Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

China Claims Successful Fusion Power Test

Posted by kdawson on Thu Sep 28, 2006 02:10 PM
from the bang-'em-together-hard dept.
SeaDour writes, "China claims to have carried out a successful test of its experimental thermonuclear fusion reactor. But what exactly made this test 'successful' is not clear. From the article: 'Xinhua cited the scientists as saying that deuterium and tritium atoms had been fused together at a temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds. The report did not specify whether the device... had succeeded at producing more energy than it consumed, the main obstacle to making fusion commercially viable.'" China is a participant in the 10-nation ITER project to build a fusion reactor in the south of France by 2015. The article quotes the research head of ITER as saying, "It was important for China to show that it is part of the club. Here are English language versions of the Chinese news release: announcement, background.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Science: France Will Be Home To Fusion Plant 744 comments
ScentCone writes "After years of politicking, France has won the right to be the location for a $12 billion fusion research facility. The plant will use deuterium-from-seawater and a huge electromagnetic ring to produce the 100-million-C conditions in which researchers hope to produce viable fusion. The debate over whether this is even possible continues to rage. The ITER project started in 1985, and there has been a running fight over money and location since. France indicated that if Japan (one of the holdouts) didn't see it their way, they'd build a coalition of the willing and do it anyway. With financing and contracting agreements in place, the 10-year construction can begin." Coverage also available at MSNBC, the NYTimes, CNN, and the BBC.
[+] International Fusion Reactor Project Moves Forward 265 comments
mjgp2 writes to mention a BBC article about an agreement which will begin construction on the second most expensive scientific collaboration, after the ISS : the world's first large-scale fusion reactor. From the article: "The seven-party consortium, which includes the European Union, the US, Japan, China, Russia and others, agreed last year to build Iter in Cadarache, in the southern French region of Provence ... He said that the participants would aim to ratify their agreement before the end of the year so construction on the facility could start in 2007. Officials said the experimental reactor would take about eight years to build. The EU is to foot about 50% of the cost to build the experimental reactor. If all goes well with the experimental reactor, officials hope to set up a demonstration power plant at Cadarache by 2040. "
[+] Slashback: What Dell Knew, China's Fusion, Vista 154 comments
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including: What Dell knew and when they knew it, GNU/Linux may gain from the Vista WGA crackdown, China's fusion test was a hoax, and the Vista startup chime will be optional. Read on for details.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by davidwr (791652) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:11PM (#16234727) Homepage Journal
    "We're pleased to announce we are still here to report the results."
    • by LoudMusic (199347) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:28PM (#16235073)
      "We're pleased to announce we are still here to report the results."

      Hey, nothing wrong with that. I've said it plenty of times myself.

      (:
    • by steveo777 (183629) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:35PM (#16235173) Homepage Journal
      It reminds me of the typical physics student's t-shirts and lab coats. On the back is something printed to the effect of, "[some school] Physics. If you see us running, try to keep up."
      • by killjoe (766577) on Thursday September 28 2006, @04:26PM (#16237235)
        Go to any elite engineering school and take a survey of the top 10% of the students there. I would be shocked if at least 50% of those students are not chinese. I don't mean chinese americans, I mean chinese from china.

        Some of the smartest people I know are chinese. What makes you think they can't do it? Is it because they are not white? Are chinese incabable of doing research? Are the chinese by nature liars?
          • There was that incident a while back of a [b]North Korean[/b] scientist faking his results in a cloning experiment. That scientist then came clean and blamed the enormous pressure on scientists in that society/government. Perhaps the GP was making an assumtion based on similar political structures as opposed to racial background. I admit being extra sceptical about press releases coming out of the PRC.
            It was a South Korean scientist who admitted to faking his results.

            You may not know, but South Koreans are not Communists.

            However, I am a scientist. And, guess what, my wife is from South Korea. We've had a number of discussions about Hwang Woo-suk (the scientist in question).

            I can state, as a scientist, that there's a lot of pressure to get certain results. If you don't get some kind of results you don't get grants. You don't get grants, you can't continue your research.

            My wife states, as a South Korean, that there can be a lot of cultural pressure to succeed and that it can be quite overwhelming at times.

            I think that the GP (my GGP) was saying that due to all the cultural pressures it may be too tempting for Chinese scientists to fake results.
  • Oh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:12PM (#16234729) Homepage Journal

    100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds.

    I think someone needs a CoolerMaster for that one!

    bad news, the coolermaster consumed all the net energy

    • Re:Oh... (Score:5, Informative)

      by RsG (809189) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:17PM (#16234853)
      Nah, you want it to get as hot as possible. Higher temperature leads to more reactions in the fuel, which in turn leads to greater effeciency. Part of the problem is getting the fuel that hot in the first place, and keeping it together long enough to fuse.

      Side note: while 100 million degrees sounds awfully hot, we're talking about a tiny amount of fuel here. The usual figure quoted for a hypothetical commercial reactor is about two grams of fuel in the core at any given time. The reactor itself doesn't get anywhere near that hot, even in the event of a full loss of containment.
      • Actually this is a premise to a series of ecological disasters described in the Reality Dysfunction series of SF books by Peter F. Hamilton.

        It's mentioned only peripherally, but the general idea is that the widespread use of fusion power and the vastly increased energy consumption, combined with population and other types of biosphere-bashing, have led to super-storms that basically scour anything in their path.

        A little farfetched at present, but an interesting scenario. You'd really have to have "Mr. Fusio
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Ever since I came across something mentioned in Niven's Known Space I've been trying to figure out how to cool off a planet. Trouble is, everything I think of basically generates more energy than it could ever disipate except one. Set up a reallllly long piece of metal like a space elevator, only make it out of two metals. The temperature difference would create an electric current that you could then use for energy.

          On the other hand you could just set up really really big radiator fins to help cool th
          • Some big fins?

            Add some "Type R" crop shapes... a few craters for sub woofers and a couple copies of Vegas for lighting and you'd have...

            RICER EARTH.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          It's not a white hole energy source, its an energy derived from atoms that fuse together (much like our sun). So no, its not limitless, you need to keep it fed with fuel. And that was the least absurd part of your question; please explain how you plan to build an air conditioner outside earth's atmosphere, where theres *NO AIR*...
  • Will be tied to their ability to get away from fossil fuels and develop alternative sources. They, not the United States will be the leader in developing the "big thing" that moves us beyond our oil based economy.
  • by spike hay (534165) <blu_ice@@@violate...me...uk> on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:18PM (#16234867) Homepage
    It was successful in that it fused deuterium and tritium. Of course, the break even point doesn't matter. To be economical, the reactor realistically has to hit ignition, which only the ITER could hope to do.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Actually, it was successful in getting plasma, usually called "first plasma" in the field. I had heard it was 200kA for 1.2 seconds. I'm would be shocked if they actually were using tritium in the system at this early stage, but I could be wrong. I'm betting that was the result of the scientist media interface.

      ITER, which is designed for a Q of 5-10 I think and most definitely for DT plasmas, is supposed to reach first plasma in 2016. I think the first DT plasmas for ITER are scheduled for 2019. The o
  • by The_Wilschon (782534) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:19PM (#16234889) Homepage
    Achieving a net energy gain is not the main obstacle to making fusion commercially viable. That has been done quite successfully. There is no problem passing break-even. It is ignition we are trying to achieve now. That is, a fusion reaction which produces enough heat to cause more fusion, provided enough fuel. If you're going to write an article about fusion, at least know something about the state of the field. Journalists should all be required to read the relevant wikipedia [wikipedia.org] articles before publishing something about science.
    • by Howserx (955320) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:39PM (#16235257)
      Journalists should all be required to read the relevant wikipedia articles before publishing something about science Or they should at least edit the relevant wiki articles to make sure it matches their article.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Achieving a net energy gain is not the main obstacle to making fusion commercially viable. That has been done quite successfully. There is no problem passing break-even.

      No, actually niether has been demonstrated - ITER is intended to do so. (Among other things.)

      It is ignition we are trying to achieve now. That is, a fusion reaction which produces enough heat to cause more fusion, provided enough fuel.

      No - ignition means achieving fusion. What you call ignition is called a self sustaining

      • by The_Wilschon (782534) on Thursday September 28 2006, @03:42PM (#16236499) Homepage
        Go out and get yourself a copy of An Introduction to The Physics of Nuclei and Particles by Richard A. Dunlap, first edition, published in 2004. This is one of the standard texts for an undergraduate physics course in nuclear and particle physics. See pages 192 and 193, esp. Figures 13.12 and 13.13. Then read the text on page 192. I will reproduce it here for your benefit:

        In Figure 13.12 the broken line represents unthermalized breakeven. This refers to the situation where the energy output of the reactor is equal to the energy input but the plasma conditions have been augmented by neutral beam injection. The solid line represents thermalized breakeven where the plasma conditions themselves are sufficient for net energy production. The shaded region represents ignition where the energy output is not only sufficient to yield a net energy gain but is also sufficient to maintain the plasma conditions. This is a self-sustained fusion reaction. These operating conditions refer to d-t fusion; conditions for d-d fusion would follow curves with values of n\tau about two orders of magnitude larger. The data points in the figure represent the operating conditions of a number of experimental magnetic confinement reactors. The general trend of the points from the lower left to the upper right of the figure represents the chronological development of fusion reactors from the late 1960s to the late 1990s. This line also represents an increase in reactor power from the mW range to several MW. Present results are in the breakeven region and future developments can hope to achieve ignition. The time scale for such developments is presumably in the order of several decades.
        The figure shows 2 points inside the solid line, and 15 points between the solid line and the broken line. Figure 13.13 on the facing page is a similar plot, showing inertial confinement experiments rather than magnetic confinement. However, 13.13 lacks the lines showing the two breakeven points.

        Allow me to repeat the particularly relevant phrases (emphasis mine):

        The shaded region represents ignition where the energy output is not only sufficient to yield a net energy gain but is also sufficient to maintain plasma conditions. This is a self-sustained fusion reaction.
        Present results are in the breakeven region and future developments can hope to achieve ignition.
        Direct from a credible source. Now, perhaps Dunlap is wrong. Credible sources have been quite wrong in the past and will be in the future. However, you'd best have a stronger argument than "no you're a poopyhead" if you expect anyone to believe you.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          I believe the GP is right. No one has actually achieved breakeven (except for Dr. Edward Teller in the 50's but those weren't exactly practical power producing devices since they tended to obliterate everything in a 20 mile radius!!). The JET in Culham UK came closest a few years back at ~70% breakeven with a 50/50 DT plasma. Those dots you are seeing on that plot are almost certainly extrapolated breakeven points. meaning they represent the DD reactions done on the Japanese JT-60 device which WOULD, if don
      • Alright. My primary (meaning main, not firsthand) source is, as I said in another post, An Introduction to the Physics of Nuclei and Particles, written by Richard A. Dunlap of Dalhousie University, published by Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc., in 2004. See especially page 192. This is a standard text for an undergraduate course in nuclear and particle physics. Happy now?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It is not that we are trying to "get energy out" in the sense of produce usable electric current in transmission lines. The net energy gain or loss is how much energy you put into the reaction (like the electricity flowing through the sparkplug in your car) vs. how much energy everything in the reacting system has after the reaction is done. So if I start a fire, I put a small amount of energy in, ie I strike a match, involving a very small amount of energy of motion of the matchhead against the box, and
  • by jbeaupre (752124) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:20PM (#16234905)
    Pretty soon even high school students will be making fusion reactors. Oh wait, they already are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_fus or [wikipedia.org]
  • Xinhua have an atrocious track record for truth verses spin, worse than tony blairs pr department. I'm not going to get excited about this one.
  • by roman_mir (125474) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:25PM (#16234995) Homepage
    Scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced they had successfully tried a domestically developed fusion device in the eastern Chinese city of Hefei, Xinhua news agency said.

    The scientists called the device "the first of its kind in operation in the world", but the report did not specify what tests it had passed. ...
    Xinhua cited the scientists as saying that deuterium and tritium atoms had been fused together at a temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds.
    - what they are not telling us is that their sofistimacated gizmotron is based on a Yin Yang Dragon technology, which employs 500,000,000 manual workers, each one only having to heat up one atom by 1/5th of a degree by applying the power of the Chi.

    Since the labor for all the labor only cost about $5 total, the reactor was able to produce an energy surplus, a feat previously considered to be improbable.
  • Awsome (Score:3, Insightful)

    by susano_otter (123650) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:39PM (#16235237) Homepage
    Good for them.

    I hope the test was practical in nature, and will lead to useful contributions from China towards the achievement of practical fusion power.

    This is good news. I look forward to following China's future progress and contributions.
  • A Small Step (Score:4, Informative)

    by quanminoan (812306) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:48PM (#16235427)
    A fusion reactor has so many challenges behind it that ignition is only a small step towards something useful. Assuming you ignite a plasma you then have to maintain it, keep it stable, and fuel it fast enough to keep it burning. After that you're left with "mere" engineering problems, such as removing ~ 1 MW of heat per m^2 on the walls of the tokomak, making a gun fire a pellet of solid hydrogen into the plasma at one pellet per second, and finally creating a structure that can handle the intense neutron flux so the reactor can survive long enough to break even.

    Though ITER is being built soon, it's being designed as its going up. I'm involved with creating an H- ion beam to inject the plasma (called neutral beam injection). The idea is to fire a high energy beam of neutral hydrogen into the plasma to heat it up (neutral so the atoms can travel through the containment magnets without deflection).

    So even if the Chinese managed to build a reactor that beats previous records, it's a long while before fusion powers your home. Nevertheless I consider Fusion research to be one of the most important fields; it takes no imagination to understand what it would mean if nations could be powered on water.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Yes, they'd start fighting wars over access to water instead of oil.

        Water (both freshwater for agriculture, drinking, etc. and access to navigable water for trade) has been a vital resource over which wars are fought longer than oil (and, like oil, its been a big factor motivating or complicating Middle East conflicts, including providing a significant part of the motivation for Iraq's wars with Iran and Kuwait, and a complicating factor in resolving the Israel/Palestine problem.)

  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:50PM (#16235461) Homepage
    ... do they call it The US Syndrome [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:Containment? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RsG (809189) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:20PM (#16234901)
      This is a fusion reactor. There is no nuclear pile - that would be a feature of a fission reactor, which is a different technology altogether.
    • Re:Containment? (Score:5, Informative)

      by spike hay (534165) <blu_ice@@@violate...me...uk> on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:21PM (#16234911) Homepage
      Magnetic containment. This isn't like fission reactions. There isn't a "pile." Just a couple of grams of non-radioactive deuterium and radioactive but fairly benign tritium. In the event that the magnets somehow fail, the reaction will stop, with just a bit of erosion on the sides of the reactor.
    • Re:Containment? (Score:4, Informative)

      by LotsOfPhil (982823) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:23PM (#16234961)
      It's a superconducting tokamak. [wikipedia.org]
      The new part is the fact that it uses superconducting magnets. Tokamaks have been used since the 70's.
      • Re:Containment? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rubycodez (864176) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:42PM (#16235319) Homepage
        or even more accurately, Tokamaks have been consuming far more energy than they put out for over 30 years. But governments still throw billions at them rather than use already operating fusion reactor in the sky.
        • Re:Containment? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RsG (809189) on Thursday September 28 2006, @03:14PM (#16235937)
          If you have some design for a solar power generator that can even come close to the output of a fusion reactor, then please, by all means, post it. Or patent it - I'm sure you'd make a fortune.

          Of course I somehow doubt that. After all, photoelectric solar panels are already close to their maximum possible energy effeciency. We could get far better effeciency out of them if we put them in orbit and beamed the power back, given that doing so would get around the problems associated with the atmosphere, but our current space program doesn't even come close to adequate for such a task.

          For a point of comparison, fusion is already hitting breakeven. So much for "wasted" money these past thirty years, eh? The fact that something takes time and effort does not make it worthless.

          If you seriously want power from sunlight, burn oil or coal. After all, the energy in fossil fuels comes from sunlight introduced into the biosphere millions of years ago. In fact one could argue that fossil fuels are the worlds oldest natural solar battery. And unlike solar energy, which loses much in transmission, oil is easily transportable. You can extract and use it in places where the sun doesn't shine.

          Of course, it also burns dirty as hell. Even ignoring climate change, burning fossil fuels releases all sorts of crap into the air, from heavy metals, to soot, to radioactives. But lord knows, if you want to utilize that "fusion reactor up in the sky", you can do so today for all your energy needs - no fancy new tech required.

          Plus, who ever said fusion and solar were incompatible solutions? Governments spend a pittance on both of them (yeah it sounds like a lot, but look at their overall budget for comparison), so impling that they favour one over the other is utter rubbish. If you want to get really technical, some of the budget for the space program over the past decades paid for solar panel development, as well as things like fuel cell technology, so it's hardly as though green power has been ignored.

          We can pursue solar power in the mean time without the assistance of the governement - go out and buy some for your own use, get your home off the grid (assuming you haven't done so already). No new R&D is required to make solar a viable partial solution to our energy needs, and at the same time, there is little R&D that could ever turn it into a full solution. Conversely we cannot pursue fusion power in the same fashion - the goals are too long term for the private sector to be interested in. Your point is a classic false dichotomy.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)


            While I agree with most of your post, I question this:
            "...photoelectric solar panels are already close to their maximum possible energy effeciency..."

            my understanding is that current PV cells are only around 30% efficient. This suggests to me that there is large room for improvement.

            'No new R&D is required....'
            This is so true. we don't need to wait for a magic bullet. We already have the technological solutions to our energy problems - we just lack the political and social will to implement the necessar
            • Well, there are real theoretical limits to the efficiency of a photovoltaic solar cell, and they are significantly less than 100%. I found this 2002 article [lbl.gov] with a search:

              One of the most fundamental limitations on solar cell efficiency is the band gap of the semiconductor from which the cell is made. In a photovoltaic cell, negatively doped (n-type) material, with extra electrons in its otherwise empty conduction band, makes a junction with positively doped (p-type) material, with extra holes in the band

          • by l0b0 (803611) on Thursday September 28 2006, @04:27PM (#16237249) Homepage
            You can extract and use it in places where the sun doesn't shine.

            You, Sir, have just invented another way of telling people where to "stick it". I salute thee.

    • What goes around, comes around
    • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:35PM (#16235175)
      But that is the law of physics. The extra energy comes from the mass which is converted to energy. Had it said "producing more mass/energy than it consumed", then that would be against the laws of physics.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Actually, you don't lose mass when you burn something. Chemical combustion converts potential chemical energy into heat, but the end products mass as much as the starting ones. All the energy in a gallon of gas is the energy that went into producing it.

          But technically yes, when you talk about fusion reactors you should say "converted more energy from mass than it took to fuse said mass". So the phrasing from the article/summary is technically in error, but most people who know their physics can grasp wha
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Actually, you don't lose mass when you burn something. Chemical combustion converts potential chemical energy into heat, but the end products mass as much as the starting ones.

            Actually, you always lose relativistic mass when you release potential energy. A gallon of gasoline is more massive than the sum of the masses of its individual atoms (but not by much), due to the electromagnetic potential energy of the chemical bonds. By general relativity, any place in space with a nonzero mass or energy density

    • by RsG (809189) on Thursday September 28 2006, @03:31PM (#16236305)
      This finally answers that old question, "What happens when everyone in China jumps onto the same pair of hydrogen atoms simultaneously?"
      They collapse into a quantum singularity, obviously. All that mass in such a small place?

      A better question would be how they managed to cram everyone in China into the same place at the same time. Methinks someone used a "noclip" cheat :-P
    • by dan828 (753380) on Thursday September 28 2006, @03:56PM (#16236757)
      Well, the "Me so horny" prostitute was Vietnamese (from the movie Full Metal Jacket), and it's the Japanese that have problems pronouncing Ls, not the Chinese. So, besides mixing up three different asian countries with distinct languages and cultures, your ethnic insult was spot on. Way to go!