World's Most Powerful Laser Facility Shifts Focus to Warheads

The U.S. National Ignition Facility will devote less time to energy research going forward, after failing to demonstrate the principles of a futuristic fusion power plant















Share on Tumblr

The NIF’s current director Ed Moses bridles at accusations that ignition was over­emphasized. “I don’t think it was oversold or undersold. It just was.” Moses insists that “remarkable progress” has been made in the past 16 months, since the NIF began working with hydrogen-pellet targets. “The goal was to do the initial exploration of the ignition conditions and see where we were, which is what we’ve done.”

But there is likely to be less time for ignition experiments in the coming year, says Cook. Livermore will still control the program’s day-to-day operation, but the NNSA’s headquarters in Washington DC will set priorities as the facility expands its stockpile stewardship work. Already, the NIF has been able to address crucial questions about how energy passes from the fission stage of a nuclear weapon to its much more powerful fusion stage. Future research will assess the ‘boost phase’ of the weapon — during which a small quantity of deuterium and tritium at the center of the first stage is used to boost the initial fission phase of the explosion.

The shift in priorities worries Riccardo Betti, a laser fusion researcher at the University of Rochester in New York. “They have to make sure that the ignition effort doesn’t become subcritical,” he warns.

Keeping momentum in the ignition campaign may be crucial, because many in Congress still believe in the energy-research mission being pushed by the lab. Lawmakers have mandated that a new plan for reaching ignition be delivered to them by the end of the month. Politicians are ready to accept that it may take longer than originally stated, but they need to see evidence that it is on course, the congressional staff member says: “It can’t just be an open-ended: ‘Just give us money, we promise we will do good science’.” And if the NIF fails to reach its ignition goal in a few more years? “Then we’ll have to evaluate whether it’s worth continuing to fund the facility.”

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on November 7, 2012.



20 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. jtdwyer 06:39 PM 11/7/12

    The federal government should sue those who sold this expensive goat rodeo to congress for damages, and censure all those in congress who were involved in its approval - at least!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. vapur 06:57 PM 11/7/12

    So much for Nuclear Non-Proliferation; this is direct violation of that treaty. If we can't respect international law, maybe they should back off Iran now. Pssht. Yeah right.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. metamorphmuses 09:01 PM 11/7/12

    Everyone needs a reminder: as long as the science was conducted correctly, experiments are always successful and beneficial, whatever their outcome. No one is saying the science was done badly, only that the results didn't confirm what was hoped for. This is still progress, just not "magic bullet" progress.

    I only hope now that the US might put a little more emphasis on the ITER project so that it might move forward a little faster. All parties involved in ITER need to get past all-too-human bureaucratic nonsense and get moving. Ignition is still a worth pursuit, but the tokamak is a more likely candidate for sustainable fusion in the long run.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. daveschroeder in reply to vapur 10:44 PM 11/7/12

    You are 100% wrong. The US stockpile stewardship programs are explicitly designed to NOT run afoul of nonproliferation treaties. If the nuclear stockpile we have is not a credible deterrent, it's worthless. If you don't think there is a reason for a nuclear detention, then I am truly amazed at the heights to which ignorance reaches.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. jtdwyer in reply to metamorphmuses 10:45 PM 11/7/12

    That's awful magnanimous of you, rationalizing wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer's hard earned tax 'revenue'. I can see how the researchers and perhaps 'basic science' benefited from the negative results, but how did this advance the nation's ability to meet its energy requirements with clean energy? How else did the general public benefit? Was it worth the enormous investment?

    Actually, it appears that this might have been a national nuclear security 'wolf in sheep's clothing' all along...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. daveschroeder in reply to daveschroeder 10:46 PM 11/7/12

    Argh...mobile fat-fingering and autocorrect. That "detention" should be "deterrent", of course.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. daveschroeder in reply to jtdwyer 10:47 PM 11/7/12

    The chief purpose of the National Ignition Facility has always been national security (stockpile stewardship). Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. dwbd 11:02 PM 11/7/12

    What a load of Bull. Like the DOE has spent over $4 billion on this not-even-remotely-close to a viable commercial energy source when they won't spend $10 million on real viable fast-trak fusion projects that are supported by the #1 experts on REAL commercial fusion energy. The World's #1 authority on commercial Fusion power - Robert Bussard - concluded that the best route is polywell IEC fusion. So they get $2m/yr in funding from the US Navy along with a total GAG order forbidding release of all information.

    The DOE won't even spend more than $150M/yr on the international fusion effort - ITER. So there is NOT-A-CHANCE-IN-HELL NIF had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with commercial Fusion Energy. The truth is that the primary goal is to develop pure fusion weapons, by learning how to duplicate fusion ignition with EMP pulses:

    www.tfd.chalmers.se/~valeri/Mars/nukes.html

    www.ieer.org/reports/fusion/fusn-toc.html

    Here is an example of a REAL PRACTICAL Fusion project, funded by Microsoft co-founder, Paul Allen, that doesn't get ONE PENNY of funding from the criminal, Big Oil sycophants namely the federal gov't:

    nextbigfuture.com/2012/10/tri-alpha-energy-nuclear-fusion-100mw.html

    But the federal & state governments can afford to throw away 100's of $billions on nutty renewable energy scams, that will never amount to a hill of beans.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. dwbd 11:05 PM 11/7/12

    Robert Bussard explains the reality of fusion energy:

    ".. We told the DoD from the beginning that the real program would cost about 150-200M..since the DoD has no charter to do such work, the political realities were that a big DoD program would attract the ire and power of the DoE to kill it, it was never funded beyond about 1/8 the level required.

    So we did what we could and finally DID prove the physics and associated engineering physics constraints, scaling laws.. at 1/8-1/10 scale..same 200 M we have quoted to the DoD since the beginning.."

    "..Yes, we would like to build the demo plant, and yes, it will cost about 150 (DD) to 200 M (pB11), and who knows if any investor singly or a group can or will come up with the money. One of the biggest obstacle is the world-wide tokamak lobby, which perpetuates the fraud that Hirsch, Trivelpiece and I foisted on the country in the 1970's when we started the big tokamak ball rolling.

    Magnetic confinement fusion is a misnomer, as magnetic fields can NOT confine a plasma, only constrain its motion towards walls. The entire history of the MagConf program has been to reduce transport to neo-classical (not turbulent or instability-driven) losses. And THEN the machines are all inherently and inevitably huge and cost too much and make too much power to ever be economically useful --- as the utilities have been telling the AEC/DoE for 30 years. No matter, the global tokamak program provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of people in many countries, and is a safe place to put political pork funding, simply because it IS NO THREAT TO OIL - it won't ever work, but it sounds good to the untutored public.. "

    "..As for energy companies "stampeding" to support us - It is clear that a view like this is ignorant of the reality of energy companies. There is only one thing the oil companies want, and that is to sell oil, and more oil. So long as the fields pump, the oil companies will squeeze. They have NO, absolutely NO interest in anything new, ins spite of all their foolish ads in magazines for wind mills and solar-PV roofs. It is all just show and tell. I know these guys, and there is no way they would support anything that might get in the way of oil. The only way to stop oil, from their view, is when it does run out. And then they''ll go for deeper drilling, new fields, Gulf geopressure gas, LNG, etc, etc, and keep raising the price, until finally foolish solar and windmills become competitive.."

    www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/1995-6-6%20Letter%20to%20Congress.pdf

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. CaliforniaHal 02:26 AM 11/8/12

    Meeting the World’s Energy Challenge …
    RF Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion
    There is a solution to the ‘energy need’ for the world and the US without generating green house gases or nuclear fission radioactive problems.
    It is Heavy Ion Fusion (HIF) as developed in the late 1970's at Argonne National Lab under the Department of Defense (DOD).
    You never heard of it, ... right, few people have, ... as HIF was set aside by the US DOD (& DOE) in favor of lasers.
    Fusion was first suggested as a potential power source in the late 1920’s. The first fusion reaction on earth was demonstrated in 1952. Then shown potentially doable in a small size, in 1976-9, at Argonne National Lab and Hughes Lab. Since then it has been endorsed for 36 years by the scientific community "as the conservative way to go" to develop fusion as an energy generation source … but never funded, as it was and is still BIG (expensive, prolific and “benign”). In 1980, the world did not need a BIG new carbon fee source of energy, as it does now. Fusion cannot be done small and be economical.
    The science has been done and it now is an engineering process. Fusion Power Corporation's SPRFD applies known and existing technologies, in unique and innovative ways, to provide the energy necessary for fusion to occur.
    ARPA-E has encouraged FPC to write a full project proposal on ignition simulation for fusion, a $10,000,000 proposal, which FPC has done; FOA 0670-4536.
    FPC’s SPRFD facility can produce per day, 500,000 bls of a carbon neutral synthetic liquid fuel (diesel-kerosene-gasoline), 15+ GW electric, and 2000+ ac/ft of potable water from sea water, all with no GHGs, no highly radioactive waste and no potential for a “run-away” nuclear meltdown, and all located where it is needed. FPC can also be eligible for carbon credits.
    HIF is the ONLY practical answer for non-proliferation of atomic weapons and, may be the real way to world peace … non-aggression for national energy supplies and national security.
    By 2050, fusion will be the source of most of the world’s energy. This is not wishful thinking, it is simply a way of stating that all other forms of energy that are based on the use of finite fossil fuel sources must decline . This decline will provide a major impetus for the rapid increase in the utilization of this new form of energy. Wind, solar, and bio fuels, are only “feel good solutions” of “We are doing something to solve the problem!”, when they have little possibility of generating the 14 TW needed in the next 40 years.
    www.fusionpowercorporation.com

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  11. 11. CaliforniaHal in reply to metamorphmuses 02:32 AM 11/8/12

    Really need to look at single Pass RF Driver as presented at Berkeley's "Accelerators for Heavy Ion Fusion Conference last year. SPRFD was presented by Dr. R J Burke and really makes sense. It is doable with current known technologies ... not more research.
    Have your eyes opened at www.fusionpowercorporation.com

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  12. 12. G. Karst 10:19 AM 11/8/12

    I can't help wondering, where we would all be, had a fraction of these resources been invested into LENR research. No doubt we would understand this phenomenon now, for the benefit of all. Instead we are all left wondering if LENR has any reality at all, even as units are being constructed and demonstrated, without the comfort of scientific grounding. GK

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  13. 13. VelocitySquared 10:38 AM 11/8/12

    ...and queue in all the fusion quacks. I didn't bother reading but I'm betting someone will rant about cold fusion or Paul Allen's pet projects.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  14. 14. dwbd in reply to VelocitySquared 09:24 PM 11/8/12

    There are a lot of fusion quacks, and a whole lot more of renewable energy quacks, and even more them that medical treatment quacks. However, if you bothered to do any reading on Tri-Alpha Energy, and you admit you haven't, you would know Paul Allen's is not one of them. In the real world an intelligent person, can separate the wheat from the chaff, but you admit to be incapable of doing that, so I hate to think what medical treatment you endear, given that for every rational science based treatment, there are probably a hundred quack treatments.

    Unfortunately, by far and away the highest level of quackery is in Wind & Solar energy, and other renewable fantasies, that unlike fusion, get over a $trillion in funding already although they haven't done zip, not even reduced emissions, some would argue have increased emissions. A total waste of money with no realistic future - not that is QUACKERY SUPREME.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  15. 15. CaliforniaHal in reply to dwbd 10:54 PM 11/8/12

    Tri Alpha is a good medical isotope project but not an energy production (like electricity) facility. For an energy production form of Fusion learn more at www.fusionpowercorporation.com site. Few people have ever heard of RF Accelerator Driven Fusion. It was shown doable in the late '70's by research that was done at Argonne National Lab.!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  16. 16. CaliforniaHal in reply to dwbd 10:54 PM 11/8/12

    Tri Alpha is a good medical isotope project but not an energy production (like electricity) facility. For an energy production form of Fusion learn more at www.fusionpowercorporation.com site. Few people have ever heard of RF Accelerator Driven Fusion. It was shown doable in the late '70's by research that was done at Argonne National Lab.!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  17. 17. dwbd in reply to CaliforniaHal 11:54 PM 11/8/12

    Bull, you don't know ZIP about Tri-Alpha Energy and I checked out your link and just a bunch of hype about Fusion and ZIP for any tech info on their project. I ain't gonna bloody register for junk mail just so I can read tech data on a fusion method. Get some results first, do the long hard work and save the hype, propaganda & bull. I'm suspicious that a large portion of these Rossi style Fusion SCAMs are being promoted by Big Oil which just loves Bait-and-Switch SCAMs like Wind & Solar, Carbon Capture, Agro-fuels and Hydrogen economy as a brilliant and extraordinarily successful strategy to divert precious capital, resources, talent, media and political effort away from PRACTICAL, REALISTIC Energy Solutions. So far your RF Accelerator special is looking pretty much like it fits very well in Big Oil's disinformation program.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  18. 18. metamorphmuses 10:48 PM 11/9/12

    It's sad - all the comments seething to assign blame and to disparage others when there is really only thing that matters: the achievement of sustainable fusion by any and all feasible means. This objective is so important, and would impart such a colossal boon to humankind, that we must all tolerate as many honest and well-conducted missteps as have and will come and *still* keep on funding it until it comes to be.

    I will not condemn any approach unless the scientific community as a whole views it to be specious. If any approach is deemed to have merit - even if there is some disagreement and discussion about it - let it have its chance. Thinking out of the box (but within the laws of physics as we know them) should be encouraged and supported. Like anyone, I have my bets on certain horses, but I want to see a well-populated race.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  19. 19. rbrtwjohnson 11:35 AM 11/21/12

    It is a lame research weapon instead of fusion power to supply mankind energy needs.
    There is still a hope, aneutronic fusion can be the ultimate endless source of clean and safe energy. http://youtu.be/ro5-QYqqxzM

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  20. 20. CaliforniaHal in reply to rbrtwjohnson 08:13 PM 11/21/12

    Look at You Tube "StarPower for Tomorrow" and Google Tech Talk "Heavy Ion Fusion".

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

World's Most Powerful Laser Facility Shifts Focus to Warheads

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X