|
| |
Top
100
Primary Grid Power Potential
Focus Fusion poses competition to $10 billion Tokamak
Purports to be a far more feasible and profoundly less expensive
approach to hot fusion, in contrast to what the international project (ITER) in
France is pursuing. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics is
currently researching and developing the Plasma Focus Device for hydrogen-boron
nuclear fusion.
by Sterling
D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News -- Exclusive Interview
Copyright © 2005
(See ITER's response below)
WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY, USA -- Imagine a non-polluting power plant, the size of
a local gas station, that would quietly and safely power 4,000 homes, for a few
tenths of a penny per kilowatt-hour, compared to 4-6 cents/kw-h of coal or
natural-gas-powered plants. One technician could operate two dozen of
these stations remotely. The fuel, widely available, is barely spent in
the clean fusion method, and would only need to be changed annually.
That is what physicist Eric Lerner envisions with his focus fusion technology in
which hydrogen and boron combine into helium, while giving off tremendous
amounts of energy in the process.
The size and power output would make it ideal for providing localized power,
reducing transmission losses and large-grid vulnerabilities. The cost and
reliability would make it affordable for developing nations and regions.
Thomas Valone on Focus Fusion - When asked 'What energy
technology looks most promising, that is not getting due attention',
well-known and revered energy researcher and U.S. Patent reviewer, Tom
Valone, Ph.D., answers: "Focus Fusion".
(Sterling Allan's interview with Tom Valone at the ExtraOrdinary
Technology conference in Salt Lake City, July 28-31, 2005; produced by OSEN.) |
|
Cutaway
of the ITER Tokamak |
|
|
Dr. Thomas Valone, of Integrity Research Institute
calls it "the most ideal fusion project," and he even points to it as
the most feasible, but neglected, energy technology in general. (See interview.)
With proper funding, implementation of Lerner's vision could begin within half a
decade. The capital investment of a few millions that he needs seems miniscule
compared to the 10 billion dollars being pumped into the multinational Tokamak
fusion project in France. (Ref.)
While both processes are considered "hot fusion", focus fusion is not
"fission." As stated on the focus fusion website: "A
fission reactor is the type of nuclear reactor we are all used to, and these use
chain reactions which can lead to meltdown. They also have problems with
radioactive waste." Focus fusion has no such problems.
Lerner has been pulling together the theoretical basis for this technology for
two decades. Since 1994 he has been able to secure funding, beginning with a
grant from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. That initial grant enabled him to
test key components of his theory. Though that funding has dried up apparently
due to cuts in NASA's propulsion research, Lerner has been able to land ongoing
funding to keep the research advancing.
It is no wonder that NASA would be interested, inasmuch as the modeling predicts
that a craft using Lerner's technology could reach Mars in just two weeks.
The ionic particles would be escaping out the rocket nozzle at 10,000 kilometer
per second, compared to the 2 km/s of present rocket propellant.
Efficiency and Safety
In the case of electricity generation, the speeding ionic particles would be
coupled directly to the generation of electricity through a beam of ions being
coupled by a high tech transformer into currents that are fed to capacitors,
which would both pulse the energy back through the device to keep the process
going, as well as send excess energy out for use on the grid.
This direct coupling is one of the primary advantages of this technology. It
sidesteps the centuries-old approach of converting water to steam in order to
drive turbines and generators. That process accounts for 80% of the total
capital costs required in a typical power plant. By going straight from the
fusion energy to electricity, Lerner's fusion process eliminates that need
altogether, enabling streamlining of the process and a much smaller size to
achieve equivalent power output.
And his device could be fired up and shut off with the flip of a switch, with no
damaging radiation, no threat of meltdown, and no possibility of explosions. It
is an all-or-nothing, full-bore or shut-off scenario. Because it can be shut off
and turned on so easily, a bank of these could easily accommodate whatever
surges and ebbs are faced by the grid on a given day, without wasting unused
energy from non-peak times into the environment, which is the case with much of
the grids energy at present. (Ref.)
How the Theoretical Focus Fusion Reactor Works
The proposed focus-fusion reactor involves two components: the
hydrogen-boron fuel, and a plasma focus device. The combination of these into
the focus-fusion process is the invention of Eric Lerner.
The plasma-focus technology has been well established elsewhere, and has a
forty-year track record. Invented in 1964, the Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) device
is used in many types of research. (Ref.)
As described on the Focus Fusion website, the DPF device consists of two
cylindrical copper or beryllium
electrodes nested inside each other. The outer electrode is generally no more
than six to seven 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.
.
The Dense Plasma Focus device is
roughly the size of a coffee can.
Next comes the fuel. The gas Lerner plans to use in the DPF is a
mixture of Hydrogen and Boron. Their site gives an explanation of the
research steps needed to use this type of fuel with the DPF. (Ref1;
Ref2.)
According to their site, the way the proposed focus fusion reactor would work is
as follows:
A pulse of electricity from a capacitor bank is discharged across the
electrodes. For a few millionths of a second, an intense current flows from
the outer to the inner electrode through the gas. This current starts to heat
the gas and creates an intense magnetic field.
Guided by its own magnetic field, the current forms itself into a thin
sheath of tiny filaments -- little whirlwinds of hot, electrically-conducting
gas called plasma.
This sheath travels to the end of the inner electrode where the magnetic
fields produced by the currents pinch and twist the plasma into a tiny, dense
ball only a few thousandths of an inch across called a plasmoid. All of this
happens without being guided by external magnets.
The magnetic fields very quickly collapse, and these changing magnetic
fields induce an electric field which causes a beam of electrons to flow in
one direction and a beam of ions (atoms that have lost electrons) in the
other. The electron beam heats the plasmoid, thus igniting fusion reactions
which add more energy to the plasmoid. So in the end, the ion and electron
beams contain more energy than was input by the original electric current.
These beams of charged particles are directed into decelerators which act
like particle accelerators in reverse. Instead of using electricity to
accelerate charged particles they decelerate charged particles and to produce
electricity. (Ref.
The above quote was slightly edited.)
Some of this electricity is recycled to power the next fusion pulse, at a
frequency expected to be optimal at around 1000 times per second. The
excess energy from each pulse is available as net energy, and is output as product
electricity from the fusion power plant for sale to the grid or will be,
once this is all proven and implemented.
X-Ray Shielding
While the process would not create residual radioactivity, it does give off
strong x-ray emissions, which can be harnessed by a high-tech photoelectric cell
for additional energy capture in a process similar to a photovoltaic solar
cell. The primary difference is in the concentration of particles.
"Solar energy is diffuse," said Lerner, explaining that the focus
fusion process would be highly concentrated: 10,000 kilowatts per
square meter, compared to 1 kw / m2 with solar. So the
cost-to-yield ratio would be extremely favorable in the case of the x-ray energy
capture.
There will also need to be shielding from the pulsing electromagnetic fields
generated by the reactor.
In addition to x-rays, the process would also yield "low energy
neutrons", Lerner said. These would not produce long-lived
radioactivity, but at most would only produce "extremely short-lived
elements with very short half-lives. Only 1/500th of the total energy
would be carried by the neutrons."
"You could walk into the facility a second after turning it off, and would
not be able to detect any radiation above background," he said. The
materials of which the reactor and facility are constructed would not build up
any radioactivity either, even over time.
For safety, Lerner said that a layer of lead and a layer of boron shielding
surrounding the reactor would be adequate protection for the focus fusion plant.
As for possible accidents with the reactor, there is "not really anything
that could go wrong," and, because of the way the reaction stops
immediately, "there is [no possibility] for runaway." Lerner affirms,
"It's 100% safe."
Some heat is vented into the environment, but it is not to such an extent that a
generating plant could not be situated in a neighborhood, such as where
substations presently are located.
About the worst thing that could happen would be a capacitor failure, but that
would not even damage the building, he said.
Of course there are always the risks of electrocution, and shorting-out hazards
associated with electricity, but those would be present in any power-plant
situation.
Remember, with this technology, on-site personnel are not needed on a daily
basis, reducing the exposure of persons to such hazards. Maintenance would
be rare. One technician could operate a dozen facilities by him or
herself.
Politics and Present Status
Cropped view. The vacuum
chamber in Texas with and without insulation. The copper coils were for
heating it in preparation for using decaborane fuel. (Ref.) |
Imagine! At the flip of a switch, going from
room temperature (or from the temperature of boiling water in the case of the
liquid decaborane fuel), all the way up to a billion degrees, and then up to 6
billion degrees, all in a fraction of a second; then with another flip of the
switch, when you are done, going back down to ambient temperature. And in
the interim, you have produced excess energy from fusion -- safely, cleanly.
Part of that theoretical equation has been proven. Part has yet to be
proven.
Lerner credits the field of astrophysics as playing a significant role in
serendipitously developing much of the theoretical basis behind focus fusion,
due to the parallels between neutron star research and plasma physics.
Mary-Sue Haliburton, chief editor for PESN and OSEN news, points
out that the plasma filaments in the plasma focus are a microcosmic version of
the Birkeland currents visible in the sun's corona, as well as in interstellar
and even intergalactic space. (Ref
[site shows photo of Birkeland current in sun's corona.)
Based on his focus-fusion research done through the grant from JPL at the
University of Illinois, his subsequent research at Texas A&M University, and
research done at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lerner et al. have
proven the ability to attain, and even to surpass, the billion degree benchmark.
(Ref)
Valone said that such an achievement should have been front page news in the NY
Times and Washington Post. (Ref.)
Though Lerner and his colleagues went beyond the pre-determined performance
standard, NASA chose to not publicize that breakthrough. Instead of honoring
Lerner et al. with the accolades they deserved, an administrator at LANL
threatened the University and the professor involved, saying that they were not
to compare their results with pet-project Tokamak. The professor was so
intimidated he stopped working with Lerner.
Lerner's persistent quest to find other federal monies has thus far been
unfruitful. "This administration does not want to fund any serious
competitor to oil or gas," Lerner said. He has also approached some
foreign governments.
|
|
Eric
Lerner, physicist, inventor
Executive Director of the non-profit, Focus Fusion. He is
also President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., the
corporate interest bringing this technology forward. |
|
Despite the political setbacks, Lerner is pressing forward, and has been
successful in acquiring limited funding. However, he needs substantially more to
reach the next milestone of building a break-even prototype. To achieve the
fusion process with measurable energy output, he needs $1.5 to $2 million
dollars. This is a mere pittance compared to the $10 billion being sunk into
Tokamak, which Valone considers to be an inferior design.
Once that milestone is accomplished, "funding will not be a problem,"
Lerner said.
A full proof-of-concept prototype will be next, which will enable the harnessing
-- not just measurement -- of the output energy in the form of usable
electricity.
Then, its a matter of tooling up for production. Lerner expects that the
capital cost estimated at $200,000 to $300,000 for a 20 MW plant will be
much lower than that of traditional electrical generation plants, perhaps only
one percent in up-front costs.
Coming to a Car Near You?
Lerner said that the applications of this technology will be limited on the
smaller end to local power-plant-sized operations for the near future, and that
putting one of these in your garage or in your car will be years yet into the
future. Miniaturization is a long-term dream that is sure to be achieved as the
technology takes hold, just as it has in other industries such as computers and
batteries.
# # #
SOURCES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
- Eric Lerner reviewed this story and offered corrections which have been
implemented.
- Mary-Sue
Haliburton provided outstanding editorial input.
- Marcus Cameron produced the OSEN video footage.
- Matthew L. Carson shot the OSEN video footage.
- Spurring article: Focusfusion.org
updates - Focus fusion recently updated their site
with new info regarding the project's current status. In addition to talking
about recent collaboration with the Latin American Focus group, they
highlighted some of their group's attempts at fundraising. (ZPEnergy;
Oct. 28, 2005)
CONTACTS:
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics
and
Focus Fusion Society
11 Calvin Terrace
West Orange, NJ 07052
Eric J. Lerner <elerner@igc.org>
Lerner's Publications
(Not a complete listing.)
Some of Lerner's results have been recorded in a paper
published in the 2003 Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Current Trends in
Fusion Research, held in Washington, D.C.
Electron,
ion energy >100keV in a dense plasma (arxiv.org)
Abstract:
Controlled fusion with advanced fuels requires average electron and ion
energies above 100 keV (equivalent to 1.1 billion K) in a dense plasma. We
have met this requirement and demonstrated electron and ion energies over 100
keV in a compact and inexpensive dense plasma focus device. We have achieved
this in plasma "hot spots" or plasmoids that, in our best results,
had a density/confinement-time/energy product of 5.0 x1015 keVsec/cm3, a
record for any fusion experiment. We measured the electron energies with an
x-ray detector instrument that demonstrated conclusively that the hard x-rays
were generated by the hot spots.
Prospects for P11B
Fusion with the Dense Plasma Focus: New Results (arxiv.org)
25 pages, 6 figures. Invited presentation, 5th Symposium "Current Trends in
International Fusion Research: A Review" March 24-28, 2003, Washington, D.C
V.2 corrected typos
Abstract:
Fusion with p11B has many advantages, including the almost complete lack of
radioactivity and the possibility of direct conversion of charged particle
energy to electricity, without expensive steam turbines and generators. But
two major challenges must be overcome to achieve this goal: obtaining average
ion energies well above 100keV and minimizing losses by bremsstrahlung x-rays.
Recent experimental and theoretical work indicates that these challenges may
be overcome with the dense plasma focus. DPF experiments at Texas A&M
University have demonstrated ion and electron average energies above 100keV in
several-micron-sized hot-spots or plasmoids. These had
density-confinement-time-energy products as high as 5.0 x10^15 keVsec/cm^3. In
these experiments we clearly distinguished between x-rays coming from the
hot-spots and the harder radiation coming from electron beam collisions with
the anode. In addition, new theoretical work shows that extremely high
magnetic fields, which appear achievable in DPF plasmoids, will strongly
reduce collisional energy transfer from ions to electrons. This reduction has
been studied in the context of neutron stars and occurs when ion velocities
are too small to efficiently excite electron transitions between Landau
levels. It becomes a major effect for fields above 5 gigagauss. This effect
will allow average electron energies to stay far below average ion energies
and will thus reduce x-ray cooling of p11B. In this case, fusion power will
very significantly exceed x-ray emitted power. While fields of only 0.4
gigagauss have so far been demonstrated with the DPF, scaling laws indicate
that much higher fields can be reached.
From http://users.erols.com/iri/FocusFusion-Ver6.htm
|
Reactor Type
|
Plasma Focus Fusion
|
Tokamak
|
|
Fuel
|
Hydrogen-boron
|
Deuterium-tritium
|
|
Fuel availability
|
Abundantly available
|
Tritium must be bred
|
|
Long-lived radioactivity
|
None
|
Considerable
|
|
Radioactivity of structure
|
None
|
Considerable
|
|
Power output per unit
|
2 MW and up
|
500 MW and up
|
|
Unit size
|
3x3x9 feet
|
70x70x80 feet
|
|
Capital Cost per kW
|
$100 - $200
|
$2000 3000
|
|
Electricity conversion
|
Direct induction
|
Steam cycle
|
ITER was approached on Nov. 2,
2005 for comment regarding Focus Fusion. The following is their
response:
ITER Comment
From: Bill Spears
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: comment please: Tokamak has serious competitor
in Focus Fusion
Dear Sterling,
Sorry for the delay in replying. It takes time to give you a
reasoned reply and not just shoot from the hip. It also takes time
to read and understand detailed scientific reports to make sure you
are not missing something. I asked Dr. Michiya Shimada, our Head of
Physics Unit, to review the material and make a comment. After he
and his people reviewed the background papers indicated in your
article, he concluded:
"The plasma focus isn't going to be a rival of the tokamak
unless there's some very strange physics nobody has seen before.
Using the plasma parameters quoted in their publication, the
proton-boron fusion energy obtainable in a plasma focus discharge
is estimated to be 0.6 x 10^-4 J, which is a fraction of a
billionth of the electrical energy spent to create this plasma (~
160 kJ). The point is that the plasma volume is very small (~ 6 x
10^-9 cm^3) and the discharge duration very short (~ 1 x 10^-8 s).
The dense plasma focus has been studied extensively in the
early years of fusion research. They might find it interesting to
compare their results with those obtained a few decades ago to see
whether anything new has really been discovered here."
I hope you find that a significantly strong counter-remark to
your original article to be worth publishing also this viewpoint.
Best regards,
Bill |
Focus Fusion Response
From: Eric Lerner
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: ITER response: Tokamak has serious competitor in
Focus Fusion
Dr. Shimada did not read the papers carefully enough. His
calculation is based on the plasma parameters that we actually
achieved in our last experiments in 2001. We did not claim that
those parameters are near breakeven. They were not even optimal for
the current we achieved, because the radius of the anode (the inner
electrode) on this device could not be changed
What the paper does demonstrate is that scaling laws that have both
good theoretical foundations and experimental backing indicate that
break-even parameters can be achieved with a somewhat higher current
but a physically smaller device. With the parameters that we expect
to reach in our next set of experiments, fusion yield per shot
should be of the order of 5-20 KJ. No strange physics is needed. We
are aiming for a 40-fold increase in plasmoid magnetic field and
fusion yield (at fixed ion temperature) scales as B^4. Temperature
will also be higher.
Eric Lerner |
|
Feedback
- Alternative
to Tokamak Fusion Reactor - The above article was picked up by
Slashdot on Nov. 5, 2005. Read the scores of fascinating, sarcastic,
educated, critical, enlightening comments there.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner
[wikipedia.org] (tartrazine)
[NJ. Lerner wrote a comprehensive introductory book on the subject of
plasma cosmology, "The
Big Bang Never Happened" (1991)]
- ...How this small "coffee can" size device could hold a
temperature above 1 billion degrees inside without melting.... (drgonzo59)
- ...I can give you some examples that show it's not totally insane.
The inside of a CRT is something like 100,000F. But it doesn't melt
the glass... (NoMoreNicksLeft)
- It's like walking on coals. Coals get red-hot at about 600 degrees
Farenheit, due to black body radiation. People can walk on them,
though, because human flesh is much denser. (It also helps if you do
it right after the morning dew, and it's a bad idea to linger.) The
coals are hot but the total amount of energy isn't that high. It's a
bit like having a very high voltage but a low amperage in a circuit.
Another example of a plasma having a very high temperature but very
low total energy is the temperature of interstellar
space: it can be millions of degrees hot, but have a handful of
atoms per cubic meter. (sco08y)
- The coffee can sized device is very similar to a plasma
rocket [space.com] engine. The rocket engine trys to keep the
plasma symmetrical for nice controlled thrust. Focus fusion
"snaps" the plasma filaments like a whip. At the tip,
where a leather whip exceeds the speed of sound, the magnetic
compression in the plasma is enough to ignite fusion... (CustomDesigned)
- ...learn the difference between temperature and heat. It takes an
equal amount of heat to heat 1 gram of H2 to 1 billion degrees as it
does to heat 10 grams of H2 to 100 million degrees (ignoring the
effects of the plasma phase transistion; IANA(N/P)P ). His device
operates on a very small scale. ... there isn't much time for heat
transfer, and those magnetic fields ought to be designed to focus
the plasma away from the electrodes.... (Homo
Stannous)
- Assuming the proof of concept works, I can see a number of potential
hazards: 1. Magnetic deceleration coils fail.... 2. Fuel metering
fails.... 3. Shielding fails... 4. Fuel is contaminated with fusible
reactants... (CustomDesigned)
- I work in a nuclear facility so I'll say a little about safety of this
device. [....] Safety is not an issue here, the issue is whether the
science works or not. (anonymous)
- Magnetic deceleration does not exist.... (The_Wilschon)
- I'm susupiscious because they claim that high energy x-rays can't
produce long lived radioactive waste. Apparently they haven't heard of
photoneutrons. That and the plasma temperature for the H-B reaction is
10 times that of D-T, making it pretty difficult with standard
materials. It looks like a viable research project though.... (zerus)
- When someone states $200,000 to $300,000 to make a 20 megawatt
generator, I just fall down laughing. You can't make a 20 megawatt
transformer for probably 10-100 times that price, let alone the cost of
the atomic "process equipment" and ion beam to electric
current conversion. There may be no "radiation" of dangerous
particles or left over radioactivity, but shielding everything and
everyone within site from X-Rays is going to also cost a lot.... (BoRegardless)
- ...[Lerner has] criticised
the peer-review scientific process, calling it open to fraud.... (arkhan_jg)
- (Wikipedia)
writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus
[wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60
[wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D3D_(fusion)
[wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
[wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_Fusion
[wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAST_Fusion
[wikipedia.org]
- Hell, I'd kick in $100 or $200, maybe more. If this was done as a pure
open source project and it was community funded I can see this getting
$10 million in public funding in a hearbeat. In fact, from the slashdot
community alone we could probably come up with the $2 million they need
to hit the next milestone. (elrendermeister)
- It's a shame there's so much automatic knee-jerk cynicism from the
Slashdot crowd, and others, in regard of people who are actually out
there trying to fix the planet with radical new technologies that
they're sweating blood and tears to develop and research despite little
or no funding, peer ridicule and threats and worse from big corporate
interests.... (BigAlexK)
Toxicity of Decaborane
One possible fly in the ointment: toxicity of decaborane. Borane, BH3,
and Diborane, B2H6, are highly toxic. Parts per million in the air can
kill you. Nothing is mentioned about the toxicity of decaborane.
-- Ken
Rauen (November 21, 2005 5:29 PM)
Reply
Sure it is toxic, as is gasoline. But it is neutralized by being bubbled
through ordinary water--it breaks down into boric acid. Being a nuclear
fuel, it is used in tiny quantities, unlike gasoline. Roughly a kilogram will
run a 20 MW generator for a year.
-- Eric Lerner (November 21, 2005 9:30 PM)
Related Coverage by PESN
 Focus
Fusion poses competition to Tokamak - Purports to be a far more
feasible and profoundly less expensive approach to hot fusion, in contrast
to what the international project (ITER) in France is pursuing.
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics is currently researching and developing the
Plasma Focus Device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion. (PESN; Nov.
2, 2005)
 Top
100: Fusion
/ Focus Fusion
>
U.S.,
Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility of Focus
Fusion - Lawrenceville Plasma Physics and Chilean Nuclear Commission
initiate a three-year, three-phase experimental collaboration to duplicate
earlier results, improve and optimize efficiencies, and test alternate input
fuels in the focus fusion process. (PESN; Mar. 18, 2006)
 Top
100: Fusion
/ Focus Fusion
>
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Submits Patent Application - The patent
covers the use of high magnetic fields in the production of fusion energy,
the injection of angular momentum into the plasma sheath, and a new method
of converting X-ray energy into electricity; as well as how to combine these
into a functional fusion energy reactor. (PESN; Mar. 18, 2006)
Top
100: Fusion
/ Focus Fusion
>
Sandia
Z-Pinch and Texas A&M Focus Fusion Compared - Billion-degree
fusion reported by Eric Lerner, et al. at Texas A&M University in 2001
has been duplicated recently by a variation set-up at Sandia National
Laboratories. The two processes are compared. (PESN; Mar. 18, 2006)
See also
Page composed by Sterling
D. Allan Nov. 1, 2005
Last updated February 22, 2009
| |
|
Hot
plasma vortex filaments pinched together by their own magnetic fields in
a plasma focus fusion device.
Feed