nach oben

2013 | Buch

Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

Search for the Ultimate Energy Source

A History of the U.S. Fusion Energy Program

verfasst von: Stephen O. Dean

Verlag: Springer New York

Buchreihe : Green Energy and Technology

Enthalten in: Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" , Springer Professional "Technik"

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Über dieses Buch

Why has the clean, limitless energy promised by fusion always seemed just out of reach?

Search for the Ultimate Energy Source: A History of the U.S. Fusion Energy Program, explains the fundamentals and concepts behind fusion power, and traces the development of fusion historically by decade—covering its history as dictated by US government policies, its major successes, and its prognosis for the future. The reader will gain an understanding of how the development of fusion has been shaped by changing government priorities as well as other hurdles currently facing realization of fusion power.

Advance Praise for Search for the Ultimate Energy Source:

“Dr. Dean has been uniquely involved in world fusion research for decades and, in this book, describes the complicated realities like few others possibly could.”

-Robert L. Hirsch, a former director of the US fusion program, an Assistant Administrator of the US Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA); an executive at Exxon, Arco, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); and lead author of the book The Impending World Energy Mess (Apogee Prime Books, 2009).

“In this book, Dr. Dean provides the many reasons why fusion has progressed more slowly than many had hoped. Budget is usually cited as the culprit, but policy is equally to blame. Facilities have been closed down before their jobs were done—or in some cases, even started. It seems this situation has become endemic in fusion, and if one thinks about it, in other nationally important Science and Technology initiatives as well.”

-William R. Ellis, a former scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Associate Director of Research at the US Naval Research Laboratory, a vice president at Ebasco Services and at Raytheon, and chair of the US ITER Industry Council and the US ITER Industrial Consortium.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

1. Fusion Fundamentals

Abstract

The term “energy” is defined by physicists as “the ability to do work.” The laws of physics tell us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another. In practical terms, Earth gets most of its energy from the Sun. The Sun is a large natural fusion energy source, sending its light and heat (forms of energy) into the surrounding solar system and into the universe beyond. Most stars are engaged in a similar process. The energy impinging on the Earth from the Sun is captured and stored in many ways but most importantly in living organisms. The Earth’s extensive fossil fuel resources are the result of transformation and storage of the energy of living animals and plants over billions of years. Energy is also released from currently living organisms, most often by burning wood, but also by chemically transforming crops and other organic matter into burnable fuels.

Stephen O. Dean

2. Fusion Concepts

Abstract

Early efforts to produce and control fusion reactions were based on then well-known principles of electromagnetic theory. A current passing through a gas was known to strip electrons from the gas atoms (ionization), to raise its temperature, and to produce a magnetic field surrounding the current. Raising the current increased the degree of ionization, the temperature, and the magnetic field strength. The magnetic field exerts a confining force on the column of ionized gas (dubbed “plasma” in a 1928 paper by Irving Langmuir), and as the current and magnetic field were raised, the column of plasma is compressed, raising its density and further raising its temperature. This was known as the “pinch effect” and was the basis of most of the early attempts to produce fusion conditions in the laboratory. The “pinch effect” had been predicted in 1934 by W. H. Bennett and, independently, in 1937 by Lewi Tonks, but little subsequent effort was devoted to pinch plasma properties in the 1930s. Later, pinch devices were fashioned into what came to be called “magnetic bottles” for the plasma. In the 1950s, some of these “magnetic pinch” devices studied for fusion were linear in geometry, and some were donut-shaped (toroidal). They went by a variety of sometimes-colorful names: Perhapsatron and Columbus at Los Alamos and Zeta in the UK [2].

Stephen O. Dean

3. The Struggling Years: 1960s

Abstract

As fusion research progressed, countries other than the USA, UK, and USSR initiated substantial fusion research efforts and began making important contributions to what is a vigorous international collaborative effort. These included Germany, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, China, India, and others. The European Union (EU) is now coordinating fusion research among all the EU countries, and the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has continued its world fusion coordination activities, begun in 1958, through its biennial conferences, technical working groups, and the International Fusion Research Council (IFRC).

Stephen O. Dean

4. The Glory Years: 1970s

Abstract

John Stamper, Ed McLean, and I built and operated an experiment at NRL using the high-power laser beam that was piped over to our building from the building next door. My thesis task was to see if I could demonstrate the existence of collisionless shock waves. Such shocks had been predicted from theory. My experiment was successful and resulted in two papers published in Physical Review Letters [19, 20]. A surprise bonus came to our group when we observed very large signals on a magnetic probe diagnostic designed by John Stamper. At first, we thought the signal was either spurious or a result of a calibration error. But further investigation convinced us it was real, and, with help on a theoretical interpretation from our theorists, we published a paper in Physical Review Letters on the spontaneous production of megagauss magnetic fields in laser-produced plasmas [21]. For this, we received the NRL Research Publication Award in February 1972. During that period, I also analyzed the possibility of confining a laser-produced plasma in a superconducting resonant cavity by RF electromagnetic fields [22].

Stephen O. Dean

5. The Carter Plan vs. The Reagan Agenda: 1980–1985

Abstract

On January 21, 1980, Congressman Mike McCormack sent a formal letter to President Jimmy Carter requesting he establish “as a national goal” the operation of a fusion electric demonstration plant before the end of the century. At the Department of Energy, Ed Frieman, previously the deputy director of the fusion program at Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory, was confirmed as Director of Energy Research. Frieman set up a new fusion policy review panel chaired by Solomon J. Buschbaum (Bell Laboratories) to update the 1978 DOE review, chaired by John Foster, for John Deutch. Members of the Buchsbaum committee are shown in Table 5.1.

Stephen O. Dean

6. Successes and Disasters: 1985–1989

Abstract

In the FY 1986 budget submission to Congress in early 1985, President Reagan proposed to cut the magnetic fusion budget by another $50 M, to $390 M (recall that the budget had been reduced already by about $40 M in FY 1985 compared to FY 1984). He also proposed to cut the inertial confinement fusion program more than in half (from $168 M to $70 M). By the time Congress got through with this submission, the magnetic fusion FY 1986 budget had been cut even further, to $362 M, but the proposed inertial fusion cut had been largely restored (to $155 M). DOE, in its inertial fusion budget submission, had proposed to eliminate inertial confinement fusion as a separate program altogether and simply “bury” it within its multibillion-dollar weapons R&D category. Congress refused to go along with that proposal.

Stephen O. Dean

7. Hope for Resurgence: 1990–1995

Abstract

Energy Secretary Watkins began preparation of a national energy strategy with a meeting on January 11, 1990, in Honolulu. Two witnesses presented testimony on fusion: Harold Forsen (Bechtel Group, Inc.) and Akira Hasegawa (Bell Telephone Labs) [62, 63].

Stephen O. Dean

8. Financial Tsunami: 1995–1999

Abstract

Congressional midterm elections were held in the USA in November 1994. As a result, the Republican Party took control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in January 1995. When control of either Congress or the Presidency passes from Democrats to Republicans (or vice versa), the inevitable result is that, regardless of the merits, whatever was being done previously is discounted and “change” is required. Rep. Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House. He announced a new policy to be called “the Contract with America.” In practice, this meant “cut federal spending.” The Contract with America called for cutting the fusion program by about 50 % [78].

Stephen O. Dean

9. The New Millennium: Science vs. Energy: 2000–2008

Abstract

In the spring of 2000, MSNBC carried out an online poll about fusion. As of March 27, 8,000 persons had responded. Of these, 65 % said they believed fusion “will make a difference in my lifetime;” 25 % believed fusion “will become an important power source, but not in my lifetime;” and 6 % said fusion “will not make a difference” due to either “economic or scientific” factors.

Stephen O. Dean

10. The Obama Administration: 2009–2012

Abstract

In November 2008, Barack Obama (a Democrat) won election to the US Presidency, and both the House and Senate remained firmly under control of the Democratic Party. Scientists, in general, and fusion researchers, in particular, were enthusiastic as new presidential appointments were announced for the White House (OSTP and OMB) and the Department of Energy.

Stephen O. Dean

11. Applications

Abstract

The primary (and perhaps the most difficult) goal of the fusion program has been the production of base-load electricity. Like nuclear fission power plants, fusion power plants are unlikely to lend themselves well to situations that require rapid changes in power levels. This characteristic, as well as economies of scale, tends to make fusion reactors more likely to be economically competitive at relative large sizes in central station (as distinguished from distributed) electricity generation. The latter (distributed) future market most likely will be filled by an array of solar, wind, and possibly gas turbine technologies. The primary competition for fusion will, then, be from coal, nuclear, and possibly natural gas power plants.

Stephen O. Dean

12. Engineering Challenges

Abstract

The focus of the US fusion program throughout its history has been the achievement of what has often been termed “scientific feasibility,” i.e., producing and containing a high temperature plasma that exceeds the Lawson criterion. Facilities like the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) and the Joint European Torus (JET) have come close to demonstrating that goal, but such achievements, while necessary, are not sufficient to demonstrate the capability to actually produce commercial electric power or any of the other possible commercial applications of fusion discussed in the last chapter. It is thus necessary to couple the production of a fusion plasma to the engineering systems necessary to reliably and cost-effectively transform the fusion energy into a usable form.

Stephen O. Dean

13. Energy

Abstract

Energy is measured in a variety of units, most commonly by the unit “BTU” or British thermal unit. One BTU is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by 1°F. In a home, for example, a furnace might have an output of 25,000 BTU per hour. Running full out for 24 h, then, a home furnace would provide about 600,000 BTU or, in another commonly used unit, about 0.01 tonnes oil equivalent. A gallon of regular gas has an energy content of about 114,000 BTU. Thus, a car getting 20 miles per gal and driving about 10,000 miles per year would consume about 22,800 million BTU or about 570 tonnes oil equivalent.

Stephen O. Dean

14. Perspectives 2012

Abstract

This chapter presents the personal perspectives of several persons who have played key roles in fusion research and development over many decades.

Stephen O. Dean

15. The Ultimate Energy Source?

Abstract

Currently, governments fund most fusion research. In the USA, progress has been severely constrained by the availability of federal research dollars and an absence of policy decisions to construct new fusion facilities. For example, following the success of the US TFTR in the mid-1990s, Congress cut fusion funding rather than to authorize the construction of a more advanced facility. Congress, at the time, had embarked on a “cut federal spending in general” budget frenzy that periodically dominates Washington thinking. As this book goes to press (September 2012), we are in the midst of another such frenzy, brought about by a desire “to cut the federal deficit.”

Stephen O. Dean

Backmatter

Titel: Search for the Ultimate Energy Source
verfasst von: Stephen O. Dean
Verlag: Springer New York
Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4614-6037-4
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6036-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6037-4