Fusion fuel -got any in multi-gigawatt amounts!!

[Reformator]

Richard Hull wrote:
> Since this is about the future of fusion, we need to talk about the fuel.
>
> Right now 100% of the effort and 100% of the dollars are in D-T fusion with little hope of success or real power from a winning system from this fuel for another 30++ years.
>
> So, let us say the real soon now becomes right now and D-T is perfected. Any one figure out how much T needs to be on hand and in the gas lines of the multigigawatt fusion power stations? It is very calculable. We don't have it and can't get it in the quantity needed, of course. How many nuclear fission plants will be needed to make it?
>
> OK, OK, so we really use another fuel. Among the easys are D-D and D-He3. There is even less He3 than T! The mining of the moon is way off. Thus, D-D is the optimum available fusion fuel inspite of its neutronic nature and lousy energy return per fusion compared to D-T. D-D is a doable thing with enough water to D extraction plants working off fission power. That is still a lot of D that is going to be needed.
>
> Some will say well once we tackle fusion, regardless of the fuel, we will be able to burn anything and P-B11 is just all over the place. B-11 ain't a gas and not much has been done in the way of securing the methodology of handling gigawatt yielding amounts of hazardous Borane or BF3.
>
> Yes, this is just engineering, but still, will the fusion fuel be ready for a winning fusion system or will we be another 10 years after fusion success just breeding and stockpiling fuel?
>
> We just will not be using D-T at the giga or terawatt level if the current fusion effort ever goes as the stary-eyed proponents plan.
>
> Richard Hull
Does it always depend on the type fuel?

[Richard Hull]

After the realization that fusion needs fuel to run. The obvious next important question is what type of fuel will we need?.... and....Do we have enough on hand to really get into the giga-watt fusion building mode?

We will not have the Mr fusion generator seen on the film "Back to the Future" that will give us fusion energy by dropping bananna peels and coffee grounds into it.

So, yes, what type of fuel is very important, assuming we ever succeed in the first place.

Richard Hull

[Reformator]

Ok then, Helium-3 would be enough to build a multiterawatt fusion plant, wouldn't it?


If Fusor is complete after 3-5 years, is it in any interest to build a BIG Polywell Fusor plant in the size of DEMO?

[Richard Hull]

Where is the He3 going to come from? Have you priced it? A tiny lecture bottle is over $2700 on the open market now. A multimega watt reactor would need rather vast stores of it.

The entire point of my original post is that there is NO fusion fuel for gigawatt systems and fusion power generation..... Outside, perhaps, deuterium.

Richard Hull

[Reformator]

Richard Hull wrote:
> Where is the He3 going to come from? Have you priced it? A tiny lecture bottle is over $2700 on the open market now. A multimega watt reactor would need rather vast stores of it.
>
> The entire point of my original post is that there is NO fusion fuel for gigawatt systems and fusion power generation..... Outside, perhaps, deuterium.
>
> Richard Hull
Yes, but after a Moon mining infrastructure is build, then a terawatt reactor would be feasible, right? It can't be more than an engineering decision.

If not, then P-B11 would do the work ?

[Chris Bradley]

The answers all lie on the following page. (ad nauseam)

search.php?site=fusor

and

http://yahoo.com

Please try actively pursuing some knowledge and express some degree of intelligent interpretation of what you find before posting questions already well answered, rather than expecting more feeding.

I don't mean to sound unhelpful, but the site isn't a one-one tutorial for first year students.

But - any such questions that have been well-researched and are found by that researcher to be new, difficult, or generally obscure and otherwise untraceable will receive bountiful responses, I am sure.

[Carl Willis]

Amen.

Learn to be an intelligent user of the SEARCH features on this site and elsewhere. The p-B11 topic has been beat to death in prior discussions here, particularly at the basic level you are engaging.

-Carl

[Reformator]

Chris Bradley wrote:
> The answers all lie on the following page. (ad nauseam)
>
> search.php?site=fusor
>
> and
>
> http://yahoo.com
>
> Please try actively pursuing some knowledge and express some degree of intelligent interpretation of what you find before posting questions already well answered, rather than expecting more feeding.
>
> I don't mean to sound unhelpful, but the site isn't a one-one tutorial for first year students.
>
> But - any such questions that have been well-researched and are found by that researcher to be new, difficult, or generally obscure and otherwise untraceable will receive bountiful responses, I am sure.
This is ridiculous! You're not serious!

Gigawatts aren't enough either! We need at least terawatt power! Starship Enterprise produce 700 petawatts of energy! If waiting ITER/DEMO to reach this level, even 500 years won't be enough!!! So, Quantum energy is the next step.

[Richard Hull]

Oh no!... Not the quantum vacuum or zero point again!!! I will not even go there.

And, yes, that moon based mining operation will certainly be after the year 2250.
This assumes zero world economic meltdowns, nuclear exchanges, major world wars and no global warming that might redirect the countless billions needed to set up a major moon base and mining operation. Going to the moon right now would be just like going there for the first time. Six or seven exploratory missions to test the reliability of the new hardware and vehicles over a period of 10 years before any tiny moon base is ever established maybe in 40 years. All would end with just one significant crash and burn or stranded crew left to die. (at least on the American program) The Chi-Coms have guys to burn so it won't phase them.

Again, all this assumes a pretty much stable world and world economy. I think 2250 might even be optimistic for He3 mining. Forget P-B11.

Richard Hull

[Chris Bradley]

You're right. Ridiculous. Absolutely, completely and utterly ridiculous, hence I will not attempt to try to turn these discussions around again into something sensible.

And, no, I'm not a very serious person. I like things to be light hearted - but nonetheless founded in truth, respect, and the pursuit of things of real scientific consequence.

I bid you well in your future pursuit of self-learning in your curious world, where reality and fantasy appear to have crossed into some entangled state.

[Chris Bradley]

I cannot help but think of the Father Ted episode where Dougal gets reality and dreams mixed up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-0cgq6THR4

[gamempire]

I hate to give the tldr(too long did not read) excuse, but I'm in crunch time for my critical design review for my Fusor at school, and just wanted to chime in to Richard's initial post.

In terms of reactor fuel, since He3 mining is out of the question for the foreseeable future, one needs to look at some other alternative reactions that might be useful, besides D-T, B-11, From some discussions with my brother (theoretical physics and chem degree, now in med school) and some of my professors (one who headed NRL's plasma physics division for a number of years), we've come up with some pretty neat experiments to run once my fusor is operational. Basically, its alot easier to hit a solid target with a gas ion then to pray to (insert supernatural diety/object/thing here/Q) that two gas atoms/ions will smash into each other to initiate fusion. Solid targets of LiD (or LiAlD4) or TiD2 are just some examples.

D + (6Li) → 2 (4He) + 22.4 MeV
→ (3He) + (He4) + n0 + 2.56 MeV
→ (7Li) + p+ + 5.0 MeV
→ (7Be) + n0 + 3.4 MeV

The only issue with this reaction is the high radioactivity of 7Be, but there are ways to deal with that.

The other thing I mentioned, TiD2, has a neat reaction that occurs; three body deuteron fusion (and possibly four body!).

Also, the big problem is converting the energy from the reaction into usable electricity and such. Steam turbines, though probably the easiest to implement when we get the reactions down pat, are also the most inefficient. One idea I had has to do with photovoltaic cells, but I still need to figure out a way to shield them in some fashion. But the basic idea is to use a 3 layer cell to capture the infrared, visible and UV portions of the emitted energy from the reaction. The top layer being infrared absorption, which would allow the visible and UV to pass through, with the visible being collected on the next layer, and the UV after that. All I have is a very general understanding of photovoltaic cells and such, but from speaking to fellow engineers who have designed and built solar panels, the idea isn't that far fetched.

Anyhow, food for thought. If anything I said doesn't make sense, its probably because I'm sick and have been writing for my critical design review for the last 20+ hours, and probably have 30+ more to go. Yay useless technical writing!

-Josh