Internet joy – laser fusion at breakeven! um…NOT. BBC reported, copycats ignited. Smoke only, no flame.
Big buzz in Technology news is the rumor that the NIF (National Ignition Facility) laboratory in California made a spectacular step forward. Did they generate as much fusion energy out as was supplied by the laser light? Or, what? LastTechAge became aware of the noise via an email … Isn’t this great? Aren’t we on our way to fusion energy? Would that we were.
“The BBC understands that during an experiment in late September, the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel – the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.”
The internal report was dated 2013-Sep29 and was a discussion of the preliminary data from a shot performed late the previous evening. Reality: if the full 1.82 MJ of laser energy were used, input was 130 times more than output. The box (right) use the values reported to have been in the NIF memo; oops.
Their own interest seems so have been the early estimate that the shot emitted about 5×1015 neutrons (n0) [US: 5 quadrillion n0, metric: 5 peta n0] 75% more than any other shot to date, indicating a higher level of fusion activity than usual. Accurate measurements require days of checking error modes and cross comparing diagnostic sets. These numbers must be the preliminary “back of the envelope” projections always sent to managers to keep them happy.
Why the buzz? Somehow BBC ran with the NIF rumor and it caught the public imagination. Even LastTechAge has comments by people who dream fusion dreams.
Comments on this Great Puppy-Tail Chase
NIF was born in strife. As is typical with achievements by any powerful group, less connected labs were closed to justify centralizing laser experiments. Fast forward to Now. 21st Century America has few world leadership fusion efforts except NIF, assuming NIF is one. We whittled our magnetic fusion leader-labs down to 3, and – although it took a real effort – finally eliminated one of those, the Alcator C-Mod at MIT that does/did modern plasma fusion studies and trains leadership-level student scientists.
NIF is missing several key requirements for successful laser fusion.
1. Low power facility laser. NIF yields 1.8 MJ onto target, not the 10 MJ originally proposed. Part of this was clumsy burning of its funds by poor planning and failure mode analysis, part the historic loss of fusion support by Washington. Nothing at NIF seemed to work right the first time, for example NIF guys started with impure glass optics that cracked and exploded in the 1990s when tested with high power beams. Used up the money, this way. If I had been so negligent with my own experiment on the General Atomic tokamak, ignored so many known issues, did not probe for unforeseen gotchas, my boss would have fired me.
2. 192 different laser beams. Although the key to success is driver uniformity (known since the beginning) each beam has its own slightly different start time and ramp-up profile to full power on target. The result is 192 different sledgehammers separately whacking at the target. It has to split into many sub-knots as it implodes. Guess what! New calculations show we need highly symmetrical target illumination. New discovery? Maybe in the 1960s.
3. Incomplete hohlraum technique. This is a “radiation room” that encapsulates the target in the uniform bath of x-rays that drives the implosion. A German lab director once told me Planck radiation (what we call blackbody radiation) is the success key. We should see an enclosed chamber, but NIF’s is more like a cylinder with open ends. When does a short open cylinder cease to model an enclosed chamber?
So NIF shines its 1.8 MJ of laser light through the end gaps and onto the inner walls to generate the x-rays which hammer the target. Will the x-ray wave front hit the target as a solid hammer, or will it arrive irregularly over a period of time?
Assuming of course laser light makes it into the chamber. If a small bit shines on the entrance opening, the generated plasma might well self-shield the interior from the laser.
4. Low energy IR primary beams. It has been understood for 3+ decades that IR causes fuel preheating and will not work. NIF down-converts to efficient UV but with a huge waste of power, see box (right).
Inefficient. Any other reason for this choice other than that is what they knew? Why did Livermore advocate closing the high intensity Los Alamos Aurora KrF laser? (KrF’s emit high intensity UV, directly.) To my understanding, only Naval Research Labs are still working with a small KrF. This was a very poor success strategy.
5. Constant power beam pulse. By the early 1980s, physicists understood that neither strategy in the box would lead to success. The innovative engineers at KMS demonstrated the first ramped laser beam in the late ’80s, then used them to demonstrate improvement with shots. How could the LLNL crew have ignored this? Guess what! New calculations have shown the way! ICF needs a ramped turn-on for the beam (adiabatic beam growth) and much shorter pulses to force the compression in times very short compared to disassembly times.
What about the targets, themselves? Somehow the PR does not include discussions of them. I do not have access to current publications, but cryogenic fuel inside lightweight shells are/were the way to success. This is what we were doing when KMS closed. I would have expected huge improvements in the shell strategies during the pasts 2 decades.
LTA discussed the national funding history behind our loss of fusion world-leadership by discussing the sad story of MFTF-B at LLNL. We plan a backgrounder post on what ICF needs for success and will review the sad history of KMS Fusion.
Charles J. Armentrout, Ann Arbor
2013 Oct 15
Listed under Technology … Technology > ICF/IFE
Have a comment? Click on the title of this post, go to bottom, let us know.
Related posts: Click the INDEX button under the Banner picture