An Alternative Approach to Nuclear Fusion: Think Smaller

But one group of UK researchers says that the key is to think smaller, and to mash together spherical reactors (a squashed-up version of regular-shaped reactors) and high temperature superconductors to accelerate the development of fusion energy. Their early prototype devices have a 1.2m diameter, and next up, they’re are aiming to build machines that are 3m high with a 2.5m diameter.

... “Instead of making bigger reactors, you go to a higher [magnetic] field that enables you to contain the plasma in an effective way.”

“The idea is that the tokamak is like a magnetic bottle. On the Sun, the plasma is held in place by the gravitational force of the Sun. If we want to get fusion on Earth, we have to have some other means of holding the plasma at high temperatures and pressure for a long time, and a magnetic field is a good way of doing it,” said Kingham. “You can’t use solid materials because the plasma is at 100 million degrees and would melt or erode anything it touched.”

Kingham explained that the first superconducting magnets were made from low temperature superconductors. “These work when cooled by liquid helium at about four kelvin, so that’s four degrees above absolute zero,”

... In contrast, the high-temperature superconductors currently used by Tokamak Energy can withstand temperatures of 20-30 kelvin and magnetic fields of 20-30 teslas. ...

“Firstly, we want to get a very high energy field and this material [the superconductor] can do it. Secondly, we don’t want to spend a huge amount of energy cooling the magnets, so we want to run as high a temperature as possible, but we need the magnets to be superconducting otherwise we’re wasting a huge amount of energy,” Kingham explained.

Still holding out hope that the nuclear fusion theories will be put into practice. But always at some time frame out in the future, as the technology has not yet been invented.

Now if they can produce a superconductor that will retain its properties and integrity at maybe 30,000 degrees Celsius, there is a chance it could work.

So will perpetual motion.

TANSTAAFL. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Now for a power source that IS technologically possible, and in fact has been constructed, a Molten Salt Thorium-fueled nuclear fission reactor serves the near term far better. It has a lot of advantages, including flexibility in location, and in size, and it is capable of re-burning “spent” uranium fuel rods. In fact, there has to be some fissile uranium present in the fuel supply that is mainly thorium, to make the process work.

You are correct and there are very legitimate and serious contenders working in this field. The skeptics also have some valid points regarding the current state of affairs and many of the present claims come across as quackery of the worst kind. The major frustration I have with the skeptics is not their criticisms of the outlandish claims today, but their blanket view of the science based only on present experiences. They essentially assume the limitations today will control the science tomorrow.

There is no reliable way for us to predict the future of science and technology because it’s truly beyond the realm of our understanding. If we have learned anything in past decades it is that the world will be much different for our children and grandchildren. Technologically, their lives will be much different and likely better in many ways. It remains to be seen if their quality of life is better, but that is not an argument of science/technology.

There are monumental obstacles in the quest for cheap/endless energy. However, I have little doubt that “in time” this technology/theory, or another unknown to us, will change the world in ways we cannot begin to imagine. This is why I laugh at those who preach “peak food” or “peak energy.” If we review history we see a bit of panic about the supply of whale oil back in the days of lanterns. Human’s are very adaptable/creative and our planet continues to surprise us with it’s resources.

I am certain that history will show our debate today was comparable to discussing a 100 chapter book after reading the first 4, not reading the 5th or 6th (only a few know them), and failing to realize the last 94 chapters have yet to be written. Who knows if we are only 6 chapters into a 200 or 1000 page book? Our level of science/knowledge grows every year and even accelerates. With the advancements of China and India (and hopefully other developing nations) there has been, and will be, huge growth in the number of potential scientist who find or create something great and change the world.

My concern with “fusion” is that the greatest idea on the horizon (along with politics) has diverted many great minds (and funding) from improving and refining achievable nuclear technology to meet our present needs. China and India are devoting resources towards a new generation of nuclear power (that is possible today) while we skip that for something presently far beyond our grasp. Only history will know who was right and who was wrong, but I will never bet against the technology even if I don’t live to see it.

One thing we can be certain of - “something” beyond our imagination will transform the world in ways we can only dream about. The history of mankind proves it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.