4 ms·

> There are two broad approaches toward achieving terrestrial fusion. In magnetic confinement fusion (MCF), magnetic fields are used to confine the hot fusion f

> There are two broad approaches toward achieving terrestrial fusion. In magnetic confinement fusion (MCF), magnetic fields are used to confine the hot fusion fuel in the form of a fully ionized gas or plasma that persists for seconds or longer. In inertial confinement fusion (ICF), laser or particle beams are used to compress and heat a tiny capsule of fusion fuel to generate a micro-explosion of a nanosecond duration. I thought there were now 2 more: projectile method via gas gun and piston containment of molten lead

credit_guy 4y ago
There's an even better one that for some reason gets ignored all the time. Fusion-fission hybrid. Use a fusion reactor that is well below break-even as a neutron source for a fission reactor. Currently all fission reactors have a common safety problem: their fuel has to be very nearly critical. More precisely, there are 2 types of criticality, delayed criticality and prompt criticality. Prompt needs a higher concentration of fissile material than delayed, or delayed needs a higher amount of moderator (like graphite rods) than prompt. In any case, you absolutely don't want your reactor to become prompt critical. It did happen at Chernobyl, but I think you don't want to be in that company. All reactors need to be just ever so slightly above delayed criticality some of the time. You can think of it as the R0 for Covid. When R0 is above 1, the disease spreads exponentially. If it's below, it dies down. You want it at a constant level. In this case "disease" is fission. You need R0 to be slightly above 1 a bit of the time, and slightly below 1 some of the time, so the fission keeps going, but does not go out of hand. The thing is this narrow band around 1 needs to be really, really narrow. We are talking 0.999 to 1.001 or so. Why? If for Covid a generation is about 3 days, for nuclear fission, a generation is about 1 millisecond (delayed fission, not prompt one; for that one, a generation is about 10 microseconds, which the funny guys at Los Alamos called "one shake"). If you have an R0 of 1.01, then after 1 second (1000 generations) you get 22000 more fission, and after 2 seconds you get half a billion more fission events than at time 0. That looks an awful lot like an explosion. Keeping the R0 in a very narrow band is not that easy. It is for sure doable, and that's how all reactors work. But the specter of R0 going to 1.01 is never that far away. But a fusion-fission reactor can achieve just that. The fission part of the reactor can be kept well below R0=1. You can keep it at 0.98 for example. And then you need to provide an extra 2% of neutrons coming from the fusion part of the reactor. If anything goes out of hand, you just shut down the fusion reaction, and the fission reaction dies down right away. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission_hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission...
- pfdietz 4y ago
  It gets ignored because it combines the bad features of fission with the bad features of fusion.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    Why are you saying that?
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Because it's true? Bad features of fission: generation of large amounts of radioactivity, proliferation, waste disposal, afterheat/meltdown concerns. Bad features of fusion: complexity, cost, reliability. http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/WorkshopTalks/skepticsvg.pdf http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/WorkshopTalks/skepticsvg.p...
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        That's a good link. But a fairly shallow dismissal. Both yours (you are quite an active participant on HN, so you are very likely aware of the site's guidelines) and theirs (the authors of the presentation). The wikipedia article on fusion-fission presents the downsides of the idea much better I think. The link you provided appears to be some type of high-school debate level of argumentation. The final report issued by MIT [1] at that 2009 fusion-fission forum is much more balanced (and more informative). But overall, the negative tone of the report rests on the assumption that fusion is "just around the corner". It is not. Their argument is roughly: we need research both for a pure fusion reactor and for a fusion-fission hybrid. Let's not get distracted with the fusion-fission, and invest fully in fusion. Which they call "the grand challenge" and "transformative". The thing is, we don't need "grand challenges" and "transformative" things for their own sake. We need stuff that works. Fusion-fission reactor may be complex, but is clearly achievable. Fusion by itself, not in the foreseeable future. [1] http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/Hybrid_Report_Final.pdf http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/Hybrid_Report_Final.pdf

credit_guy 4y ago

There's an even better one that for some reason gets ignored all the time. Fusion-fission hybrid. Use a fusion reactor that is well below break-even as a neutron source for a fission reactor. Currently all fission reactors have a common safety problem: their fuel has to be very nearly critical. More precisely, there are 2 types of criticality, delayed criticality and prompt criticality. Prompt needs a higher concentration of fissile material than delayed, or delayed needs a higher amount of moderator (like graphite rods) than prompt. In any case, you absolutely don't want your reactor to become prompt critical. It did happen at Chernobyl, but I think you don't want to be in that company. All reactors need to be just ever so slightly above delayed criticality some of the time. You can think of it as the R0 for Covid. When R0 is above 1, the disease spreads exponentially. If it's below, it dies down. You want it at a constant level. In this case "disease" is fission. You need R0 to be slightly above 1 a bit of the time, and slightly below 1 some of the time, so the fission keeps going, but does not go out of hand. The thing is this narrow band around 1 needs to be really, really narrow. We are talking 0.999 to 1.001 or so. Why? If for Covid a generation is about 3 days, for nuclear fission, a generation is about 1 millisecond (delayed fission, not prompt one; for that one, a generation is about 10 microseconds, which the funny guys at Los Alamos called "one shake"). If you have an R0 of 1.01, then after 1 second (1000 generations) you get 22000 more fission, and after 2 seconds you get half a billion more fission events than at time 0. That looks an awful lot like an explosion. Keeping the R0 in a very narrow band is not that easy. It is for sure doable, and that's how all reactors work. But the specter of R0 going to 1.01 is never that far away. But a fusion-fission reactor can achieve just that. The fission part of the reactor can be kept well below R0=1. You can keep it at 0.98 for example. And then you need to provide an extra 2% of neutrons coming from the fusion part of the reactor. If anything goes out of hand, you just shut down the fusion reaction, and the fission reaction dies down right away. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission_hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission...

pfdietz 4y ago
It gets ignored because it combines the bad features of fission with the bad features of fusion.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Why are you saying that?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Because it's true? Bad features of fission: generation of large amounts of radioactivity, proliferation, waste disposal, afterheat/meltdown concerns. Bad features of fusion: complexity, cost, reliability. http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/WorkshopTalks/skepticsvg.pdf http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/WorkshopTalks/skepticsvg.p...
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      That's a good link. But a fairly shallow dismissal. Both yours (you are quite an active participant on HN, so you are very likely aware of the site's guidelines) and theirs (the authors of the presentation). The wikipedia article on fusion-fission presents the downsides of the idea much better I think. The link you provided appears to be some type of high-school debate level of argumentation. The final report issued by MIT [1] at that 2009 fusion-fission forum is much more balanced (and more informative). But overall, the negative tone of the report rests on the assumption that fusion is "just around the corner". It is not. Their argument is roughly: we need research both for a pure fusion reactor and for a fusion-fission hybrid. Let's not get distracted with the fusion-fission, and invest fully in fusion. Which they call "the grand challenge" and "transformative". The thing is, we don't need "grand challenges" and "transformative" things for their own sake. We need stuff that works. Fusion-fission reactor may be complex, but is clearly achievable. Fusion by itself, not in the foreseeable future. [1] http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/Hybrid_Report_Final.pdf http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/Hybrid_Report_Final.pdf