China Claims Successful Fusion Power Test

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.

China's definition of success

[davidwr (791652)]

"We're pleased to announce we are still here to report the results."

Re:China's definition of success

[LoudMusic (199347)]

"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.

(:

Re:China's definition of success

[steveo777 (183629)]

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."

Re:China's definition of success

[otis wildflower (4889)]

"Do not look into laser with remaining eye".

Re:China's definition of success

[CthulhuDreamer (844223)]

With the bomb squad, you can usually stop running after the first couple of blocks. If it involves the physics department, keep going.

Re:China's definition of success, likely a lie.

[killjoe (766577)]

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?

Re:China's definition of success, likely a lie.

[VitrosChemistryAnaly (616952)]

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...

[ackthpt (218170)]

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...

[RsG (809189)]

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.

I'm pretty sure it didn't hit Q=1

[spike hay (534165)]

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.

Net gain not the obstacle!

[The_Wilschon (782534)]

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.

Re:Net gain not the obstacle!

[Howserx (955320)]

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:Net gain not the obstacle!

[The_Wilschon (782534)]

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.

Everyone will be doing it soon...

[jbeaupre (752124)]

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]

Re:Everyone will be doing it soon...

[swarsron (612788)]

somehow i can't help but be sceptical of a scientist named Farnsworth

A Small Step

[quanminoan (812306)]

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:Containment?

[RsG (809189)]

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?

[spike hay (534165)]

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?

[LotsOfPhil (982823)]

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?

[rubycodez (864176)]

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?

[RsG (809189)]

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:Containment?

[l0b0 (803611)]

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.

Re:more energy than it consumed

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

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:This answers that old question

[RsG (809189)]

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

Re:Here's an additional press release, more info

[dan828 (753380)]

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!