Jack Oughton - Layman's Guide To Nuclear Fusion V1

Layman’s Guide To Nuclear Fusion V1.0: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.
.∞§Contents §∞.
Part 1: Why Fusion? Humanity’s Growing Resource Problem
Part 2: Fusion – A Primer
Part 3: Fusion Energy Cycles
Part 4: Fusion Confinement Devices
Part 5: Public Awareness Of Fusion
Part 6: Conclusion
Part 7: Appendixes
“But if you wanted to know what the perfect energy source is? The perfect energy source is one that doesn't
take up much space, has a virtually inexhaustible supply, is safe, doesn't put any carbon into the atmosphere,
doesn't leave any long lived radioactive waste, it's fusion. But there is a catch. Of course there is always a
catch in these cases. Fusion is very hard to do. We've been trying for 50 years. .. And we have 30 million
years worth of fusion fuel in sea water..”
– Prof. Steven Cowley – Director of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Culham
Laboratory
- Source: TED Talks http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_cowley_fusion_is_energy_s_future.html

Introduction:

This project is intended as a primer on nuclear fusion and is written in mostly non-‐
technical language for the non scientific reader. It is a research project on the
applications of nuclear fusion as a power source. This is a large area of science, but I
have done my best to condense the large amount of available information into an
easily understandable format.

As a research document this work is compiled from a variety of sources, adding my
own commentary in the context of this work. Though much of this is my own work, I
make no assumptions or claims to any of it – I have credited the authors whenever I
have used information they have provided

I will not discuss the application of fusion in weaponry. The world has seen the effects
of this already and there is ample information on it.

This document is not intended to discuss the entire field in great detail, which is far
beyond the scope of a short document like this. It is instead a carefully arranged,
ordered primer and a signpost. Ample links provide further roads for the intrigued
reader to explore fusion on his own terms. There is far more coherent information
than I could reasonably express, or fit in to the document.

On another note, I am not a fusion scientist, simply a very interested undergraduate. I
have done my best, but have probably made mistakes, I acknowledge this.

I hope that you find this information both useful and informative. The energy shortfall
and pollution problems are huge hurdles to human progress. The realisation of
commercially viable fusion presents a very real solution.
Material by Jack Oughton – available for writing assignments, contact: | writing@xijindustries.com |
www.writing.xijindustries.com
Layman’s Guide To Nuclear Fusion V1.0: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
Part 1.
Why fusion? Humanity’s worsening
resource problem
In grossly simple terms, there are two problems quickly becoming apparent that effect modern civilization.
These problems are:
1) Increasing energy costs due to limited availability of fuels with finite deposits.
2) Increasing pollution due to increased economic development and global energy usage
Both problems clearly derive from the our reliance upon, and the burning of fossil fuels, which are finite,
cause atmospheric pollution and in some areas are unable to be obtained in quantities fully able to satisfy
demand.
In 2007, the world consumed an estimated 531 exajoules of energy [one exajoule, [denoted as EJ], is 10
exponential 18 joules]. This is equivalent to the energy released by detonating about 9.73 million A-bombs.
Sources:
EIA: www.eia.doe.gov/
BP: www.bp.com/

World Energy Shortfall Predictions –
Note: prediction around 2050 of a beginning of a shortfall.

Even an ‘acceptable’ release of C02 is double the amount the world faced before fossil
fuels became widely used in industry!

Modern man consumes around 35 times the amount of yearly energy of primitive, pre-‐
agricultural man.

World Energy Consumption 2006 by Fuel Type [Sources: BP, EIA]
Note: In 2006 around 86% of our energy came from fossil sources.

Evolution of World Total Fuel Consumption by type
Note: energy usage roughly doubles between 1972 and 2005.


World Energy Use and Reserves circa 2001 – Source: WEA
Note: in 2001 renewables comprised less than 14% of our energy supply.

UN Predicted world growth 1950-‐2050. Note that the scale is logarithmic and
the population value is given in millions! -‐ Source data calculated from:
http://esa.un.org/unpp/

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the demand for
global energy is projected to grow 44% between 2005 and 2030. This will be

caused by a number of factors, such as continuing economic growth and
increasing populations in developing countries.
-‐ Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

This same report also stated that China is the largest consumer of the world’s
coal supply, and since 2000 it’s coal usage has doubled. Given the country’s
expanding economy, and large coal reserves, China’s demand for coal is
expected to remain strong. In the reference case, world coal usage grows by 2%
every year, between 2005 and 2030, with coal’s share of the world’s total needs
reaching 29% by 2030. Two of the main consumers of energy will be China and
India, as they are both developing very quickly and have very large
populations. In 1990 both the countries where consuming on average, 10% of
the world’s total energy expenditure, but in 2006 their combined share had
grown to 19%. It is expected that with continued strong economic growth,
both countries will increase their energy consumption twofold, making up
28% of total world consumption by 2030.

Fission reactors have been suggested as an alternative to this problem. But
nuclear fission power has its own problems. Licensing and building reactors
take a very long time. If the fuel were used directly (non-‐breeder reactors), the
finite Uranium sources would limit the available operation in a relative short
time (several decades). Going to breeder reactors can greatly extend this time,
breeder reactors can utilize more abundant Thorium in fission, and consume
Uranium at a slower rate. However, these reactors produce Plutonium, which is
very, very dangerous. Concerns about the safety of nuclear fission reactors
include the possibility of radiation-‐releasing nuclear accidents, the problems of
radioactive waste disposal, and the possibility of contributing to nuclear
weapon proliferation. Spent fuel elements contain plutonium-‐239. This
plutonium could be separated chemically and diverted to nuclear weapons
production.


Remaining oil reserves by source.
Over 38% is unrecoverable.


Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, reactor 4– site of the April 1986 disaster and
along with Three Mile Island in the USA, a significant reason why nuclear
fission’s reputation amongst the lay public (at least in the USA) retains a
negative stain. (Yim 2003)

Decay timeline of fission biproducts.
Note: the immense amounts of time taken for radioactivity to decay to 0.


Diagram comparing radiotoxocity of materials in various fission and fusion reactors.
Note two points.
1. The extremely steep decline in fusion radiotoxicity relative to fission radiotoxicity.
Fusion reactors have much shorter radioactive half lives than fission reactors
2. A fusion reactor with a vanadium alloy is no more radioactive than coal plant ashes
after around 50 years.
Renewables
Renewable energy sources are an excellent alternative to finite and polluting fuels,
being sustainable and a lot more environmentally friendly. However on average they
do not provide energy as cheaply as fission or other finite resources. Furthermore, they
are not always suitable in many locations. For example, geothermal plants can only be
sighted in areas where geological conditions allow for subterranean heat to be
accessed. Solar panels are not as effective in countries which receive on average, less
sunlight, and wind farms, obviously require a significant amount of wind.
It should be emphasized that all alternative methods of generation of electricity on
Earth, wind energy, wave energy from the sea, solar radiation converted by solar cells,
etc, are all indirectly derived from the energy emitted by the Sun, i.e. they originate

from solar fusion. Even the atmosphere, the rivers and the forests providing other
energy alternatives for electric power are driven by heat and light from solar fusion.
Great efforts will be needed to achieve the sustainable energy surplus we require in
the time we have available, before other options begin to run down.

-‐Source: Met Office Hadley – Datasets |

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

Environmentally speaking, I believe it would be prudent to hedge our bets in regards
to climate change, as the many of the predictions brought about by climate change
could be disastrous if they turn out to be accurate. One must remember that a
reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels would take many years even if emissions were
drastically reduced today. Economically speaking; we require the economic
infrastructure in place to make up the shortfall that a combination of increased
consumption and declining fossil stocks will present in the coming decades.

Energy is undoubtedly the food of civilization. With enough cheap and clean energy,
we can produce unlimited clean drinking water from desalinating the oceans, grow
almost unlimited food in the desert, and reverse environmental damage through
terraforming. We can easily power the technological, electronic systems that are so
essential in both our personal lives, and to society as a whole. With planning we can
live in a world where our needs are met, and not at the expense of the environment.
The path to an infinitely abundant energy source? Nuclear Fusion.
Part 2.

Fusion – a primer on possibly the world’s
most useful energy source
It may almost seem too good to be true, but fusion has a number of properties that,
technological challenges aside, make it the most promising energy source yet.

Plasma being channelled in a fusion torus
Fusion – The Benefits
SAFE
• If there is an accident and the magnetic containment is breached, the reaction
immediately stops! The metallic walls of the vessel surrounding the plasma would
cool the expanding plasma in a short period, collapsing the reaction cleanly and
quickly.

• A fusion reactor is like a gas burner – the fuel which is injected into the system is
burnt off. There is very little fuel in the reaction chamber at any given moment (about
1g in a volume of 1000 m3) and if the fuel supply is interrupted, the reactions only
continue for a few seconds. Any malfunction of the device would cause the reactor to
cool and the reactions would stop.

• These instabilities in the plasma act as an inherent safety mechanism. A fusion reactor
cannot melt down like a conventional nuclear reactor, it simply degrades to gas

• Though fusion is the main energy source of hydrogen bombs, fusion alone has never

produced a bomb; the hydrogen bomb requires a fission-‐ based atomic bomb to set it
off. This uncontrolled fusion reaction used in a bomb is a completely different
mechanism to the controlled fusion which is utilized in peaceful fusion.

• Day-‐to-‐day-‐operation of a fusion power station would not require the transport of
radio-‐active materials

• There are no byproducts that could be adapted for military purposes.

CLEAN AND ABUNDANT
• No carbon emissions are generated by fusion.

• The raw fuels are abundant and equally distributed around the globe. This prevents
geopolitical and economic issues such as countries gaining political advantages from
the scarcity of the resource

• It also prevents economic inequalities. Fusion’s raw materials are available to all.

• Raw materials for hydrogen will last for millions of years. They are a type (isotope) of
hydrogen – deuterium (found in seawater) – and lithium (a light metal which is found
in the Earth’s crust and in seawater). The lithium in the fusion reactor wall produces
tritium (another isotope of hydrogen)

• The waste product from a deuterium-‐tritium fusion reactor is ordinary (and harmless)
helium. There are no complicated nuclear byproducts and therefore no nuclear
reprocessing, or complicated fuel cycling is required.

• Although radioactive materials will be generated in the walls of a fusion power plant
they would decay with half-‐lives of about 10 years and the whole plant could be re-‐
cycled within 100 years. There is no long-‐lasting radioactive waste to burden future
generations.
EFFICIENT

The oceans offer us an effectively limitless source of Deutirium.
• Fusion is a very efficient form of energy production. 1 kg of deuterium and tritium
would supply the same amount of energy as 10 million kg of coal.

• The fuel consumption of a fusion power station will be extremely low. A 1 GW fusion
plant will need about 100 kg of deuterium and 3 tons of natural lithium to operate for
a whole year, generating about 7 billion kWh.

• The lithium in one laptop battery plus the deuterium from half a bathtub of water
would provide the UK’s per capita electricity production for 30 years.
Source -‐ Culham Centre For Fusion Energy-‐ fusion.org.uk/fusion_energy.pdf
Fusion – The Drawbacks

Though I argue that fusion is extremely promising, it would not be balanced for me to
leave out the shortcomings of nuclear fusion.
As an energy source, fusion has very few fundamental shortcomings. The main
problem with fusion today is that, technologically it is still beyond our grasp. Though
great advancements have been made, most expert sources believe that commercially
viable fusion is many decades away. And at the current rate of funding, this will
remain to be a problem…
PROBLEM: Escalating research costs

Many countries perceive fusion funding as a research risk. Essentially it is
seen to have a huge possible payoff in the far future, and the timescales
involved are too long. The energy problem is pressing and we need

results now! Other renewable energy sources compete with fusion for
finite R&D funding. Sadly, many green energy advocates have yet to catch
on. Many commentators, particularly those greens who have fought long
campaigns against nuclear fission, are deeply suspicious of fusion. They
doubt fusion will deliver and believe the money earmarked for research
would be better spent on renewables, such as wind, wave and solar
energy. Many of these other resources are already in commercial use,
which makes them perceived as a more credible source of funding.

“The ITER fusion reactor was originally costed at €10bn (£9bn), but the rising price of
raw materials and changes to the initial design are likely to see that bill soar, officials
confirmed today.
The warning came as scientists gathered in Finland to unveil the first component of the
reactor, which will effectively act as its exhaust pipe. The reactor is expected to take
nearly 10 years to build and is scheduled to be switched on in 2018.
It began as a US-‐Russian project in the 1980s, but has since grown to include the EU,
China, India, Japan and South Korea.” (Sample 2009) – Ian Sample, The Guardian
SOURCE -‐ http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/29/nuclear-‐fusion-‐power-‐
iter-‐funding
SOLUTION: CONSIDER THE ALERNATIVES!

There is no ‘real’ solution to this. However, there is an alternative way to consider the
issue.
1. Fusion may be expensive but, how expensive would it be to transfer most of
humanity away from low-‐laying coastal areas, assuming that global warming raises
sea levels over the next 100 years?
2. Fusion should be considered an investment. Simple economics suggests that the
growing scarcity of fossil fuels will result in rising prices to provide power from these
sources over time, assuming they become harder to source and extract.
Extending this idea further, the raw materials of fusion; deuterium and tritium are
abundant enough to be practically considered infinite. As technology improves, costs
of extracting deuterium and lithium and converting them to energy should fall.
Eventually we could see fusion to be a source of extremely cheap power: no scarcity,
massively efficient energy transfer.
3. Commercial fusion reactors greatly outperform other renewable energy sources.
PROBLEM: Net Energy Gain

In experimental fusion reactors the main goal is to achieve a net energy gain.
Essentially, we want to generate more power from the fusion reactions within reactor
than we put in to start and maintain those reactions. At the moment, incredible
amounts of energy are expended to create the conditions for fusion to occur, and as of
yet, no reactor has yet produced a gain. Running a nuclear fusion reactor costs more
energy than it generates. At the moment, a fusion reactor expends energy.

SOLUTION: Continue research!
Reactor energy efficiency has increased every decade since fusion research
began(Andreani 2000).
In fusion research, achieving a fusion energy gain factor Q = 1 is called breakeven,
and is the current goal in fusion research. With every year the value of Q that we
obtain climbs closer to 1. In a commercial fusion reactor, a value around Q = 20 would
be more suitable. Some external power will be required for things that help us
regulate the plasma, such as like current drive, refueling, profile control, and burn
control.

Encouragingly, in 1997 The JET tokamak at Culham in the UK produced 16 MW of
fusion power – which is the current world record for fusion power.

The interior of the JET torus.
PROBLEM: Heat/ Thermal Pollution

An unusual yet still valid argument against freely available cheap energy is a
phenomenon known as heat pollution. The idea is that with cheap abundant energy,
most will be wasted as heat. This can have detrimental effects on marine life.
Thermal Pollution’s Implications For Marine Ecosystems
Thermal pollution can have a great influence on the aquatic ecosystem.
There are various effects on the biology of the ecosystems when heated effluents
reach the receiving waters. The species that are intolerant to warm conditions may

disappear, while others, rare in unheated water, may thrive so that the structure of the
community changes. Respiration and growth rates may be changed and these may
alter the feeding rates of organisms. The reproduction period may be brought forward
and development may be speeded up. Parasites and diseases may also be affected.

An increase of temperature also means a decrease in oxygen solubility. Any reduction
in the oxygen concentration of the water, particularly when organic pollution is also
present, may result in the loss of sensitive species.
For example, in summer fish may have high metabolic rates because their body
temperatures are elevated in the warm water. At the same time they are faced with
relatively low oxygen availability because warm water holds less dissolved oxygen
than cold water. The interaction of these factors may prove critical.
Heated water can kill animals and plants that are accustomed to living at lower
temperatures.
-‐ Source: http://www.lenntech.com/aquatic/heat.htm#ixzz0drT24IFS

SOLUTION: Ecological Safeguards
The technology already exists to cool water before it is returned to the ecosystem.
Heat pollution isn’t really a problem with effective planning. The problem is not
complicated but may be expensive; redesign of sites which are discharging hot water
may be required. Installing the following hardware at offending sites would be an
effective solution to heat pollution:
Cooling ponds: man-‐made bodies of water designed for cooling by evaporation,
convection, and radiation
Cooling towers: which transfer waste heat to the atmosphere through evaporation
and/or heat transfer
Cogeneration: a process where waste heat is recycled for domestic and/or industrial
heating purposes.

A cooling pond in Novovoronezh, Russia. Many such sites have secondary, recreational
purposes that include fishing, swimming, boating, camping and picnicking. The warm
waters are often used as a fish hatchery.
PROBLEM: Neutron Production in a DT

Fusion Reaction
DT fusion reactions produce free neutrons moving at high speed. These fast neutrons
create radioactivity when they bombard the materials of which the fusion reactor is
constructed. Thus, while the fusion process does not produce nuclear waste directly,
the fusion reactor itself does become radioactive, and its components must be
disposed of safely when the reactor is finally shut down, after the normal life of an
electric power plant.

SOLUTION: Utilize Unreactive Materials in
Reactor Construction
Neutron shielding is rather simple. Neutrons are easily shielded with 24 inches or so
of water, plastic, or anything else with high levels of hydrogen to provide collision
partners of nearly equal mass for the neutrons to collide into.

The problem with radioactive materials are not a particular hurdle. This problem can
be minimized by deliberately choosing construction materials that either produce less
radioactivity or produce radioactivity that dies away more rapidly. Such materials are
estimated to lose their radioactivity within 50-‐100 years, as oppose to the thousands
of years required for fission waste.


Due to it’s low level of radioactive activation in neutron bombardment, vanadium is a
promising candidate for DT fusion reactors.
Part 3.
Fusion Energy Cycles

The fusion process can occur in a number of different ‘energy cycles’. Each one fuses
different materials, with different quantities of matter, and releases energy in different
ways.


A graph comparing the performance of the 3 main reactions; The Deutritium-‐Tritium
reaction, The Deutirium-‐Deutrium process and the proton-‐Boron11 process.
Note: A Deuterium – Deuterium (DD) fusion reactor would provide limitless

energy; it requires only water as a resource. However, even higher temperatures
would be required for a DD reaction, it is unlikely to be considered in the near
future.

Helium 3 fusion (3He3He) though another promising aneutronic reaction, is rare on the
earth. Helium 3 fusion has been proposed for confinement in both magnetic or inertial
fusion reactors. This isotope of helium is thought to be common on the moon!
THE DT FUEL CYCLE

The DT Fusion reaction. The release of the neutron is the main drawback of this power
cycle.
According to the Lawson Criterion, the DT fuel cycle is the easiest fusion process to
start and maintain within a terrestrial reactor. It also has the highest power
production rate of the fusion reactions. The generated power density is about 1 W per
cm3.


In simple terms, the ‘extra’ neutrons on the D and T nuclei make them "larger" and
less tightly bound, and the result is that the cross-‐section for the D-‐T reaction is the
largest. Also, because they are only singly-‐charged hydrogen isotopes, the electrical
repulsion between them is relatively small. It is relatively easy to throw them at each
other, and it is relatively easy to get them to collide and stick. Furthermore, the D-‐T
reaction has a relatively high energy yield.(Kobres 1994)

Disadvantages
However, the D-‐T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases an energetic neutron.
Neutrons can be difficult to handle, because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing
them to become radioactive, or causing secondary reactions.
ANEUTRONIC FUSION
Aneutronic fusion means fusion that does not produce neutrons as a by-‐product.
There are several candidates for aneutronic fusion, but at current the Hydrogen and
Boron 11 cycle seem to be the most credible.
As energy equation below shows -‐ no neutrons are produced, however this cycle
requires more energy to start than the DT cycle.
p + B11 -‐> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV

The pB11 cycle is the most promising candidate for aneutronic fusion.
The nuclear energy from the p-‐B reaction is different because it comes from the
proton-‐ triggered fission of a light element, and no neutrons are released. (Light

elements are considered to be those with a mass number less than 56, which is the
mass number of iron.)

This is unusual for at least four reasons:
1. Light elements more often “combine” or fuse to make heavier elements; they don’t
normally fission to make elements that are lighter yet.
2. Heavy elements such as 235U (Uranium isotope – mass number 235) are
traditionally considered to be the more likely candidates for fission reactions.
3. Fission reactions are normally triggered by the absorption of a neutron, not a
proton.
4. Fissions usually result in the emission of neutrons.

“Focus Fusion” refers to electricity generation using a Dense Plasma Focus (DPF)
nuclear fusion generator. It uses the aneutronic hydrogen-‐boron fuel (pB11) cycle.
If Focus Fusion reactors are made to work, they will provide virtually unlimited
supplies of cheap energy in an environmentally sound way -‐ no greenhouse gases, and
no radiation -‐ because the reaction of pB11 is aneutronic.
Focus Fusion faces two main technical challenges:

• It requires much higher ion temperatures and plasma density-‐confinement
time product than Deuterium-‐Tritium fuel;
• and x-‐rays produced by the reaction reduce temperatures.
The plasma focus device consists of two cylindrical copper or berillyum electrodes
nested inside each other. The outer electrode is generally no more than 6-‐7 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.
Focus fusion reactors are expected to be less expensive for the same amount of power.
Using this power cycle, a wheelbarrow load of the Boron in Boraxo, a brand of
American hand soap would be sufficient to provide all the electrical needs of a small
city for a year.
-‐Sources: http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/focus_fusion_reactor/
William W. Flint -‐
http://www.polywellnuclearfusion.com/Clean_Nuclear_Fusion/Download_Book.html
MAGNETISED TARGET FUSION /

SPHEROMAK FUSION

General Fusion's reactor design consists of 220 pistons that simultaneously ram a metal
sphere. This creates a shock wave inside the sphere, so that plasma rings in the center
create a fusion reaction.
General Fusion plans to try a relatively low-‐tech approach to fusion called magnetized
target fusion (MTF).
The reactor consists of a metal sphere with a diameter of three meters. Inside the
sphere, a liquid mixture of lithium and lead spins to create a vortex with a vertical
cavity in the centre. Then, the researchers inject two donut-‐shaped plasma rings called
spheromaks into the top and bottom of the vertical cavity -‐ like "blowing smoke rings
at each other," explains Doug Richardson, chief executive of General Fusion, the
Canadian energy company that is driving the MTF project.

The last step is mainly well-‐timed brute mechanical force. 220 pneumatically
controlled pistons on the outer surface of the sphere are programmed to
simultaneously ram the surface of the sphere one time per second. This force sends an
acoustic wave through the spinning liquid that becomes a shock wave when it reaches
the spheromaks in the center, triggering a fusion burst. Specifically, the plasma's
hydrogen isotopes -‐ deuterium and tritium -‐ fuse into helium, releasing neutrons that
are trapped by the lithium and lead mixture. The neutrons cause the liquid to heat up,
and the heat is extracted through a heat exchanger. Part of the resulting heat is used to
make steam to spin a turbine for power generation, while the rest goes back to
recharge the pistons.
General Fusion has just started developing simulations of the project, and hopes to
build a test reactor and demonstrate net gain within five years. If everything goes
according to plan, they will then build a 100-‐megawatt prototype reactor to be

finished five years after that, which would cost an estimated $500 million.
Source: Lisa Zyga, Physorg.com | http://www.physorg.com/news168623833.html
INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION/

INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY [IFE]
While magnetic confinement seeks to extend the time that ions spend close to each
other in order to facilitate fusion, the inertial confinement strategy seeks to fuse nuclei
so fast that they don't have time to move apart

Directed onto a tiny deuterium-‐tritium pellet, the enormous energy influx evaporates
the outer layer of the pellet, producing energetic collisions that drive part of the pellet
inward. The inner core is increased a thousandfold in density and its temperature is
driven upward to the ignition point for fusion. Accomplishing this in a time interval of
10^-‐11 to 10^-‐9 seconds does not allow the ions to move appreciably because of their
own inertia; hence the name inertial confinement.
Atmosphere Formation
Laser beam rapidly heats the surface of the fusion target forming a surrounding plasma envelope.
Compression
Fuel is compressed by the rocket-like blowoff of the hot surface material.
Ignition

During the final part of the laser pulse, the fuel core reaches 20 times the density of lead and ignites at
100,000,000 degrees Celcius.
Burn
Thermonuclear burn spreads rapidly through the compressed fuel, yielding many times the input energy.
Key:
Laser energy
Blowoff
Inward transported thermal energy

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is exp-‐
erimenting with using laser beams to induce fusion. In the NIF device, 192 laser
beams will focus on single point in a 10-‐meter-‐diameter target chamber called a
hohlraum. A hohlraum is "a cavity whose walls are in radiative equilibrium with the
radiant energy within the cavity"

A hohlraum mock up to be used on the NIF laser
Other effects like the symmetry of the implosion are also important for the ignition.

The IFE laser must operate at five to ten shots a second depending on the target yield
per shot and the desired electric output of the power plant. Currently two classes of

laser are being considered in the United States: the krypton-‐fluoride (KrF) gas laser
and the diode-‐pumped solid state laser (DPSSL).

Like the magnetic-‐confinement fusion reactor, the heat from inertial-‐confinement
fusion will be passed to a heat exchanger to make steam for producing electricity.

-‐ Source: Rochster University |
http://www.lle.rochester.edu/02_visitors/02_grad_inertialconf.php

In the resulting conditions — a temperature of more than 100 million degrees Celsius
and pressures 100 billion times the Earth’s atmosphere — the fuel core will ignite and a
thermonuclear burn will quickly spread through the compressed fuel, releasing ten to
100 times more energy than the amount deposited by the laser beams. Only a few NIF
experiments can be conducted in a single day because the facility's optical components
need time to cool down between shots. In an IFE power plant, targets will be ignited
five to ten times a second!

In direct-‐drive, the capsule is directly irradiated by the laser beams. In indirect-‐
drive, the capsule is placed inside a hohlraum; made with high-‐atomic-‐mass materials
like gold and lead with holes on the ends for beam entry.
Source: Rick Hodgin -‐ http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/national-‐ignition-‐facility-‐
preps-‐self-‐sustaining-‐fusion-‐tests-‐for-‐2010-‐20090415/
The HiPER Laser Fusion Reactor

HiPER is a European ICF facility being designed to demonstrate the feasibility of laser
driven fusion as a future energy source. This is made feasible by the advent of a
revolutionary approach to laser-‐driven fusion known as 'Fast Ignition'. HiPER will
use a unique laser configuration, currently estimated at 200kJ long pulse laser
combined with a 70kJ short pulse laser.
The HiPER Science Programme

It will also enable the investigation of the science of truly extreme conditions – creating
environments which cannot be produced elsewhere on Earth (temperatures of hundreds
of millions of degrees, billion atmosphere pressures, and enormous electric and magnetic
fields).
The new research programs will include the following areas

• Astrophysics in the laboratory
• Behavior of matter in truly extreme conditions
• Material science in the challenging “warm dense” regime
• Nuclear physics and nucleosynthesis
• Atomic physics
• Turbulent flow at very high Mach numbers

• Relativistic particle beam studies and applications • plasma physics at high
energy density
• Laser plasma interaction physics
• Quantum vacuum studies
• Fundamental physics in ultra-‐strong electric fields.

Artist’s impression of the HiPER facility
The project was accepted onto the ‘European Roadmap’ in October 2006, with the UK
agreeing to take a leadership role in January 2007.The HiPER facility is anticipated to
open towards the end of the next decade dependent on the success of the
preparatory phase project. The UK is the leading contender to host the HiPER laser
facility.
Source: The Hiper project | http://www.hiper-‐laser.org/keyfacts/KeyFacts.asp
Part 4.
Fusion Confinement Devices
Regardless of the energy cycle of nuclear fusion we use, certain conditions are required
to start the reaction and contain the temperamental plasma environment in which the
atomic process takes place.

Another view inside the JET torus, a tokamak design.
THE TOKAMAK
The Tokamak was first discussed in the 1950s by Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov in
the Soviet Union. The word Tokamak is actually an acronym derived from the Russian
words toroid-‐kamera-‐magnit-‐katushka, meaning “the toroidal chamber and
magnetic coil.” This donut-‐shaped configuration is principally characterized by a large
current, up to several million amps, which flows through the plasma. The plasma is
heated to temperatures more than a hundred million degrees centigrade (much
hotter than the core of the sun) by high-‐energy particle beams or radio-‐frequency
waves.

The Problem and Importance of Heat In The Tokamak
In an operating fusion reactor, part of the energy generated will serve to maintain the
plasma temperature as fresh deuterium and tritium are introduced. However, in the
startup of a reactor, either initially or after a temporary shutdown, the plasma will
have to be heated to 100 million degrees Celsius.

In current tokamak (and other) magnetic fusion experiments, insufficient fusion
energy is produced to maintain the plasma temperature. Consequently, the devices
operate in short pulses and the plasma must be heated afresh in every pulse.

Ohmic Heating
Since the plasma is an electrical conductor, it is possible to heat the plasma by passing
a current through it; in fact, the current that generates the poloidal field also heats the
plasma. This is called ohmic (or resistive) heating; it is the same kind of heating that
occurs in an electric light bulb or in an electric heater.

Neutral-‐Beam Injection
Neutral-‐beam injection involves the introduction of high-‐energy (neutral) atoms into

the ohmically -‐-‐ heated, magnetically -‐-‐ confined plasma. The atoms are immediately
ionized and are trapped by the magnetic field. The high-‐energy ions then transfer part
of their energy to the plasma particles in repeated collisions, thus increasing the
plasma temperature.

Radio-‐frequency Heating
In radio-‐frequency heating, high-‐frequency waves are generated by oscillators outside
the torus. If the waves have a particular frequency (or wavelength), their energy can
be transferred to the charged particles in the plasma, which in turn collide with other
plasma particles, thus increasing the temperature of the bulk plasma.

The Magnetic Field In a Tokamak
Because of the electric charges carried by electrons and ions, a plasma can be
confined by a magnetic field. In the absence of a magnetic field, the charged particles
in a plasma move in straight lines and random directions. Since nothing restricts their
motion the charged particles can strike the walls of a containing vessel, thereby
cooling the plasma and inhibiting fusion reactions. But in a magnetic field, the
particles are forced to follow spiral paths about the field lines. Consequently, the
charged particles in the high-‐temperature plasma are confined by the magnetic field
and prevented from striking the vessel walls.

The flow in the plasma is mainly used to generate the enclosing magnetic field. In
addition, it provides effective initial heating of the plasma. The flow in the plasma is
normally induced by a transformer coil.

This simplified diagram of a tokamak describes what part each component plays in
confining plasma.


In order to minimize particle losses caused from leaking along the magnetic field lines,
the chamber is bent, which also bends the magnetic field lines. This creates the
distinctive torus shape also known as a “toroidal pinch”. However, the curvature of the
magnetic field lines introduces new problems. Strong externally produced toroidal
magnetic fields are necessary to stabilize the plasma. These are generated by the
solenoidal magnet

The solenoid works by passing a current through an electromagnet wrapped, one turn
after the other, along the full length of the tube. It reduces the kinking problem in the
plasma by adding an external source of magnetic field that "stiffens" the plasma
column.

A solenoid is a 3 dimensional coil which creates the magnetic field that envelopes the
torus.

A tokamak consists mainly of a toroidal tube big enough to hold the plasma that serves
as fuel; a solenoidal magnet wrapped around the tube; and a transformer to drive a
current in the plasma.


Diagram showing how particles are trapped within the cross section of plasma
constrained within a tokamak.

The Energy Generation Process Within The Tokamak
• The fusion reactor heats a stream of deuterium and tritium fuel to form high-‐
temperature plasma. It squeezes the plasma so that fusion can take place.
• The lithium blankets outside the plasma reaction chamber absorb high-‐energy
neutrons from the fusion reaction to make (‘breed’) more tritium fuel. The
blankets will also get heated by the neutrons.
• The heat will be transferred by a water-‐cooling loop to a heat exchanger to
make steam.
• The steam will drive electrical turbines to produce electricity.
• The steam will be condensed back into water to absorb more heat from the
reactor in the heat exchanger.

Source: Princton Plasma Physics Laboratory | http://www.pppl.gov/fusion_basics/

At this time, of all the fusion projects, tokamak confinement is getting the most
funding and the most media attention. There are 2 major new tokamak projects under
construction, ITER in Europe and SST-‐1 in India. Both are designed to showcase
current advancements in magnetic confinement technology to the world, and to
provide the environment to research the next phase of tokamak technology.

THE POLYWELL/ BUSSARD FUSION
REACTOR

Robert W. Bussard (August 11, 1928 – October 6, 2007) was an American physicist who
worked primarily in nuclear fusion energy research, and who pioneered the polywell
concept.

The name polywell is a portmanteau of "polyhedron" and "potential well." The
Polywell is spherical instead of the donut shape of the Tokamak. The polywell method
of achieving fusion has often been referred to as the “long shot to fusion” and sadly,
has been treated this way by the fusion community at large

As a fusion source, polywell researchers compete with tokamak derived technology
for funding. And in the funding battle, the polywell is definitely losing, However in
2009 a R&D contract worth $2 million a year from the US Navy was issued, who
believe the polywell may be a useful power source for ships. This is promising, and
many polywell advocates have stated that positive results can be seen with a fraction
of the funding expended on Tokamak technology (which is a good thing because it
looks like that’s what they will get!).

Source: Federal Business Opportunities.gov |
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fc9fd44171017393510d
46e2f8154296&tab=core&_cview=0&cck=1&au=&ck=

The Polywell community is a small but vocal ‘open source‘ collective of scientific
enthusiasts and independent researchers.

Confinement Within The Polywell
The Polywell uses inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) to create the conditions
for fusion.

When all six electromagnets within the polywell are energized, the magnetic fields
meld into a nearly perfect sphere. Electrons are injected into the sphere to create a
superdense core of highly negative charge. Given enough electrons, the electrical field
can be made strong enough to induce fusion in selected particles. Positively charged
protons and boron-‐11 ions are injected into the sphere and are quickly accelerated
into the centre of the electron ball by its high negative charge. Protons and boron ions
that overshoot the centre are pulled back with an oscillatory action of a thousand or
more cycles.
Source: R. Colin Johnson | EE Times
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199703602


The current, third-‐generation prototype uses six doughnut-‐shaped electromagnets to
create a cube in which to confine the fusion reactions in a strong magnetic field. The
original prototype operated in air and was just centimetres in diameter; the current
design operates in a vacuum chamber and measures roughly a cubic yard.

A 2D representation of the magnetic fields operating in a polywell. The coils trap
electrons and keep them in a very small, tightly packed group called a potential well.
This well attracts and accelerates the Hydrogen and Boron nuclei. When they collide, the
nuclear reaction is triggered. If there is a system failure, the polywell simply loses its
magnetic field and the process stops.
Conclusion
It is evident that there are a great many different possibilities for fusion; in both the
choice of fuel cycle and confinement method used. Though now over 50 years old, the
field is still very young. A great deal of emerging technologies look promising within
fusion. Advances in other areas such as materials technology, could be a boon to the
efforts of fusion researchers looking to create more efficient reactors. Similarly,
disruptive technology such as the polywell and the plethora of projects lumped under the
term ‘cold fusion’ could have payoffs, though the odds of this are not considered certain.
It appears that within the fusion community, current preference is towards the DT cycle,
magnetically confined in a tokamak environment. This is obvious in the amounts of
money being spent on in Europe on the ITER project, although the USA is actively
researching a variety of inertial confinement technologies in tandem with their own
tokamak efforts. With advancements in future we may be looking at aneutronic fusion,
though the road to commercial fusion is ‘still’ some decades off.
The next section addresses public awareness and opinion of fusion, with data gathered
from Europe and the USA.
Part 5.
Public awareness of fusion -‐ Getting The
Message Out
Obviously, informed public and political awareness of nuclear fusion will be an
extremely important factor in ensuring that fusion gets the attention it deserves. To be
viable as an energy source, fusion must be understood, at least at some level, by the
lay public who would one day reap its benefits.
Policymakers in energy must better understand what the fusion is, its economic
implications, and long term performance predictions. Educators and thought leaders
such as teachers need to be given a clear understanding of the subject so that the
message is communicated properly by these vocal, credible sections of the
population.
Furthermore, it is important to educate the public on the distinctions between fusion
and fission, especially as the definition nuclear (especially thermonuclear) has a
negative association with weaponry, which is unavoidable.
Finally, the obvious benefits of fusion must be communicated in a compelling, but
impartial and factual manner. I believe that encouraging public support and indeed,
approval of fusion could help contribute to maintaining political pressure that ensures
fusion gets the economic support that it needs to become a reality.

However, it is clear that competition for public mindshare is extremely tough. In this
time of mass media the amount of information the average person is exposed to is
greater than ever before. The fusion message has to contend with popular culture,
constant marketing, and the concerns of normal day to day life; a great many global
and personal issues take up the average person’s attention and time. Fusion is simply
not a priority for most people. This is understandable perhaps in the context of a low
awareness of the extent of the energy problem facing us in the coming decades.
Worse still, certain anti nuclear pressure groups approach fusion in the same
combative manner they have reserved for fission. For example, a consortium of French
pressure groups Sortir du Nucleaire (Get Out of Nuclear Energy),claimed that ITER
was a hazard because “scientists did not yet know how to manipulate the high-‐energy
deuterium and tritium hydrogen isotopes used in the fusion process.”
-‐ Source: Deustch Welle -‐ http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,,1631650,00.html
In a report entitled Public Information in European Fusion Energy Research: Methods
and Challenges, released by specialists working at fusion policy and research institutions
around the EU, the opinions and awareness of the public in the EU towards fusion where
measured. The following social groups where identified as communication targets. Each
requires a different outreach strategy and message.
Note: PI: Public information
• Decision makers: due to direct link between the EU energy policy and the European
fusion research this group needs to be informed on both European and national levels about
the mission progress. The group consists of judicious, motivated, busy people.
• Media: as a key intermediate to pro-active communication with general public, media
(TV, radio, newspapers, journals) deserve high priority PI, namely personal relations. In
fusion, media relations are established, as a rule, on national levels.
• Schools & Universities: Teachers act as efficient intermediates to young people who
will probably decide about the industrial future of fusion. Even before, fusion R&D will
need a supply of new determined experts. Notice that fusion has relatively sparse
professional links to Universities compared to other major research projects.
• Interested Public: Although fusion cannot hope for a major pro-active influence of
general public, any of those who are interested and request information must feel free to
obtain it, hence the passive PI must be very broad and highly responsive.
• Industry: Nowadays, the main topics in fusion research have expanded from basic
plasma physics towards more technological tasks, e.g. to material research, which calls for
direct involvement of different industries including their R&D. PI activities have to follow
these developments and promote the opportunities.
• Fusion Community: Due to international dimension of the research it is vital to
foster good relations among fusion centres, calling for broad communications.
• Scientific Community: support from the influential category of “other scientists” can
be expected only if fusion community manages to inform them properly about the fusion
research, its mission, results and strategy, as well as about joint interests.
Source: http://www.iop.org/Jet/fulltext/EFDP05027.pdf
Findings: The report’s findings on the public awareness of nuclear fusion where
not very promising.

• For the general public the challenge of producing energy from nuclear fusion is
quite abstract
• It turns out that the level of education and social background tend to play a major
role in awareness of nuclear fusion as future energy source.
• The European public is badly informed about nuclear fusion research in the EU
(~3% informed)
• As far as energy-related research in the EU is concerned, nuclear fusion appears to
be at the third position on the priority list of those areas where people would like
the EU to do more, with 21% of support, well far behind renewable energy sources
for instance (69%).
• There are significant concerns regarding the capability of nuclear fusion power to
meet the public safety and environmental requirements: almost 35% believe it
won’t be safe (!), will produce long-term nuclear waste and will contribute to global
warming.
• These negative opinions are remarkable namely in relation to very low public
awareness of fusion, which contradiction can be clearly ascribed to the prejudices
associated with the tag “nuclear”.
• Nuclear fusion is also viewed as the second most efficient potential energy source
(22%) and
• It is believed (59%) that it needs much more research to confirm its potential.
The report made the following conclusions on designing an

effective communication strategy:
• Clear messages: Key messages need to be simple and easy to find. Moreover, the
communication has to be comprehensible and adapted to the target group, avoiding
specialized terminology without compromising on the message contents. The requirements
for reliable translations and interpreters call for considerable involvement of individual
Associations in this respect.
• Empathy: The form in which information is presented (including its emotional

impacts) needs to be thoroughly appreciated. In particular, application of professional
graphics has to be encouraged. Use of illustrations, photographs and videos beyond
technical documentation should become routine
• Division of responsibilities: In the new era of fusion, with many different world
cultures working together on extraordinarily broad technological projects like ITER, it will
be beyond capacity of scientists alone to assume all aspects of communication.
Implementation of these three recommendations will put strain namely on internal
communication, for scientists - they may feel that the above efforts are not a high priority
activity. Anyway, in near future this will represent just one of many similar challenges
for fusion scientists, who will find themselves among industrial engineers, nuclear
regulators, managers from different countries etc.
A highly professional communication team, combined with good communication

training for a sufficient number of managers, scientists and engineers, can actually
relieve many of these strains while concentrating on the primordial objective, the
improvement of public understanding of fusion.
PANS (Public Awareness Of Nuclear Science)
The PANS was a prototype Public Information society, which has formed the
framework for much of the more organized communication efforts now being made in
fusion.

The objective of PANS (Public Awareness of Nuclear Science) was to establish a
European-‐wide network for communicating information on positive achievements,
techniques and diverse applications of nuclear physics to the general public.

The network comprises a group of about 23 nuclear scientists from all over Europe. A
number of specific activities were developed, aiming at:
• Secondary school pupils and teachers
• The general public
• Opinion-‐ and decision-‐makers, government and administrations

The project’s leading achievement was the science communication book “Nucleus -‐ A
Trip into the Heart of Matter” published in 2001 (Canopus and John Hopkins
University Press in the US).

Many of the original collaborators went on to create a web-‐based science
communication system (webSCS), which carries factual and topical information about
the various uses of nuclear science.

Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?id=/research/star/index_en.
cfm?p=03_main&item=Energy&artid=1900


American organizations are also using the internet for educational outreach.

EFDA (European Fusion Development

Agreement)

In 1999, the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) was created to provide
a framework between European fusion research institutions and the European
Commission to strengthen their coordination and collaboration, and to participate in
collective activities.
Between 1999 and 2007 EFDA was responsible for the exploitation of the Joint
European Torus, the coordination and support of fusion-‐related research &
development activities carried out by the Associations and by European Industry and
coordination of the European contribution to large scale international collaborations,
such as the ITER-‐project.

To reach its objectives, EFDA carries out the following group of activities:
• Collective use of JET, the world´s largest fusion experiment, which is located
near Oxford (United Kingdom).

• Training and carrier development of researchers, promoting links to
universities and carrying out support actions for the benefit of the fusion
programme

• Reinforced coordination of fusion physics and technology research and
development in EU laboratories
-‐Source: European Fusion Development Agreement |

http://www.efda.org/about_efda/what_is_efda.htm
Conclusion:
In Europe, there are a number of public outreach organizations attempting to inform
the public about fusion (specifically though magnetic confinement). The EFDA works
as something of an umbrella organization and is developing a series of very effective
communicational tools on its website, which it is encouraging teachers and other
educators to make use of. There is a well-‐informed academic and amateur fusion
community with excellent internal, trans-‐national communication links. However,
European public understanding of fusion is terrible; many are unaware of its proper
definition, and the ‘nuclear’ stigma has remained. Some groups are even opposed to it,
thinking research budgets better spent elsewhere!
Main concerns in the public perception of fusion are as followed.
• High costs;
• Uncertainty of payoff from R&D investments;
• The feasibility of the technology;
• The visibility of the results;
• The need to set financial limits on R&D expenditure.

Generally speaking, the lay public seems to be more interested in technologies ‘closer
to their lives’, such as health or environment related. They pay little attention and are
not aware of the wider social and political dimensions of the associated R&D
programme.
ITER is without a doubt, our main opportunity to bring public awareness to
fusion. (Prades López et al. 2008). The entire process should be orchestrated with as
much media furor as possible, making use of all the modern tools of communication
the internet offers, such as social media and blogging. As the fusion community is
extremely technologically savvy, co-‐coordinating this sort of effort should not be
particularly hard, as we are already seeing organizations such as JET maintaining their
own YouTube channels and proactively communicating with the public. Via online and
offline outreach.

“In contrast with the past, the proponents of nuclear fusion are to some extent
attempting to come to grips with the social circumstances. Until now they have taken
the optimistic view that if they simply built a nuclear fusion reactor, society would
accept it. Now they are sensing the need to make an effort to gain the acceptance of
society. Even greater vigilance will be necessary in future.” -‐ (Tadahiro Katsuta, CNIC,
Japan)
Expert Interviews
In researching fusion I thought it would be best to obtain opinions from
people better informed than me. Below are two interviews I conducted with
internationally recognised experts on the subject.
Chris Warrick (Culham, UK) is a member of the Public Relations team

at the UKAEA Culham Science Centre. After graduating with a degree in
physics from the University of Wales, Chris joined UKAEA at Culham in

1990 working as an experimental physicist on various fusion devices
until 2001. He was particularly involved with plasma microwave heating
systems and plasma radiation measurement devices. Since 2001, Chris
has been a member of the Public Relations team with particular
responsibility for education and public outreach
When are we looking at the first commercially operated fusion plant?
Easy question to begin with! If we assume 10 years to build ITER, and time then to get the results
to enable the design of the first demonstration power station and then 5-10 years to build this first
demo power station, we are looking at 25-30 years. For widespread commercial power from fusion
- probably 40-50 years.
What method of confinement is most likely to prevail in commercial fusion?
Here at Culham, the JET and MAST tokamak devices employ magnetic confinement of the fusion
plasma. There are parallel research streams into laser induced fusion - fusion of tiny fuel pellets by
implosion with laser beams. It is fair to say, that in terms of scalability to fusion power stations, the
magnetic confinement research is probably closer to economically viable power.
Could a child born today be seeing 'free' energy in his/her lifetime?

Fusion would never profess to offer free energy. Modelling predictions suggest fusion will be
economically competitive with other forms of generation - but it will never be free. Neither will any
other generating method.
Is 'cold' fusion believed to be scientifically feasible?
No is the quickest answer. There is no firm evidence that neutrons observed in cold fusion
experiments are actually generated from fusion. There is clearly interesting physics going on here -
but this is almost certainly not fusion.
What is the best way we have for obtaining naturally occurring elemental hydrogen?
We require two forms (or isotopes) of hydrogen to make magnetic fusion here on earth. These are
Deuterium and Tritium. Deuterium is easily obtained from water - all water has traces of Deuterium
- about one in every 8000 water molecules. Tritium is very rare - so we are going to need to
generate this ourselves from a fusion power station. It is envisaged that the neutrons we will
produce from the fusion reaction will react with a surrounding blanket of Lithium - and make the
Tritium we will need. Hence, we will use up Lithium to make the Tritium we need. Lithium is a very
common element - so we have abundant fuel reserves.
How many fusion plants would we need to supply the energy needs of the planet?
It is expected that fusion power plants will produce 1-2 GW of electricity - about the same as a
modern fossil fuel or fission power station will produce. This about enough electricity for 2-3 million
people - so for the UK - about 30 fusion power stations would be enough for all our electricity
needs. However, we would never argue that fusion should generate all electricity - there should be
a balanced portfolio with other sources (renewables, fission etc).
How aware would you say the public are of nuclear fusion?

Probably not enough. We strive very hard here - through public and schools outreach programmes
and through media coverage - to increase the public's knowledge of fusion - and its potential as a
future source of energy. This is not always easy - and one reason is how long it will take to be
commercially available.
What are the most effective ways of educating them?
See above. Media is the way to get the message out to millions of people - when we had some
coverage on BBC Horizon last year - that created a lot of interest.
Are there any possible disaster scenarios that could result from misuse of a fusion reaction?
No! The plasma inside one of our machines - although incredibly hot - 100s of millions of degrees C
- is very small in mass (fractions of a gramme). If we push the plasma in any way (increase its
mass too much, lose its confining magnetic field) it will become unstable, strike the wall of the
container, cool rapidly and extinguish. This inherent feature if the plasma - that it will stop itself
if pushed away from its natural stability limits - ensures that an internally driven accident is
impossible to conceive.
Are there any other hypothetical power sources that could surpass fusion in our far future?
In a sense, I could say "maybe - but they have not been discovered yet". My own view is that the
three large scale electricity generating options that can make a big contribution in the future are
fusion, solar (much potential here but tend to be uneconomic at present) and new generation
fission. I would like to see a world where these three are pushed as hard as possible .

Tadahiro Katsuta (Tokyo, Japan) has a PhD in plasma physics from Hiroshima University
(1997). He is currently a Research Associate at the University of Tokyo. From 1999-2005 he
researched the economics of nuclear power relative to other sources of electrical power, as an
analyst at the Citizens Nuclear Information Centre in Tokyo.
Apr. 10th, 2010
*When are we looking at the first commercially operated fusion plant?*
In my understanding, thermonuclear fusion commercial reactor stands little chance of realization.
According to the project of International Thermonuclear Fusion Experimental Reactor (ITER), fusion
experiment will begin in 2018 and operation period is expected to last 20 years. Following DEMO
reactor is planed to put into the grid as early as 2040. However, nobody knows physics of thermo
nuclear fusion plasma and how to control it in the large facility. Based on my experience on nuclear
fusion experiment, the hurdle is very high. It must be set the project back. Even if the physics is
realized, nuclear fusion method confronts to other commercial plants which have economic benefit. In
addition to this, it is doubtful if any country needs such large amount of electricity.
*What method of confinement is most likely to prevail in commercial fusion?*
One of the most important requirements for commercial reactor is a stable operation. Otherwise
electric companies and customers do not accept the installation. It is difficult that the continuous
operation of thermo nuclear fusion reaction by the magnetic confinement system. On the other hand,
laser implosion system will be operated with the pulse drive. Such a large pulse driving system seems
to me unstable. Furthermore, if the technology becomes regulated in terms of nuclear nonproliferation,
the introduction speed will slow down.
*Could a child born today be seeing 'free' energy in his/her lifetime?*
Children may realize solar power is the source of real 'free' energy.
*Is 'cold' fusion believed to be scientifically feasible?*
There is big difference between scientific and commercial feasibilities. Scientifically it has a potential
but may not become a commercial big power supply.

*What is the best way we have for obtaining naturally occurring elemental hydrogen?*
We can get hydrogen by the electrolysis using renewable energy.
*How many fusion plants would we need to supply the energy needs of the planet?*
You can get total electrical power plant capacity when you divide the world electricity demand by a
capacity of one nuclear fusion reactor. However, we have to consider the daily load curve and net
system energy demand. Since it is too difficult to control the output of nuclear fusion reactor, it may be
only used for the base load. Nuclear fusion commercial reactor has difficulties to find a position as base
load power source because of existence of other safe and cheap supplies.
*How aware would you say the public are of nuclear fusion? *
I have no idea.

*What are the most effective ways of educating them?*
The education of historical survey of science, technology and society that don't contain value judgments
*Are there any possible disaster scenarios that could result from misuse of a fusion reaction?*
If the energy use succeeds, it brings unnecessary electricity demand and radioactive waste management
problem. In addition to these, it cause nuclear proliferation problem about H-‐bomb.
*Are there any other hypothetical power sources that could surpass fusion in our far future?*
Hydrogen energy created by renewable energies
Part 6.
Conclusion
It seems a cliché, but for decades we have been “just decades away” from
commercially applied fusion . In spite of this, fusion has advanced in leaps and
bounds. Though we have not yet seen any energy gains, the ongoing trend is of our
reactors moving closer to breakeven point. The main problem is the time that it has
taken to do this. Most people agree that we are going to see breakeven, but when is the
point of contention. Most media sources are quoting a commercial start date of at
least 2040.
However, the timescale to fusion power could be accelerated with increased
funding. Overall research spend on fusion is tiny – less than 0.1% of the total energy
market worldwide. This is astonishingly small compared to what a large hi-‐tech or
automotive firm would spend on research (e.g Toshiba, Ford). ITER’s expected
lifetime cost is less than the amount being spent on the London Olympics.
source – Culham Centre For Nuclear Fusion


Diagram showing advancements in fusion technology performance compared with
Moore’s Law and Particle Energy Accelerators.
Note: Fusion performance (quantified by the triple product of the Lawson Criterion -‐
density, temperature and energy confinement time) doubles every 1.8 years, at a slightly
higher rate than Moore’s law. Considering the commercial and societal implications of
Moore’s law, once fusion becomes commercially viable, technological acceleration at this
rate could have a huge effect on society. For example, transistor advancement over the
last 15 years has seen the computer industry move at amazing speed. This suggests that
this kind of exponential growth in fusion would result in a similar scenario.
Research in magnetic confinement fusion energy over the past 50 years has made
tremendous progress with the Lawson parameter (nτET) in magnetic fusion devices
increasing by 10 million to within a factor of 10 of that needed for large scale fusion
power production.
The next major step in magnetic confinement fusion is to be taken by ITER with the
production of ∼500MW of fusion power for ∼400s.

Similarly, inertial confinement fusion has made impressive progress with the increase
in laser driver power by 1 million, and the completion of a major facility, NIF, aimed to
produce ignition of small DT pellets and 20–40 MJ of energy per pulse.

The overall highlights can be summarized:
(Meade 2010):
• A strong scientific basis has been established for proceeding to the next stage, fusion
energy production, in the development of magnetic and inertial fusion.

• Diagnostics and plasma technology (auxiliary plasma heating, current drive, pellet

injection and plasma facing components) have made enormous progress and have
facilitated a deeper understanding of the physics, thereby enabling progress.

• There are several promising paths to both magnetic and inertial fusion energy and,
each is working on optimization and sustainment (or increased repetition rate).

• Temperatures (>100 million ◦C) needed for fusion have been achieved in many
facilities.

• Confinement needed for fusion is being approached in the laboratory.

• Complex fusion systems have been operated reliably at large scale.

• Fusion systems using fusion fuel (DT) have operated safely.

• The international fusion programme is on the threshold of energy producing
plasmas in both magnetic and inertial fusion.

The next 50 years of fusion research…
The stage is now set for the international fusion programme to begin planning for the
step to a fusion demonstration facility (DEMO -‐ designed to produce 2000-‐4000MW of
power!).
Source: Dale Meade -‐ 50 Years Of Fusion Research -‐
http://iopscience.iop.org/0029-‐5515/50/1/014004

Even NASA is currently looking into developing small-‐scale fusion reactors for
powering deep-‐space rockets. Fusion propulsion would boast an unlimited fuel
supply (hydrogen), would be more efficient and would ultimately lead to faster
rockets.
Diagram detailing past and predicted milestones in DT fusion research. Note the Q
value for the cyan line which represents the JET test in 1997


ITER (International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor)

• Vacuum vessel - holds the plasma and keeps the reaction chamber in a vacuum
• Neutral beam injector (ion cyclotron system) - injects particle beams from the accelerator into the
plasma to help heat the plasma to critical temperature
• Magnetic field coils (poloidal, toroidal) - super-conducting magnets that confine, shape and contain
the plasma using magnetic fields
• Transformers/Central solenoid - supply electricity to the magnetic field coils
• Cooling equipment (crostat, cryopump) - cools the magnets
• Blanket modules - made of lithium; absorb heat and high-energy neutrons from the fusion reaction
• Divertors - exhaust the helium products of the fusion reaction

ITER Main Parameters

Total Fusion Power (MW) 500

Machine Height (m) 26
Machine Diameter (m) 29
Plasma Volume (m ) 837
3

In Latin, Iter translates to The Way. The ITER project is now seen as the way to fusion,
and is the next big step for magnetic confinement.

• ITER is a tokamak fusion experimental reactor with superconducting magnets
and other systems that will enable the facility of generating 500 megawatts of
fusion power continuously for at least 400 seconds! Its plasma volume will be
close to the size of future commercial reactors.

• ITER is the world’s biggest energy research project. It is an example of
international scientific collaboration on an unprecedented scale that will
provide the link between plasma physics, engineering and future commercial
fusion-‐based power plants.

• The reactor is expected to take 10 years to build with completion scheduled for
2018. ITER is designed to produce approximately 500 MW of fusion power
sustained for up to 1,000 seconds (compared to JET's peak of 16 MW for less
than a second)

• ITER will demonstrate and refine key technologies, as well as generate ten
times more power than is required to produce and heat the initial hydrogen-‐
tritium plasma.

• The Seven international Parties that are co-‐operating to develop ITER are:
China, EU, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. The
negotiations take place under the auspices of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).


The ITER site is located in the south of France in Cadarache, not quite one hour to the
north of Marseille.
Source: www.iter.org | ITER Organization
Note: http://www.iter.org/mach/Pages/Tokamak.aspx provides a more detailed and

interactive description of the components and workings within ITER.

ITER will be constructed from many separate parts produced from many contractors. Its
production schedule is a meticulously planned and co ordinated international effort.

ITER’s predicted performance as compared to previous reactors. Note how far away it is
from the rest of the reactors; The scale is logarithmic!


ITER’s predicted energy output will dwarf any previous fusion project.

Part 7: Appendixes
APPENDIX I: SCIENTIFIC INDEX

i. What is a fusion reaction?

Fusing elements releases enormous amounts of energy

Nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple atomic nuclei join together to form a
single heavier nucleus. It is accompanied by the release or absorption of energy. At
short distances the attractive nuclear force is stronger than the repulsive electrostatic
force. As such, the main technical difficulty for fusion is getting the nuclei close enough
to fuse.

The Sun can sustain its fusion reactions in part because it is so large that heat is
conducted away slowly. To create a practical fusion reactor, we must compensate for
size by using good insulation to prevent rapid heat conduction.
When do nuclear fusion reactions occur in a plasma? They can only occur when the
temperature is very high, many millions of degrees. The reason is that the repulsion
which always exists between the positive electric charges of colliding nuclei has to be
overcome by attractive nuclear forces. This can only happen when nuclei with high
mutual velocity come within the grasp of the strong but short-‐range (1013 cm)
nuclear forces, which occurs only for enormously high plasma temperatures about
200 million degrees for deuterium-‐tritium reactions.
We can characterize the fusion power (the rate of heat production) in terms of the
plasma pressure, since higher pressure allows more plasma density, and more density
means more fusion power
We characterize the effectiveness of the magnetic insulation in terms of the “energy
confinement time,” which is simply the time that would be required for the plasma to
cool off if all heating ceased(by convention, it is the time required for the temperature
to drop to about one-‐third its original value). We can characterize the fusion power
(the rate of heat production) in terms of the plasma pressure, since higher pressure
allows more plasma density, and more density means more fusion power
The pressure rule says that the more current we have, the higher the plasma pressure

we can achieve. The limit on the pressure is simply proportional to the square of the
magnetic field strength. Doubling the field allows four times the pressure.
While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse, it is easiest to get lighter
nuclei to fuse, because they are less highly charged, and therefore have less repulsive force.
The probability that two nuclei fuse is determined by the physics of the collision, and a
property called the "cross section" which (roughly speaking) measures the likelihood of a
fusion reaction.
A simple analogy for cross-section is to consider a blindfolded person throwing a dart

randomly towards a dartboard on a wall. The likelihood that the dart hits the target depends
on the cross-sectional area of the target facing the dart-thrower.
ii. What is a plasma?

Lightning is a plasma that exists naturally on the earth. Plasma temperatures in
lightning can approach ~28,000 K!

There are many varieties of plasma, however they all have one main thing in common,
which is called ionization. This means that within the plasma itself, some electrons
have been released from atoms they used to be bound to . It is these free electrons that
makes a plasma respond so well to electromagnetic fields.

In a fusion reactor At 150 million K the "fuel" exists as a plasma.

The American scientist Irving Langmuir pioneered the field of plasma physics. He
discovered that oscillations, so-‐called plasma oscillations, could occur in a plasma at a
particular frequency, he also introduced the term 'plasma' and was awarded the Nobel
prize for chemistry in 1932.

Plasma is the fourth state of matter
Plasma as a state of matter can be shown in the diagram below.
Solid (least energetic) > liquid > gas > plasma (most energetic)

The quark gluon soup at the beginning of the universe, superheated and super
compressed would have been classified as a plasma.
iii. THE LAWSON CRITERION
Self-‐sustained fusion (ignition) requires the fusion triple product of density, energy
confinement time and temperature to be greater than a certain value:
nτET > 5 × 1015 (cm3 s keV).
This is the value that relates to Q = 1 in the fusion energy gain factor, and is also
known as breakeven.

It does not matter whether we achieve this criterion by having a very large
confinement time (excellent insulation) or a very high pressure, or any combination of
the two. The number obtained by multiplying the pressure and the time is all that
matters.

Problems with Energy Loss through radiation
The Lawson criterion depends only on heat loss via conduction, the direct
transmission of heat between objects that are touching each other, such as you
experience if you grasp an object hotter than your hand. Plasmas do conduct heat to
their surroundings, and it is this conduction process that magnetic fields suppress
throughout the plasma volume. But like all hot objects, plasmas also emit radiant heat,
on which the magnetic field has no effect. For fusion plasmas, heat is radiated in the
form of x-‐rays, because the temperature is so high.

Heat loss by x-‐ray radiation, being a consequence of collisions of electrons and ions, is
unavoidable, as is additional energy loss via the microwave radiation created by
electron motion in a magnetic field, though most of the microwaves would be reflected
from the vessel walls and reabsorbed by the plasma.

However the main problem is to concentrate on heat loss by conduction, which has
proved a far more important obstacle to achieving ignition in tokamaks than is
radiation.

iv. Lorentz' Law

Hendrik Lorentz's law describes the motion of charged particles, such as those moving
within a magnetic field. It is useful as it helps us visualize how the phenomenon
works.

The Lorentz law says that I must measure all three quantities; the electric field, the
magnetic field, and the particle velocity from the same vantage point, or “reference
frame.” This is because all three quantities would appear to be different if my
equipment and I were mounted on a cart moving through the room. For example if the

cart could move as fast as the charged particle, I would find no magnetic for on the
particle, since it would appear to be at rest if I moved beside it. But now I would
measure a stronger electric field to compensate for the missing magnetic force. In
other words, electric and magnetic fields are one and the same thing,
interchangeable depending on the state of motion of the observer

v. The Principle of Magnetic Confinement

Diagram showing how magnetic confinement affects the paths of electrons in an a 3d
field.
Confinement refers to all the conditions necessary to keep a plasma dense and hot
long enough to undergo fusion: the remarkable property of magnetic fields is essential
to fusion plasma confinement; Free motion of charged particles in the plasma is not
allowed in directions transverse to the magnetic field. Instead, the particles will spiral
around the magnetic field lines. In this way, we use magnetic field lines to control the
shape of the plasma.


Trajectory of an ion, ‘trapped’ in a magnetic field

The starting point is to find a state of equilibrium, in which all forces are balanced.
Otherwise, the plasma would collapse straightaway, like a badly designed building. A
plasma in the vicinity of a magnetic field always produces a current, and this is the
electromagnetic mechanism we can use to control the plasma. The loss of particles
and heat in all channels must be sufficiently slow, as these cause a slow leakage of
energy from plasma and degradation over time.

The plasma must be shaped in such a way that small deviations are restored to the
initial state. If we do not achieve this, instabilities will occur and grow exponentially
until the plasma is destroyed (it literally falls apart). This is the mechanism that also
makes fusion so safe. Unless it is under control, it cannot remain as plasma.

Understanding magnetic fields
Let us take a metaphor; compare the electrons with cars which move on a road at a
certain speed with a certain distance between them. For some reason one of the cars
brakes. To avoid collisions the following cars will also brake, and so on, until the first
car decides to recover its earlier speed followed by the others. The processes may be
repeated. Along the line of traffic there will be a bunching of cars accompanied by a
depletion of the density of cars. Motions of this character, longitudinal oscillations and
waves, occur frequently in plasmas as in mechanical systems. The accompanying
electric oscillating fields are obviously in the direction of the motion.

Maintaining a stable “pinched” plasma in a magnetic field is very difficult at best. If a
solid vessel is used to maintain the plasma and the plasma comes into contact with the
vessel wall, then the plasma will immediately transfer heat to the vessel and cool off to
below the required fusion temperatures. Likewise, the chance of the solid vessel
vaporizing when coming into physical contact with the plasma is extremely high.

Plasma tends to “stick” to magnetic field lines. Even if the plasma does stick to field line

it would leak away rapidly un-‐ less the field lines themselves remain inside the
superheated environment. Therefore we must confine

The thinning of the magnetic field lines indicates a weakening of the field on the
outside. This is where a “blowout” might occur. In a blowout, the stability of the
plasma fluid ruptures. This destabilizes the plasma, and could cause collapse of the
structure.

For a real life metaphor for this, think of the surface of a large soap bubble. If pierced
with a sharp pin, its surface is broken and the delicate fluid collapses under the
pressure of the surrounding environment.
A weakness building up in fluid, causing it to deform.
APPENDIX II: ELEMENTS AND ISOTOPES

INVOLVED IN NUCLEAR FUSION
• Hydrogen (p): Ordinary hydrogen is everywhere, especially in water.
• Deuterium (D): A heavy isotope of hydrogen (has a neutron in addition to the
proton). Occurs naturally at 1 part in 6000; i.e. for every 6000 ordinary hydrogen
atoms in water, etc., there’s one D.
• Tritium (T): Tritium is another isotope of hydrogen, with two neutrons and a
proton. T is unstable (radioactive), and decays into Helium-3 with a half-life of 12.3
years. (Half the T decays every 12.3 years.) Because of its short half-life, tritium is
almost never found in nature (natural T is mostly a consequence of cosmic-ray
bombardment). Supplies have been manufactured using fission reactors; world

tritium reserves are estimated at a few kilograms. Tritium can also be made by
exposing deuterium or lithium to neutrons.
• Helium-3 (He3): Rare light isotope of helium; two protons and a neutron. Stable.
There’s roughly 13 He-3 atoms per 10 million He-4 atoms. He-3 is relatively
abundant on the surface of the moon; this is believed to be due to particles
streaming onto the moon from the solar wind. He3 can also be made from decaying
tritium.
• Helium-4 (He4): Common isotope of helium. Trace component of the atmosphere
(about 1 part per million?); also found as a component of "natural gas" in gas wells.
• Lithium-6 (Li6): Less common isotope of lithium. 3 protons, 3 neutrons. There are
8 Li-6 atoms for every 100 Li-7 atoms. Widely distributed in minerals and seawater.
Very active chemically.
• Lithium-7 (Li7): Common isotope of lithium. 3 protons, 4 neutrons. See above info
on abundance.
• Boron (B): Common form is B-11 (80%). B-10 20%. 5 protons, 6 neutrons. Also
abundant on earth.
-‐http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/caseof.html (Kobres 1994)

APPENDIX III: An Annotated list of Fusion

Reactions Among Various Light Elements
Note: D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton, n = neutron;
D+D -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)

• > He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%) <- most abundant fuel
• > He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends somewhat on
temperature.)
• (most other low-probability branches are omitted below)
D+T -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV) <-easiest to achieve
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV) <-easiest aneutronic reaction
T+T -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
• > He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (43%)
• > He4 (0.5) + n (1.9) + p (11.9) (6%) <- via He5 decay
p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3) <- another aneutronic reaction p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV
(20%)
• > Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%) <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV <- also aneutronic, but you get D-D reactions too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7) <- this can convert n’s to T’s
n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy
-‐http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/caseof.html (Kobres 1994)


APPENDIX IV: Financial Data on Fusion
Research and Development Funding
“I have long felt that an investment by the Department of Energy of a million dollars a
year for the next 30 years would pay a higher return than any other investment this
country could ever make. “
Wilson Greatbatch -‐
Information on fusion funding in the UK and USA is very transparent, Europe’s funding is somewhat more
complicated and was harder to come by. I was not able to obtain data for Japan and the rest of the world.
USA Funding
USA funding information Source: Steve Dean @ Fusion Power Associates |
http://aries.ucsd.edu/FPA/OFESbudget.shtml


2 Graphs showing the US fusion budget from start of research to current date
Note: MFE = Magnetic Fusion Energy IFE = Inertial Fusion Energy
Deflator = adjusts the dollar value of the year in which spent to today's dollar value
using the cost of living index
UK Funding

“Figures for the Government funding of nuclear fusion research in the UK are
available from financial year 1974/75 and are given as follows. The Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) took over the responsibility for
funding the fusion programme in 2003/04 and its subsequent funding is also
provided.
EURATOM also fund fusion research in the UK through the United Kingdom
Atomic Energy Authority. The UK contributes indirectly to the EURATOM European
fusion research programme through its payments to the EU budget.
UK figures include UK funding of JET (which is about 13% of the total cost of JET).
While most of the UK funding is for Culham including JET in later years the figures
have included EPSRC funding for fusion-related research in UK universities.
European Funding
Generally speaking could say that until recently typical total spend in Europe has
been nearly 500 MEuro per year, of which about 40% is by EURATOM (effectively,
via the European Union) and 60% is by national governments (note Switzerland,
not in the EU, is included). Note that it is not that EURATOM funds some activities,
and the Governments others; rather all activities are part-funded by both (for
example, the UK programme is funded about 20% by EURATOM and 80% by the
UK Government via EPSRC; whereas JET is funded approx 75% by EURATOM,
13% by the UK and 12% by other European countries).
However, the EURATOM figure has now doubled to provide Europe's share of
ITER construction and may need to rise further.
Overall it used to be said that around 1B$ per year, or perhaps a little over, was
spent on fusion R&D, but it must be much more now (approaching 2B$?) due to
ITER construction.
Funding in the rest of the World

Spend in other countries is relatively small. Historically Japan spend a little less
than the US.”
Europe and UK funding Source: Martin O’Brien, Fusion Programme Manager,
Culham Centre for Fusion Energy www.ccfe.ac.uk, Interview conducted via email.
(O'Brien 2010)


APPENDIX V: Recommended and
Educational Resources
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_cowley_fusion_is_energy_s_future.html
-‐ TED Talk with a summary on the benefits and progress in fusion so far.
http://focusfusion.org/
-‐ The Focus Fusion Society’s website.
http://www.iter.org/default.aspx
-‐ ITER’s website
www.fusion.org.uk/
-‐ Culham Centre For Fusion Energy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
"Should Google Go Nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear power (no, really)" -‐ Google tech
talk on fusion with Dr. Bussard – fusion pioneer and designer of the Bussard Ramjet
engine. | http://www.askmar.com/Fusion.html -‐ summary, transcript and additional
information on Bussard’s tech talk.
http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/sites.html
-‐ Online fusion educational resource, continually updated by the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
http://www.cnic.jp/english/
-‐ Citizen’s Nuclear Information Centre – A Japanese public information site on
emerging nuclear technologies.
http://www.efda.org/multimedia/
-‐The educational portion European Fusion Development Agency’s website. Contains a
variety of learning resources including books, online movies and DVD.

APPENDIX VI: Errata
Extremely useful materials that had to be included here, somehow..

Two very well designed and communicative posters on fusion.
Note: use high zoom value in your word processor to see full details on these posters.

F usion
Fusion To make
reactions power the sun and other stars. In fusion reactions, low- mass nuclei combine, or fuse, to fusion happen on the earth, atoms must be heated to very high temperatures, typically above 10 mil-
form more massive nuclei. The fusion process converts mass (m) into kinetic energy (E), as described by lion K. In this high- temperature state, the atoms are ionized, forming a plasma. For net energy gain, the
Einstein's formula, E = mc2. In the sun, a sequence of fusion reactions named the p- p chain begins with plasma must be held together (confined) long enough that many fusion reactions occur. If fusion power
protons, the nuclei of ordinary hydrogen, and ends with alpha particles, the nuclei of helium atoms. The plants become practical, they would provide a virtually inexhaustible energy supply because of the abun-
p- p chain provides most of the sun’s energy, and it will continue to do so for billions of years. dance of fuels like deuterium. Substantial progress towards this goal has been made.
ENERGY SOURCES & CONVERSIONS

A N O VERVIE W O F E N ERG Y C O N VERSI O N PR O CESSES
Physics of a Fundamental Energy Source PLASMAS – THE 4 th STATE OF MATTER
C H A R A C T E R I S TI C S O F T Y P I C A L P L A S M A S
Energy can take on many forms, and various processes convert one form into another. While Plasmas consist of freely moving charged p articles, i.e., electrons and ions. Formed at high tempera-
total energy always remains the same, most conversion processes reduce useful energy. tures when electrons are stripped from neutral atoms, plasmas are common in nature. For instance,
stars are predominantly plasma. Plasmas are a “Fourth State of M atter” because of their unique physi-
Sources Conversion Useful Energy cal properties, distinct from solids, liquids and g ases. Plasma densities and temperatures vary widely.
Chemical, Useful Eout = & Ein Mechanical

Magnetic Inertial
Gravitational, & = thermodynamic confinement
Electrical
Nuclear , efficiency; 10- 40% 10 8 fusion
reactor fusion
Solar, etc. is typical. Thermal
Waste Waste
Materials Energy Nebula
Solar core
Temperature (K)
Solar
10 6 corona
Physical Parameters of Energy-Releasing Reactions Lightning
Reaction Type: Chemical Fission Fusion Solar wind Neon sign
Sample Reaction C + O2 1n + 235U D (2H) + T (3H)
# CO2 #143Ba + 91Kr + 21n # 4He + 1n Interstellar space Fluorescent light Solids,
10 4 liquids,
Typical Inputs Coal UO2 (3% 235U Deuterium Aurora Flames and gases.
(to Po wer Plant) and Air + 97% 238U) and Lithium Too cool and
dense for classical
Typical Temp. (K) 1000 1000 100,000,000 plasmas to exist.
Energy Released TWO IMPORTANT FUSION PROCESSES 10 2

per kg Fuel (J / kg) 3.3 x 107 2.1 x 1012 3.4 x 1014 10 3 10 9 10 15 10 21 10 27 10 33
D + T # 4 H e + 1n “p-p”: S O LAR FUSI O N C H AI N
Number Density (Charged Particles / m 3 )
For first generation fusion reactors
p $ e- %
Reactants Fusion Products D e+ % p
HOW FUSION REACTIONS WORK 20 keV 4 He %
N U CLEAR PHYSICS O F FUSI O N
D 3.5 MeV
p 3 He
4 He
ACHIEVING FUSION CONDITIONS
p EXPERIME N TAL RESULTS I N FUSI O N RESEARC H
Fusion of low-mass elements releases energy, as does fission of high-mass elements.
Binding Energy per Nucleon as a Function of Nuclear Mass p p Both inertial and magnetic confinement fusion research have focused on understanding plasma
confinement and heating. This research has led to increases in plasma temperature, T, density, n,
3 He and energy confinement time, !. Future power plants based on fusion reactors are expected to
Per Nucleon (MeV)
p er n ucleo n ( M eV)
10 10 T 20 keV
14.1 MeV n 6 Be produce about 1 GW of power, with plasmas having n! ' 2 x 1020 m- 3 s and T ' 120 million K.
Binding Energy
Bin din g Ener g y
1 2C
8 4He 62 Ni
e+
%
p
6 Fusion Fission 1 eV = 1.6022 x 10-19 J. Average particle
p % 1021
Confinement Quality, n ! (m -3 s)
e-
16O
4
Li
3He
5 Reactions Reactions thermal kinetic energy is 1 eV per 11,600 K. D $ %
2 Release Release
T
Energy Energy
0
D
Expected reactor regime
0 10 20 0
1 50 100 150 200 1020
CREATING THE CONDITIONS FOR FUSION
N u cle a r M a ss ( u )
N uclear M ass (u) 1990s
Low-Mass Elements Only
N uclear Reaction Ener g y: (E = k (m i -m f ) c 2 PL A S M A C O N FI N E M E N T A N D H E ATI N G

From Einstein’s E = m c2. (E = energy change per reaction; mi = total initial 1019 1980s
Confinement: Gravity Magnetic Fields Inertia
(reactant) mass; mf = total final (product) mass. The conversion factor k is 1 in SI
Tok
Tokama
amak Laser Beam-Driven
Driven Fusion
units, or 931.466 MeV/uc2 when E is in MeV and m is in atomic mass units, u. Fusion requires
Star Formation Plasma k Laser-Beam Fusion
high tempera- 1975-80
Useful Nuclear Masses Fusion Rate Coefficients ture plasmas 1018
(The electron’s mass is 0.000549 u.) 10 –20 Magnetic
Rate Coefficient, R (m 3 / s)
confined long
Label Species M ass (u*) enough at high 1970-75
D + T Inertial
density to
n (1n) neutron 1.008665 10 –24 release appre- 1017
p (1H) proton 1.007276 ciable energy.
D (2H) deuteron 2.013553 10 –28 10 6 10 7
10 8
109
T (3H) triton 3.015500 10 –46 p + p <- - - - - - - - - Size: 1019 m- - - - - - - - - - > <- - - - - - - - - - Size: 10 m - - - - - - - - - - > <- - - - - - - - - - - - Size:10- 1 m - - - - - - - - - - - - > Ion Temperature (K)
3He helium- 3 3.014932 Typical Scales: Plasma Duration: 1015 - 1018 s Plasma Duration: 10- 2 to 106 s Plasma Duration: 10- 9 to 10- 7 s
" (4He)
Prim a r y p rocess in our sun
helium- 4 4.001506 10 –50 Copyright © 2000 Contemporary Physics Education Project (CPEP) – CPEPweb.org
* 1 u = 1.66054 x 10- 27 kg = 931.466 MeV/c2 10 7 10 8 10 9 10 10 Heating • Compression • Electromagnetic Waves • Compression CPEP is a non- profit organization of teachers, physicists, and educators, with substantial student involvement. Corporate and
T ion (K)
Mechanisms: • Fusion Product Energy • Ohmic Heating (electricity) (Implosion driven by laser private donations as well as national laboratory funding have been and remain crucial to the success of this project.
Plasm a Fusion Reaction Rate Density = R n 1 n 2 • Neutral Beam Injection or ion beams, or by x rays This chart was created by CPEP with support from the following organizations: the AIP journal Physics of Plasmas, the Division
(beams of atomic hydrogen) from laser or ion beams) of Plasma Physics of the APS, General Atomics, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
n1,n2 = densities of reacting species (ions/m3); R = Rate Coefficient (m3/s). • Compression • Fusion Product Energy Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the University of Rochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics, and the U.S. Department of
Multiply by (E to get the fusion power density. • Fusion Product Energy Energy, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences. Images courtesy of NASA, the National Solar Observatory, and Steve Albers as well
as the organizations listed above. CPEP Charts are distributed by Science Kit and Boreal Laboratories (1- 800- 828- 7777).
Fusion Energy
FUSION = SUN
on earth
Cleaner energy for the future

Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the Sun and the stars. Scientists and engineers over the Safety & Environment 1 Safety & Environment 2
whole world are working together to learn how to use nuclear fusion on earth. A fusion power plant will work just like a gas heater. At each instant
there will be a limited amount of fuel, enough for a few seconds,
In the fusion process itself no radioactive waste is produced. The metallic components
of the plant itself will however in time become radioactive. By choosing appropriate
present in the reactor vessel. If the fuel supply is closed, the fusion materials the level of radioactivity should decrease quickly, so that after about 100
If successful, fusion energy can help fulfill the world´s energy needs in a more sustainable way. process stops, and therefore the reaction can never run out of hand. years, it is expected that the material can be recycled, or stored relatively easily.
3
microwaves
Status of Fusion Research
Fusion research is carried out by people all over the world. The
One method of heating the plasma largest fusion experiment in the world is the Joint European Torus
is by using microwaves, just as (JET) 3 in England. JET is still too small to be used as a power
What is fusion? Fusion is the energy source of the Sun Fusion on earth in a microwave oven. plant. Small things cool down faster than large things (think of soup in
a spoon and soup in a bowl), and if a fusion reactor is too small then
Fusion is the process that powers In the centre of the Sun, 600 billion kilograms of hydrogen fuse every second, forming On earth we want to use fusion as
the energy needed to keep it warm is more than the energy which is
the Sun and the stars. It is the helium. This releases an enormous amount of energy, of which a small part sustains an energy source because it is safe,
released in the fusion reactions.
reaction in which two atomic nuclei life on Earth. environmentally responsible
plasma Today, the international fusion community is getting ready to take the
combine, or fuse, to form a heavier The temperature in the centre of the Sun is 15 million degrees Celsius. At high – fusion releases no greenhouse
The plasma in tokamaks next important step: the ITER project (see below).
atom. When light atoms such as temperatures, the atoms in a gas lose their electrons, and together they form a gas of gases that affect the climate – and 1 can be ten times hotter than
3
hydrogen fuse, a lot of energy is charged particles called a plasma. The Sun is a plasma, and so is a bolt of lightning or there is abundant fuel available for
the centre of the Sun.
Safety & Environment

released. Fusion is the opposite of the gas in a fluorescent light bulb. everyone on earth to produce
nuclear fission, where heavy energy for millions of years.
atoms are split into smaller pieces.
Fusion produces no harmful substances and no
Atomic nuclei repel each other due
to their positive charge. For nuclei
2 greenhouse gases that affect the climate.
deuterium helium
to overcome the repulsive forces
Fusion Tokamak
and fuse, they need to collide at a
Two light atomic nuclei, Ring-shaped reactor vessel
very high velocity, which means
deuterium and tritium, fuse for nuclear fusion on earth.
that fusion only occurs at very high
together and form a helium
temperature.
nucleus, a neutron, and a
lot of energy. electricity
proton
neutron 4
tritium
cooling water steam turbines transformer
Safety & Environment 4 The ITER project

The next step in fusion research is the large international ITER
reactor vesssel human Tritium is a radioactive substance, but because it is produced inside the plant (from lithium) project. Together, the European Union, Japan, India, China, Russia,
approximately 10 m high height 1.85 m and is also used there, the transport of tritium outside the plant is limited. Strict safety South-Korea and the United States want to show that fusion works
measures and confinement structures will ensure that the tritium stays inside the plant. and that it can produce energy on a large scale. ITER will be twice as
large as JET and is designed to produce 500 MW of energy – ten
Operation of a fusion plant 2,2 %

Today´s sources times as much as that needed to keep the fusion process going.
ITER will be built in Cadarache, in the South of France.
In a future fusion power plant, the fusion fuels deuterium and tritium are heated As they are not contained by the magnetic field, the hydropower
The construction of ITER 4 will take ten years
neutron 6,5 % and should be finished around 2016. If ITER is
to a temperature of 150 million degrees using a variety of methods. One high-speed neutrons are released during the fusion process
nuclear a success, a demonstration fusion power plant
method uses microwaves, like those used to heat up food. The resulting hot fly into the wall of the vessel. In a future fusion power plant, fission
can be built.
Energy is important Fusion fuel plasma is contained in a ring-shaped vessel. To make sure that the hot plasma
does not touch the walls (otherwise the plasma would cool down too much) a
they would transfer their energy to a coolant and convert
lithium into tritium. Outside of the reactor the warm coolant
For almost everything we do and use – driving a car, heating,
cooking, TV, music, traveling, telephone, clean water – we
To use fusion on earth as an energy source, a special mixture of gases is heated to an Magnets strong magnetic field is produced in the vessel 1 . The plasma particles would be used to make steam, with which electricity can be
extremely high temperature. When the gas is hot enough, fusion takes place. The gas Strong magnets ensure that the hot plasma follow the magnetic field and travel continuously around and around in circles, produced (or for example hydrogen) 2 .
need energy. If we want to continue to live the way we do now,
then we must ensure that we have enough energy for the
mixture (this is the fuel of the fusion reactor, just like petrol in a car) is made up of two sorts
of hydrogen: deuterium and tritium.
does not touch the wall but that it continuously
travels around and around in the vessel.
200 % for literally tens of thousands of kilometers, without touching a wall. Such a A mix of
vessel with magnetic field coils is called a tokamak.
future.
Deuterium is present in seawater, tritium can be made from lithium (a metal which is widely
available). Lithium is also used in lithium batteries, which provide electricity for laptops and
0,416 %
geothermal
10,6 %
biomass,
CO2-free
mobile telephones. One litre of water contains 33 mg of deuterium. This produces the
same amount of energy as 360 litres of petrol (when you fuse it with 50 mg of tritium).
waste
energy
There is enough fusion fuel in the world for millions of years of energy production. We use more 1650 kg *
3000 kg
oil/year
We must protect Oil, coal and gas 21,2 %
gas
In 100 years our entire energy
production must be CO2 free.
1 litre sea water 5 grams of lithium-ore 1 barrel = 159 litres and more oil/year per person our environment are running out 0,051 %
wind
There is no single solution to
achieve this. We must use all
per person 9 billion
energy 6 billion people
Almost 80% of our energy is
produced by burning coal, oil and
Oil, gas and coal are formed from
prehistoric plants and animals that
available
sun,
energy
wind,
sources:
hydropower,
In 50 years time there will be people gas (fossil fuels). This also lived on earth about 300 to 400 24,5 % biomass, geothermal energy,
9 billion people on earth releases CO2, a greenhouse gas. million years ago. We are deplet- coal nuclear fission, fossil fuels
compared to the current Greenhouse gases change our ing fossil fuels much faster than with CO2 sequestration and
population of 6 billion. All climate, resulting in more dramatic they were formed. If we continue nuclear fusion. This is the only
those extra people will also
100 % weather patterns like storms, using oil, gas and coal as we do at 0,039 % way to ensure that there will
sun be enough energy available
need energy. Furthermore, hurricanes and droughts. If the present, we will run into severe 34,5 %
countries like China and India temperature on earth rises too shortages during this century. 0,0005 % oil *
for everyone.
are developing rapidly. The quickly, plants and animals can The oil will become much more tidal
result will be that in 2050 the become extinct. If we do not want expensive and we will become
global population will use this to happen we will need to more and more dependent on the 80 %
twice as much energy as 2002 2050 stop emitting CO2. import of energy from other coun-
fossil fuels
they do at present. tries. * sources of primary energy in the

33 mg of deuterium 50 mg of tritium 360 litres of petrol year 2003, source IEA Energy Statistics
total energy usage expressed in kilogrammes oil-equivalent

*
This poster was developed by Verdult - Kennis in Beeld (www.kennisinbeeld.nl) and was This publication, made possible by the financial support of the European Commission, was produced within the framework of the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA). The EFDA-partners are the European Com- Nothing in this publication may be reproduced and/or made public by means of printing, offset, photocopy or microfilm or in any digital,
commissioned by the FOM-Institute for Plasma Physics Rijnhuizen (www.fusie-energie.nl, mission and the parties associated with the European fusion program. Neither the Commission, nor the associated parties or anyone representing them, can be held responsible for damage that results from the information in this electronic, optical or any other form without the prior written permission of FOM-Rijnhuizen and Verdult – Kennis in beeld.
www.rijnh.nl) and EFDA (www.efda.org). See also www.iter.org. publication. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the European Commission. Verdult - New Media Design. Copyright © 2005 FOM-Rijnhuizen/Verdult - Kennis in Beeld, the Netherlands. All rights reserved.

First Poster Credit: FusEdWeb | Fusion Energy Education | http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/

Second Poster Credit: EFDA |
http://www.efda.org/multimedia/posters_educational.htm


The ITER platform in Cadarache. This is the site of the future reactor, and is obviously a
work in progress!

Acknowledgements:
I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of the researchers, engineers, theoreticians
and science communicators advancing our understanding of and spreading the public
awareness in fusion. May they achieve all the funding they could ever need...

I would like to thank the following people in person.

Chris Warrick and Martin O’Brien from Culham. Both where very patient with my
pestering emails answering questions and summoning up no end of statistics and figures
for me.
Tadahiro Katsuta, for taking the time to answer my questions articulately even though
English is not his first language

T Kenneth Fowler, author of The Fusion Quest, who has kindly allowed me to use
sections of his book in the scientific appendix. I recommend his book as an excellent
resource for understanding the technical and theoretical aspects of Nuclear fusion. It is
semi technical, and although slightly dated, explains many concepts in fusion in very
understandable terminology.

References
2005. Horizon: An Experiment to Save the World.

Andreani, R., 2000. What is lacking in order to design and build a commercially viable fusion reactor? Nuclear Fusion, 40(6), 1033-‐
1046.

Castillo, F., 1990. The international physicians for the prevention of nuclear war: Transnational midwife of world peace. Medicine,
Conflict and Survival, 6(4), 250-‐268.

Focus Fusion Society, Heat and Thermal Pollution. focusfusion.org. Available at:
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/heat/ [Accessed April 25, 2010].

Gibilisco, S., 2006. Alternative Energy Demystified, McGraw-‐Hill Professional.

Hora, H. & Miley, G.H., 2009. Edward Teller Lectures: Lasers and Inertial Fusion Energy, Imperial College Press.

Jacquinot, J., 2010. Fifty years in fusion and the way forward. Nuclear Fusion, 50(1), 014001.

Kobres, B., 1994. The case of carbonaceous catastrophes: University of Georgia. Available at:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/caseof.html [Accessed April 25, 2010].

Meade, D., 2010. 50 years of fusion research. Nuclear Fusion, 50(1), 014004.

Nave, C., Nuclear Fusion. Hyperphysics -‐ Georgia State University. Available at: http://hyperphysics.phy-‐
astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/NucEne/fusion.html [Accessed November 7, 2009].

O'Brien, M., 2010. Funding Interview with Martin O'Brien at Culham.

Pfalzner, S., 2006. An Introduction to Inertial Confinement Fusion, Taylor & Francis.

Prades López, A. et al., 2008. Lay perceptions of nuclear fusion: multiple modes of understanding. Science and Public Policy, 35(2),
95-‐105.

Sample, I., 2009. Flagship Iter fusion reactor could cost twice as much as budgeted | Science | guardian.co.uk. The Guardian.
Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/29/nuclear-‐fusion-‐power-‐iter-‐funding [Accessed April 25,
2010].

Schwartz, P. & Randall, D., 2003. Wired 11.04: How Hydrogen Can Save America. Wired.com. Available at:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html [Accessed November 4, 2009].

Schweber, S., 2008. Einstein and Oppenheimer : the meaning of genius, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Smirnov, V., 2010. Tokamak foundation in USSR/Russia 1950–1990. Nuclear Fusion, 50(1), 014003.

Stefano Atzeni & Jürgen Meyer-‐ter-‐Vehn, 2004. The Physics of Inertial Fusion: Beam Plasma Interaction, Hydrodynamics, Hot Dense
Matter, Clarendon Press.

Whitehouse, D., 2009. BBC News | SCI/TECH | Super laser advances fusion research. Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1263863.stm [Accessed November 7, 2009].

Woods, L.C., 2006. Theory of Tokamak Transport: New Aspects for Nuclear Fusion Reactor Design, Wiley VCH.

Yim, M., 2003. Effects of education on nuclear risk perception and attitude: Theory. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 42(2), 221-‐235.


Jack Oughton - Layman's Guide To Nuclear Fusion V1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jack Oughton - Layman's Guide To Nuclear Fusion V1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Layman’s Guide To Nuclear Fusion V1.0: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.

-­‐Source: Met Office Hadley – Datasets |

Fusion – The Drawbacks

PROBLEM: Escalating research costs

SOLUTION: CONSIDER THE ALERNATIVES!

PROBLEM: Net Energy Gain

PROBLEM: Heat/ Thermal Pollution

PROBLEM: Neutron Production in a DT

Fusion Energy Cycles

Note: A Deuterium – Deuterium (DD) fusion reactor would provide limitless

THE DT FUEL CYCLE

p + B11 -­‐> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV

Focus Fusion faces two main technical challenges:

MAGNETISED TARGET FUSION /

Source: Lisa Zyga, Physorg.com | http://www.physorg.com/news168623833.html

INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION/

The HiPER Laser Fusion Reactor

The HiPER Science Programme

The new research programs will include the following areas

The report made the following conclusions on designing an

• Empathy: The form in which information is presented (including its emotional

A highly professional communication team, combined with good communication

PANS (Public Awareness Of Nuclear Science)

EFDA (European Fusion Development

-­‐Source: European Fusion Development Agreement |

Chris Warrick (Culham, UK) is a member of the Public Relations team

What method of confinement is most likely to prevail in commercial fusion?

Could a child born today be seeing 'free' energy in his/her lifetime?

Is 'cold' fusion believed to be scientifically feasible?

What are the most effective ways of educating them?

Apr. 10th, 2010

*Is 'cold' fusion believed to be scientifically feasible?*

We can get hydrogen by the electrolysis using renewable energy.

I have no idea.

*What are the most effective ways of educating them?*

Hydrogen energy created by renewable energies

ITER Main Parameters

Source: www.iter.org | ITER Organization

Note: http://www.iter.org/mach/Pages/Tokamak.aspx provides a more detailed and

APPENDIX I: SCIENTIFIC INDEX

A simple analogy for cross-section is to consider a blindfolded person throwing a dart

ii. What is a plasma?

iv. Lorentz' Law

v. The Principle of Magnetic Confinement

A weakness building up in fluid, causing it to deform.

APPENDIX II: ELEMENTS AND ISOTOPES

APPENDIX III: An Annotated list of Fusion

D+D -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)

-­‐http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/caseof.html (Kobres 1994)

Funding in the rest of the World

ENERGY SOURCES & CONVERSIONS

Chemical, Useful Eout = & Ein Mechanical

Energy Released TWO IMPORTANT FUSION PROCESSES 10 2

N uclear Reaction Ener g y: (E = k (m i -m f ) c 2 PL A S M A C O N FI N E M E N T A N D H E ATI N G

Cleaner energy for the future

Safety & Environment

cooling water steam turbines transformer

Safety & Environment 4 The ITER project

Operation of a fusion plant 2,2 %

they do at present. tries. * sources of primary energy in the

total energy usage expressed in kilogrammes oil-equivalent

You might also like

-‐Source: Met Office Hadley – Datasets |

p + B11 -‐> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV

-‐Source: European Fusion Development Agreement |

Is 'cold' fusion believed to be scientifically feasible?

What are the most effective ways of educating them?

-‐http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/caseof.html (Kobres 1994)