Milestone

[petrossa]

November 6, 2009

NR-NNSA-09-11-01

NNSA announces important milestone in the National Ignition Campaign

WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), along with officials from the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), announced an important milestone in the National Ignition Campaign (NIC) at the 51st annual meeting of the American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics in Atlanta.

Highlighting results from recent NIF tests, NNSA and LLNL and its NIC partners — Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE), General Atomics, and Sandia National Laboratories — showed that NIF's laser beams can be effectively delivered and are capable of creating sufficient x-ray energy to drive fuel implosion, an important step toward the ultimate goal of fusion ignition. LLE also presented results showing the most compressed fusion capsules to date.

The NIF was built as a part of the NNSA's program to ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile without underground testing. With NIF, scientists will be able to evaluate key scientific assumptions in current computer models, obtain previously unavailable data on how materials behave at temperatures and pressures like those in the center of a star, and help validate NNSA's supercomputer simulations by comparing code predictions against observations from laboratory experiments.

Because of its groundbreaking advances in technology, NIF also has the potential to produce breakthroughs in fields beyond national security. It will help advance fusion energy technology, which could be an element of making the United States energy independent. It also will enable scientists to better understand the makeup of stars in the universe and planets both within and outside our solar system.

"The developments announced this week demonstrate exciting progress toward the grand scientific challenge that is fusion ignition on the National Ignition Facility," said Brig. Gen. Garrett Harencak, NNSA Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Application. "NIF will be a cornerstone of a critical national security mission, ensuring the continuing reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear testing, while also providing a path to explore the frontiers of basic science, and potential technologies for energy independence. It is a prime example of how our investment in nuclear security is providing the tools to tackle a broad range of national challenges."

The results announced this week demonstrate that NIF is capable of fulfilling a key requirement of the fusion process. To achieve fusion, NIF will focus its 192 laser beams, in a few billionths of a second, into a pencil-eraser-sized metal cylinder containing a small fuel capsule to create a small star about the diameter of a human hair which, when successful, releases more energy than the laser energy used to create it.

This artist's rendering shows a NIF target pellet inside a hohlraum capsule with laser beams entering through openings on either end. The beams compress and heat the target to the necessary conditions for nuclear fusion to occur.

One of the key requirements for this process is to create sufficient x-ray energy to drive the fuel implosion. In a series of experiments that began shortly after the facility was dedicated in May, NIF researchers have been focusing on characterizing the x-ray drive created in test targets. Recent tests at the NIF have shown that the NIF laser beams can be effectively delivered and are capable of heating the targets to the radiation temperatures needed to drive fuel capsules to ignition conditions.

"These are very exciting results," said NIF Director Ed Moses. "The NIF laser is proving to be robust with very precise and repeatable performance. We have demonstrated most aspects of target fabrication and are integrating and using the diagnostics we need for initial ignition test experiments later next year."

NNSA and LLNL presented the data during the 51st annual meeting of the American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics. The American Physical Society is the premier membership organization for physicists.

Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science in the nation's national security enterprise. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; reduces the global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad.

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.

SOURCE

Edited November 17, 2009 by petrossa

[BoredBozirini]

Nuclear fusion at room temperature... if only it were possible!

[Growled Member]

I think the future is nuclear.

[petrossa]

Nuclear fusion at room temperature... if only it were possible!

lost in translation, corrected it; Tnx

[BoredBozirini]

lost in translation, corrected it; Tnx

Oh no, you had it right. Nuclear plants in the present use fission (the division of a heavy atom into smaller ones, keeping a chain reaction).

I meant the future lies in fusion instead, if it were only possible at room temperature (nuclear fusion needs extremely high temperatures).

[petrossa]

Oh no, you had it right. Nuclear plants in the present use fission (the division of a heavy atom into smaller ones, keeping a chain reaction).

I meant the future lies in fusion instead, if it were only possible at room temperature (nuclear fusion needs extremely high temperatures).

No YOU were right?:laugh:: I meant fusion.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I go with the Fussion method but as sexpeperodri says it needs to advance first.

[petrossa]

That's the reason i posted the article about the laser reaching a milestone.

showed that NIF's laser beams can be effectively delivered and are capable of creating sufficient x-ray energy to drive fuel implosion, an important step toward the ultimate goal of fusion ignition

If all the money wasted on windenergy was diverted towards fusion, we could have within a few decades

[Buzz99]

Nuclear produces tons of waste wich we can't get rid of.

[petrossa]

For example in january 2010 the Dutch government puts out a tender for 950 MW sea windfarms, with the idea to arrive at 6000 MW.

The costs are questimated at 4.5 billion Euros for the 950MW. A simple calculation shows that 6,000 MW (4.5 billion x 6 =) will cost 27 billion! Give or take a couple billion. If you consider that the efficiency of wind on sea is approximately 30%, then those 950 MW produce a mere 300 MW;

Next to that you have to install gasturbine generators to compensate for wind variability,and you end up with energy at 10 times the normal cost whilst still using fossil fuels.

Nuclear produces tons of waste wich we can't get rid of.

Fusion only produces waste in the form of the walls of the reactor which get radioactive. Which takes a while.

And are negligible compared to the energy output.?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Nuclear produces tons of waste wich we can't get rid of.

Nuclear fission reactors produce a small amount of radioactive waste compared to Coal fired plants (they release more pollutants and radioactive materials into the atmosphere each year), and the waste it does produce can be re-used as fuel producing even less waste and allowing the plants to run more efficiently.

Nuclear fusion reactors produce even less waste.

[leesmithg]

We need to cut the population by 75%.

We need to quit stuffing old people with drugs to keep them alive.

Solar is more expensive that electricity.

We can use hydropower very easily.

Nuclear plants are the short term, electric cars create more pollution than petrol/ diesel (Gas) powered cars.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

The problem will this poll is that there is no "one-size fits all" solution.

Hydroelectric power (which wasn't included) is great if you have a big waterfall handy. Solar is a better option in Arizona than it is in Siberia or Canada. Wind isn't a great large-scale solution for populated areas. Tidal can be a good option for a place like New Brunswick (Bay of Fundy) but it isn't that great an option for a land-locked state. Geothermic energy may be a good option if you live near "the ring of fire".

Nuclear fusion may be great or it may never happen. Talk to me when you get that one up to production levels.

Population control is for SciFi novels.

So if I vote, it will end up being what I consider good for my local area but all of the alternative energy sources have some promise for some people or they wouldn't still be bandied about. Tidal and geothermic have a higher reliability than wind or solar which requires the weather to play a part.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Fred Derf
hydro offers higher reliability as well

[petrossa]

The problem will this poll is that there is no "one-size fits all" solution.

Hydroelectric power (which wasn't included) is great if you have a big waterfall handy. Solar is a better option in Arizona than it is in Siberia or Canada. Wind isn't a great large-scale solution for populated areas. Tidal can be a good option for a place like New Brunswick (Bay of Fundy) but it isn't that great an option for a land-locked state. Geothermic energy may be a good option if you live near "the ring of fire".

I didn't include hydro because it's not an option which has much room for maneuver and is very limited in it's application. You need a river which has enough debit to drive the generators? The poll is multiple choice.

The only option is see that has any real chance is short term (50 years) nuclear fission, during that time divert all resources to build a fusion reactor which btw has delivered for a nanosecond more energy than went in so it does work.

I'm glad to see that all nuke builders have their orders filled so that goes well.

In the mean time we make do with fossil fuel for our transport, because electric has no real future till a new form of electricity storage is developed which doesn't tend to blow up if you look at it.

As soon as fusion works, we can than synthesize hydrocarbons to drive our cars as carbon neutral as possible.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

One has to remember that fusion power was "10 years away" back in the 1960s. I'll believe it when I see it.

[petrossa]

Never seen that, but 50 years is most often quoted

[Berserk87]

when solar technology improves, efficiency wise and building costs, it would be the easiest to implement.

right now solar panels are only at 18% efficiency MAX. most of them are much lower than that.

which means when the technology improves will be seeing at LEAST 4x the power from solar panels of the same size.

[petrossa]

when solar technology improves, efficiency wise and building costs, it would be the easiest to implement.

right now solar panels are only at 18% efficiency MAX. most of them are much lower than that.

which means when the technology improves will be seeing at LEAST 4x the power from solar panels of the same size.

Still you need backup. The earth doesn't stop rotating for anytime real soon now. You could by a long stretch imagine household solar power of sufficient capacity, but at a vast price in limited mineral resources. S owere are you going to centrally store the trillions of watts for our daily needs??

You can only do so in a very ineffective way, either by creating vast timebombs of great volume hydrogen stores, or by creating hydro storage. Both are not actual realistic proposals.

Same goes for any energy source which can't be regulated.

The only source which can be regulated, or just be wasted because the supply is to all intents and purposes? limitless is fusion.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Never seen that, but 50 years is most often quoted

The public at large has been disappointed, as the initial outlook for practical fusion power plants was much rosier; a pamphlet from the 1970s printed by General Atomic stated that "Several commercial fusion reactors are expected to be online by the year 2000."

[petrossa]

:laugh: ?I guess that was a bit overoptimistic.

[Growled Member]

Are we any closer to practical fusion power plants than we were 30 years ago?

[BoredBozirini]

Are we any closer to practical fusion power plants than we were 30 years ago?

No.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I'd say we are, which is why I think the time frames given now are much more accurate.

We've got one experimental facility almost operational, with another type of design ready to be built, and yet another design being researched.

[yxz]

cold fusion

:shifty:

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I'd say we are, which is why I think the time frames given now are much more accurate.

We've got one experimental facility almost operational, with another type of design ready to be built, and yet another design being researched.

The problem is that they get all giddy when they manage to generate 65% of the amount power that they put into it. Just to put that in context, imagine selling 100 barrels of oil in exchange for a payment of 65 barrels of oil.