Environmental impact of p-B11 fusion?

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

Environmental impact of p-B11 fusion?

Post by JoeStrout »

Suppose, for the sake of this thread, that Dr. Bussard is correct, and in a decade or two we could have fusion plants across the country using the p-B11 reaction, extracting energy from the fusion products using decelerator grids (so no thermal cycle is needed, except to keep the machine cool). Let's further suppose that the electricity produced is so much cheaper than anything else that it catches on like wildfire, so that in a fairly short period of time, we're getting most of our electricity from p-B11 fusion plants.

What would be the environmental benefits of this shift to fusion power for electricity production? Reduction in emissions (especially CO2 and mercury) seem fairly obvious — but by how much, and what else?

What hazards would large-scale use of this reaction pose to the environment? Where would the boron come from, and what pitfalls should we watch out for?
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

None really, except perhaps the process of getting boron. Hydrogen is fairly easy to gain.

The only side-product of an aneutronic fusion reactor is helium, which should be contained and sold. It's precious enough and technically free, although not very much helium would be produced.

Another possible environmental problem would be elements that are too irradiated by gamma rays and occasional neutrons to be of use. They have to be recycled, and extra care must be taken to make sure that possible radioactive particles are gained fast and easily.

Shielding must be done to prevent occasional gamma rays. Fairly simple task involving good cement and monitoring radiation levels.

I can't think of anything else really.

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

I try to be realistic. Enthusiasm is fine and is a powerful engine for this enterprise. The equilibrium between being enthusiastic and rational is the key point. In my opinion too many people try to see a far future ahead. Although p-b11 may be reachable the first generation of Polywell (if successful- we hope that-) will be with D-D fusion reaction.

Once D-D fusion will be technologically easy to get the second stage is p-B11, but for this we are still far away. If breakeven is got with D-D we can say that everything is rolling perfectly. D-D fusion implicate more changes in the world than we can imagine. Let´s think about that before trying to guess the second breakthrough.

The typical analogy with fusion energy is the same as the change in the world ( told by the ancient Greek mythology ) when Prometheus stole the Fire to Zeus to give it to humans. Before the fire, humankind was settled in prehistoric age without any energy source to transform the world. Later, with the fire under control, they were able to have an easy and robust energy ready available to all countries. The change was so high that let mankind be as we know nowadays. Fusion is the new Prometheus fire for mankind.

The ultimate aim of mankind is an equilibrium in the whole planet: the day when all people have enough to live and have enough for a decent life and when population will be stable. The day when fanaticism will be rejected and we will live in harmony and happiness. That day will be closer if we achieve a cheap energy for everyone . For that, we need more than just technology; we need to learn how to be more humane. This will be the third breakthrough: even more difficult to get than p-B11 fusion !!!

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

Post by JoeStrout »

jlumartinez wrote:I try to be realistic. Enthusiasm is fine and is a powerful engine for this enterprise. The equilibrium between being enthusiastic and rational is the key point. In my opinion too many people try to see a far future ahead. Although p-b11 may be reachable the first generation of Polywell (if successful- we hope that-) will be with D-D fusion reaction.
I doubt that. D-D fusion is easier energetically, but if the Polywell approach works at all, then that won't matter much — power scales as the 7th power of the reactor size, so if your reactor can't burn p-B11, you just need to make it a little bigger.

And the trouble with D-D is that the fusion products are neutral — in fact they're mostly neutron radiation, which is nasty stuff, and extremely hard to actually extract energy from. This quickly takes you down that rat-hole of lithium blankets, your reactor quickly becoming radioactive as you use it, a thermal cycle with moving parts, and so on. By comparison, p-B11 fusion with a deceleration grid for extracting the energy is much simpler. For this reason, I doubt D-D fusion will ever be used as a power source (though it makes a dandy neutron source).
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

Solo
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Solo »

Taking a sociological look at energy and other limits on human population, it seems that if energy becomes cheap/plentiful enough to do insanely energy-intensive things like watering deserts and making up enough ethanol to run the world's cars, trucks, ships etc, our population will go up again, as it did in the industrial/green revolutions. However, there will be yet some other limit. Perhaps we will liberate enough heat thru fusion to generate global warming directly, w/o the greenhouse effect!

Another consequence is that, since this technology is highly scientific, it will not benefit so-called poor countries as much as rich ones. This will not help equalize world wealth; in fact those who can harness fusion will become more powerful at the expense of those who cannot.

Human problems are caused by a lack of humane behavior, not technology! Technology is a tool: what we do with it is determined by the kind of people we are. And technology does not change that. If people don't handle our current technology well, things will only be worse when more powerful tools arrive. So I would discourage the talk like "fusion is going to solve all our problems." Even if it works perfectly, it won't do that.

(And if we are stuck for some reason using DD fusion instead of p-B11, matters will be worse because of the radioactive waste produced, which will lead to problems like we currently have with fission.)

Nanos
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

I find myself sadly in agreement with Solo there.

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

Post by JoeStrout »

Solo wrote:Another consequence is that, since this technology is highly scientific, it will not benefit so-called poor countries as much as rich ones. This will not help equalize world wealth; in fact those who can harness fusion will become more powerful at the expense of those who cannot.
I disagree with this. Developing fusion is highly scientific; but once it's developed, using it will be not much harder than using any other largish piece of equipment. You'll be able to buy one of these reactors from Westinhouse or GE and pretty much just plug it in and turn it on, once it's developed.

That will benefit poor countries much more than rich ones, and here's why: those countries have a lot more room for improvement, when it comes to both economic and environmental considerations. There are a lot of places in the world where the primary power source is still burning of biomass (i.e. wood stoves), which produces little power and causes high health costs. A single polywell reactor could provide most of a small country's power needs, with a dramatic increase in the quality of life for its people. But in someplace like the U.S. or Europe, where we already have high-density, relatively high-quality power sources, a switch to polywell reactors will produce much more subtle benefits.
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

Although Solo has a point: change for the better will only happen if people allow change for the better. If an Oil Prince suddenly sobers up, and realizes what's happening and realizes that he cannot stop it, its a big question whether he tries to delay the change or accept it and start doing business that way.

If he tries to stop it, then everyone is in a big soup of problems, some of it we are facing today. Troubles in the Middle-East, religious fanatics funded secretly by a rich few who's goals collide with them. Political pressure to keep oil running at all cost. Countries, both developed and undeveloped will suffer, while a few countries sufficiently non-dependant on oil develop and eventually rule others.

If he chooses to accept change however, then there may be a ray of hope. He can skim down his business, and buy enough a couple of fusors (as in Polywell fusors, I use the word for any IEC device) with crew and form a local company that supplies electric power. The real bitch will be creating a power lines to supply people in the first place. Of course, one has to focus on the public buildings such as hospitals (or lack of thereof), schools, etc. Getting people used to electricity will be difficult, especially to areas where people never saw any of them before. The most useful thing that comes to mind, is computers. Heard of the 100$ laptop project? Combined with a Bluetooth system, one can allow people access to the internet, and trough it, help for education. MIT OpenCourseWave may be helpful.
If all goes well, then the Oil Prince will be a Sunfire Prince trough hard work. And one can dream further.

*sigh*

I must have had too much to drink. Ignore my ramblings.

Nanos
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

There may well be trade restrictions on which countries the technology could be sold to, which could have a dramatic effect on who has it, and who does not.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

There may well be trade restrictions on which countries the technology could be sold to, which could have a dramatic effect on who has it, and who does not.
Not likely. Unlike fission, you cannot use fusion reactors to make weapons. Well, as a neutron source, maybe.

Still, no matter what you do, you still need transuranic elements to get a nuclear weapon working.

Polywell cannot be used as a weapon, directly atleast. Putting the thing on an aircraft carrier to power rail guns / lasers is another story.

Also, once intelligence services get hold of nothing less then the manual of a Polywell machine, scientist from other countries can figure out how to work the thing. With enough money a good enough team, there is nothing stopping another country to run a Polywell power plant.

lambda0
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:46 pm

Post by lambda0 »

Some paranoiac ideas :

Natural uranium is quite easy to obtain, and can be converted to plutonium with the neutrons generated by a fusion reactor.
It is also possible to produce U233 by neutrons irradiation of Th232, and U233 is fissile (but also difficult to use to make a bomb because it is a strong gamma emitter).
This flux of neutrons can also be used to produce tritium, that is used in H bombs.
If a fusion reactor becomes very easy to build, at low cost, by any nation, I think that weapon proliferation problems must be carefully evaluated.

For "normal" civil utilization : it is possible that even a p-B11 reactor generates a flux of neutrons, due to secondary reactions. Such a reactor would require a shielding, and there may be also a residual radioactivity from neutron activation. Even if it is 100 or 1000 times smaller than for a D-T reactor, it may be dangerous (see (1), Residual radiations from a p-B11 reactor).
Maybe not a problem with a few 1 GW plants, but with a dispersion of hundred thousands of small reactors all over the world ?

An international organization as the IAAE can control the use of nuclear energy, security norms, as long as nuclear reactors, enrichement plants, etc. are big devices, as long as the number of nuclear reactors is limited to a few hundreds.

Of course, the other sources of energy currently used are often worse (fission reactors generate huge amounts of radioactivity that must be contained, proliferation is a real problem, fossile sources of energy generates atmospheric pollution, etc.), but I don't think it's good to say people that fusion, even IEC fusion, is the ultimate solution of all the problems of mankind, without any drawback.

(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Nanos
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

Thats very interesting, and might explain why fusion research isn't being given the funding it could otherwise have, if indeed as you say, if it was developed, it would only increase the worlds arms race ability.

Though thats not necessarly a bad thing, as if everyones got a big stick, it might make countries behave better towards each other..

MAD anyone :-)

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

Natural uranium is quite easy to obtain, and can be converted to plutonium with the neutrons generated by a fusion reactor.
It is also possible to produce U233 by neutrons irradiation of Th232, and U233 is fissile (but also difficult to use to make a bomb because it is a strong gamma emitter).
This flux of neutrons can also be used to produce tritium, that is used in H bombs.
If a fusion reactor becomes very easy to build, at low cost, by any nation, I think that weapon proliferation problems must be carefully evaluated.
Bombs don't use tritium directly. These use lithium. Tritium is a bitch to store, and there is the problem of purity. He3, its end-product, is a neutron killer.
Instead they use lithium deuteride, which is solid but the neutrons from a fission bomb make lithium produce tritium.

To trigger a Teller-Ulam, you still need to do a fission bomb.

As for making a bomb out of U-233, you can do that, but you still need the extensive infrastructure to process the material.

lambda0
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:46 pm

Post by lambda0 »

Zixinus wrote: Bombs don't use tritium directly. These use lithium. Tritium is a bitch to store, and there is the problem of purity. He3, its end-product, is a neutron killer.
Instead they use lithium deuteride, which is solid but the neutrons from a fission bomb make lithium produce tritium.
To trigger a Teller-Ulam, you still need to do a fission bomb.
That depends on the kind of bomb I think. One of the very rare source of He3 on Earth is desintegration of tritium used in some nuclear weapons... And tritium is used in neutron bombs.

But anyway, I think that the main problem to consider is the production of plutonium. Maybe it's not a real problem, if the reprocessing necessary to isolate the right isotopes is a complex operation.
I just say that all those potential proliferation problems should be carefully evaluated if a low cost massive source of neutrons becomes available, as it might possible with a high gain IEC device.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Post by Zixinus »

That depends on the kind of bomb I think. One of the very rare source of He3 on Earth is desintegration of tritium used in some nuclear weapons... And tritium is used in neutron bombs.
Neutron bombs also need californium, a very highly fissile isotope.
But anyway, I think that the main problem to consider is the production of plutonium. Maybe it's not a real problem, if the reprocessing necessary to isolate the right isotopes is a complex operation.
I just say that all those potential proliferation problems should be carefully evaluated if a low cost massive source of neutrons becomes available, as it might possible with a high gain IEC device.
Plutonium or some other fissile isotope. Like I said, you still need extensive reprocessing capabilities to get the isotopes themselves, you need to figure out how to process the materials and in the case of thorium, you still need to clean it up from impurities that would not present a problem in power plants, but would be a problem in bombs.

Good sorce regarding nuclear weapons:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Post Reply