proton- boron reaction rates that are orders of magnitude higher than those reported previously. Beyond fusion, our approach demonstrates a new means for exploring low-energy nuclear reactions such as those that occur in astrophysical plasmas and related environments. 1 LULI, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, CEA, UPMC; Palaiseau 91128, France. 2 CEA, DAM, DIF, Arpajon F-91297, France. 3 Department of Physics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0081, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C.L. (email: [email protected]). NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 4:2506 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3506 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1 & 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved. ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3506 nertial confinement fusion research over the past 40 years Results has been focused on the laser-driven reaction of deuterium Experimental set-up.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fairy Tale of Nuclear Fusion L
    The Fairy Tale of Nuclear Fusion L. J. Reinders The Fairy Tale of Nuclear Fusion 123 L. J. Reinders Panningen, The Netherlands ISBN 978-3-030-64343-0 ISBN 978-3-030-64344-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64344-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out.
    [Show full text]
  • New New Energy
    Cleantech.org Webinar Series NEW NEW ENERGY September 20, 2012 Dr. Edward Beardsworth Why we are here Current energy sources all have drawbacks and limitations: (fossil, solar, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, wind, oceans) We’re always looking for something new & better. We need and want (new) sources (aka “holy grails”) which are: 1. Cheap, 2. Clean and 3. Inexhaustible. Today -- an overview of what’s being looked at for: NEW NEW Sources of Energy 2 Outline NEW NEW ENERGY I. Breakthroughs -- ”Accepted Science” II. Breakthroughs -- "Not Accepted Science” -- The fun stuff Goal 1: Greater awareness of the range of stuff being worked on. Goal 2: Provide a deeper understanding of underlying science. 3 The Presenter’s Background Dr. Edward Beardsworth Energy Technology Advisors PhD in Physics from Rutgers University Brookhaven National Lab -- interdisciplinary analyses of energy systems during the first energy crisis of the 1970s. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Jane Capital Partners LLC, Advisor to Nth Power, Garage Technology Ventures, the Cleantech Group, Cleantech Open, and many startups. UFTO program, providing technology scouting to 30 of the top utility R&D and corporate venture arms. Technical Director, The Hub Lab, a stealth R&D program funding revolutionary energy technologies. 4 The Presenter’s Background The Hub Lab a stealth grant program funding R&D in revolutionary energy technologies. • Two years of operation 2008-2010 • 7 small grants (the “Patron” model) • Specific (and restrictive) criteria: – Primary energy sources – New Science, not incremental. – “Scientific method” / ”rigor” / ”people” – Non-establishment actors more than welcome Grants made: • Anomalies in Energetics of a Magnetostrictive Alloy (2nd Law) • Semiconductor MEMS device (2nd Law) • Non-Semiconductor PV (2 projects...both raised further funds) • Fluid Dynamics without Numerical Simulation Successful.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Reactions Initiated by Laser-Accelerated Particle Beams in a Laser-Produced Plasma
    Nature Communications 4:2506 doi:10.1038/ncomms3506 (2013) Fusion reactions initiated by laser-accelerated particle beams in a laser-produced plasma C. Labaune1, C. Baccou1, S. Depierreux2, C. Goyon2, G. Loisel1, V. Yahia1, and J. Rafelski3 1LULI, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, CEA, UPMC, F-91128 Palaiseau, France 2CEA, DAM, DIF, F-91297 Arpajon, France and 3Department of Physics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA (Dated: Received 24 Jan 2013, Accepted 27 Aug 2013) The advent of high-intensity pulsed laser technology enables the generation of extreme states of matter under conditions that are far from thermal equilibrium. This in turn could enable different approaches to generating energy from nuclear fusion. Relaxing the equilibrium requirement could widen the range of isotopes used in fusion fuels permitting cleaner and less hazardous reactions that do not produce high energy neutrons. Here we propose and implement a means to drive fusion reactions between protons and boron-11 nuclei, by colliding a laser-accelerated proton beam with a laser-generated boron plasma. We report proton-boron reaction rates that are orders of magnitude higher than those reported previously. Beyond fusion, our approach demonstrates a new means for exploring low-energy nuclear reactions such as those that occur in astrophysical plasmas and related environments. PACS numbers: 25.60.Pj,41.75.Jv,52.59.-f I. INTRODUCTION inertial confinement fusion schemes, using short-pulsed high-intensity lasers. Laser-driven nuclear reactions are a new domain of physics [16], which aside from energy Inertial confinement fusion research over the past 40 generation, are of interest to furthering the understand- year has been focused on the laser-driven reaction of ing of stellar nuclear processes [17, 18] and of Big Bang deuterium (d) and tritium (t) nuclei under near ther- nucleosynthesis [19].
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities in the Fusion Energy Sciences Program Appendix C
    Cover design adapted with permission of the Contemporary Physics Education Project from the wall chart “Fusion—Physics of a Fundamental Energy Source” (http://FusEdWeb.pppl.gov/CPEP/chart.html). OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES PROGRAM Appendix C TOPICAL AREAS CHARACTERIZATION June 1999 Prepared by the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee for the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy On the World Wide Web: http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/More_HTML/FESAC_Charges_Reports.html ii PREFACE This document has been prepared in response to a charge to the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Com- mittee (FESAC) from Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science: ... to make final a program plan for the fusion energy science program by the end of 1999 (FY). Such a program plan needs to include paths for both energy and science goals taking into account the expected overlap between them. The plan must also address the needs for both magnetic and inertial confinement options. It will have to be specific as to how the U.S. program will address the various overlaps, as well as international collaboration and funding constraints. Finally, this program plan must be based on a ‘working’ consensus (not unanim- ity) of the community, otherwise we can’t move forward. Thus I am turning once again to FESAC. I would like to ask FESAC’s help in two stages. First, please prepare a report on the opportunities and the requirements of a fusion energy science program, including the tech- nical requirements of fusion energy. In preparing the report, please consider three time-scales: near-term, e.g., 5 years; mid-term, e.g., 20 years; and the longer term.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility of Colliding Beam Fusion-Catalyzed Fast Fission
    Reactor Physics: General—II 787 Bogdan C. Maglich California Science & Engineering Corporation, 16540 Aston St., Irvine CA. 92606 [email protected] (7) Invention of ion colliding beams1 (1972) presented a 2 challenging alternative to confinement of ions in plasmas ݊஽஽ሺʹǤͶሻ ൅ ܷ ՜ ʹܻ ൅ ʹǤͷ݊ ൅ ʹͳͷ (8) (1960). Unique feature of colliding-beam machines, as opposed ݊ு௘்ሺ͸ሻ ൅ ܷ ՜ ʹܻ ൅ ʹǤͷ݊ ൅ ʹͳͷ (9) to plasmas, is the long energy confinement time of colliding ்் beam systems from τE = 7 hours (Brookhaven) to 3 months ݊ ሺ͵Ǥͷሻ ൅ ܷ ՜ ʹܻ ൅ ʹǤͷ݊ ൅ ʹͳͷ (10) (Fermilab, CERN) because they operate above the critical ஽் energy ~ 200 keV. Unlike random motion, colliding beams ݊ ሺͳͶሻ ൅ ܷ ՜ ܷ ൅ Ͷ݊ 4th generation: CHAIN FISSION are ordered systems and as such, subject to (1) magnetic U beam injection, mostly focusing forces, (2) external control by a combination of external periodic or aperiodic signals and (3) time average (11) neutralization via electron cloud oscillations. st with݊௙ሺ lowͳǤͷ levelሻ 1൅ ܷgeneration ՜ ʹܻ ൅ ʹǤͷ݊injection ൅ ʹͳͷ (1 – 2). This is a follow-up of paper #14125 at this Meeting describing a compact colliding beam fusion test breeder reactor Migma IV that stored self-colliding deuterons of 725 keV with an energy confinement time of 24 s, resulting in copious production of tritium and helium-3 isotopes. A quest is presented here of the feasibility of injecting a 4 MeV 238U+ beam3 in addition to 2 MeV D+ beam, into auto- collider Migma IV at 1.4 MeV4-6; this is equivalent to kinetic temperature of ~1010 oK. (Figs. 1 and 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Ca9110926 ALTERNATE FUSION CONCEPTS
    ///////// •'•7//.' Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project ca9110926 ALTERNATE FUSION CONCEPTS: STATUS AND PLANS CFFTP-G-9009 October 1990 P.J. Gierszewski, A.A. Harms* and S.B. Nickerson' ALTERNATE FUSION CONCEPTS: STATUS AND PLANS CFFTP-G-9009 October 1990 P.J. Gierszewski, A.A. Harms* and S.B. Nickerson' McMaster University Ontario Hydro Research Division CFFTP-G-9009 Prepared by: P.J. GierszewskiO Fusion Systems Engineer Fuel Systems & Materials Development Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project Reviewed by: Manager Fuel Systems & Materials Development Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project Approved by: D.P. Dautovich Program Manager Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to the research groups at Los Alamos National Laboratory CTR Division (HDZP, CPRF, ZT-40, FRX-C, CTX), Spectra Technologies (LSX), Naval Research Laboratory (ZFX), University of Maryland (MS), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ATF), Imperial College (HZP), Institut Gas lonizzati (RFX) and University of Stuttgart (DPF), who showed us their facilities, clarified the key issues, and discussed their results and program plans. We also particularly wish to thank D. Rej (LANL), A. Robson (NRL), R. Krakowski (LANL), P. Stangeby (UTIAS), J. Linhart (U. Pisa), M. Peng (ORNL) and G. Miley (U. Illinois) who kindly reviewed specific sections of the report. ALTERNATE FUSION CONCEPTS STATUS AND PLANS Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Advanced Tokamaks 3 3. Stellarator 11 4. Spherical Torus 18 5. Reversed-Field Pinch 24 6. Dense Z-Pinch 32 7. Field-Reversed Configuration 38 8. Spheromak 45 9. Ignition Experiments and Reactors 9.1 Ignition 52 9.2 Reactors 53 Appendix A: Other Concepts 62 A.1 Colliding Beam Fusion (Migma) 62 A.2 Electrostatic Confinement 63 A.3 Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 64 A.4 Spherical Pinch 64 A.5 Dense Plasma Focus 65 A.6 Linear Systems 66 A.7 Miscellaneous Concepts 67 Appendix B: Inertial Confinement 75 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Colliding Beam Fusion Electric Power System for Mars Exploration
    Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration 6130.pdf Colliding Beam Fusion Electric Power System for Mars Exploration. Joseph A. O’Toole1, Frank J. Wessel2, N. Rostoker2, and M. Binderbauer2, 1Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1663 Bikini Atoll Road, MS H805, Los Ala- mos, 87545, 2University of California, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Irvine, CA 92697-4575. Introduction: Exploration of Mars, by robotic means We have evaluated the confinement physics in a and eventually manned exploration, will require significant CBFR based on the Vlasov-Maxwell equation, in- levels of reliable, high-density electric power. An electric cluding a Fokker Planck collision operator and all power system based on fusion energy possesses distinct sources and sinks for energy and particle flow. The advantages. If developed successfully fusion energy sources results indicate that the CBFR could be scalable in the would be characterized by high fuel energy density, low output power range of 106-109. Most, if not all of the system mass, modest fuel requirements, and the abundance critical technologies needed to demonstrate the CBFR of fuel sources throughout the solar system. NASA plans a readily exist: superconducting magnets, vacuum sys- FY01 new program start with a goal of realizing a fully tems, beam injectors, etc. Moreover, low energy, operational fusion space propulsion system within 20 years; pulsed FRCs have already attained parameters close to a similar time frame as envisioned for the MARS Explora- the range needed for fusion energy. A 50 MW electric tion Initiative. The development milestones for a planetary- power system might involve the following (approxi- based power system and space propulsion system are syner- mate) design parameters: 1-meter diameter, 7-meters gistic extensions of our existing efforts to develop an Earth- length, magnetic field ~ 7 Tesla, ion beam current ~ based energy source.
    [Show full text]