Here’s an interesting development. A team in California and Japan has developed a design for a fusion reactor using hydrogen and boron rather than the coonventional dueterium and tritium that have been in use. Darius Snieckius reports at Recharge:
An innovative nuclear fusion technology that uses no radioactive materials and is calculated capable of “powering the planet for more than 100,000 yearsâ€, has been successfully piloted by a US-Japanese team of researchers.
California-based TAE Technologies, working with Japan’s National Institute for Fusion Science (NIFS), have completed first tests of a hydrogen-boron fuel cycle in magnetically-confined plasma, which could generate cleaner, lower cost energy that that produced by the more common deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion process.
“This experiment offers us a wealth of data to work with and shows that hydrogen-boron has a place in utility-scale fusion power. We know we can solve the physics challenge at hand and deliver a transformational new form of carbon-free energy to the world that relies on this non-radioactive, abundant fuel,†said Michl Binderbauer, CEO of TAE Technologies.
A spokesperson for NIFS, which formed its partnership with TAE in 2021, noted: “Hydrogen-boron… enables the concept of cleaner fusion reactors – this achievement is a big first step towards the realisation of a fusion reactor using advanced fusion fuel.â€
The experiments were carried out in NIFS’ large helical device, known as a stellarator, but TAE is developing a so-called field-reversed configuration reactor that promises “a variety of benefits over stellarator and tokamak reactors, including having a compact footprint and more efficient magnetic confinement that will yield up to 100 times more power output, according to the scientists, who published their findings today in the journal Nature.
This new design doesn’t solve the problems that are holding back practical fusion but once those problems are solved it should allow the resultant reactors to be cleaner and safer.
Pie in the sky.
deuterium-tritium is the “easiest” fusion reaction to achieve and requires only “100 million” degrees K. hydrogen boron requires approximately “1 billion” degrees K. or approximately 10 times harder.
For a pessimistic view of fusion, see:
Science, vol. 192, June, 1976, p. 1320;
Science, vol. 193, July, 1976, p. 38;
Science, vol. 199, March, 1978, p.1403;
Physics Today, March, 1997, p. 15, p. 101.
Yes, attempts at fusion, mostly via the Soviet tokamak idea (magnetic containment) have been going on for over 50 years.
Some of the authors of these papers assume fusion will actually work. However, it is pointed out that a fusion reactor would be an order of magnitude larger than a fission reactor, and the cost of its electricity would also be an order of magnitude larger.
Moreover, although fusion reactors would produce comparatively little radioactive waste, they do produce some via neutron activation of the trace elements in the structure.
So, even if it works, fusion would be a niche energy source. The reactors would be too large for a big deck aircraft carrier, but they might supply the base load in Antarctica or Greenland.
I am pessimistic. I put fusion in the same fantasy category as wind, solar, hydrogen, and biomass.
Eventually, a thousand or more years from now, the recoverable fossil fuels will run out, and we will revert to a Medieval economy/society, with serfs and lords, forever after.
PS. The fusion party has spent several billions of dollars and consumed the entire productive careers of a few thousand physicists. It’s a pretty good example of a mania, like the Tulip Mania.
Add hydro to that list, at least in terms of not emitting carbon. Dams cause the emission of significant amounts of methane.
These are among the reasons that I think that if people are serious about reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere they’ve got to support nuclear fission and CCS.
29% of Australia’s electricity comes from wind and solar. 7 of our states exceed that percentage and another 7 are close. Of special note 14 of our states now have 4% of less of their electricity come from coal. Of course you need to read literature more recent than 1997 to know this.
You wont see the article featured here I dont think but the Biden admin is advocating for and subsidizing SMRs. I hope we work out all of the issues and make them viable but I think that there is going to be a lot of NIMBY and trust issues when you try to put these in places like coal country. In theory they seem like a good place. They ned jobs desperately. They vote overwhelmingly for the GOP so claim to support nuclear energy but just talking with people in the area they are now very suspicious of science in general, anything that might be viewed as government and nuclear in particular.
https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-generation-fuel-shares
Steve