Feasibility of pulsed fusion reactor

In summary, these companies propose to generate power using "clean" proton-boron fusion in a pulsed reactor. To get any net energy out of the reactor, you have to heat the reactants to 120 keV and hold them at that temperature for 103 trillion years. Compared to deuterium-tritium fusion, this technology is very inefficient.
  • #1
caliente
2
0
I recently came upon a reference to http://www.focusfusion.org, which led me to discover http://www.prometheus2.net and http://www.electronpowersystems.com. What these companies have in common is they propose to generate power using "clean" proton-boron fusion in a pulsed reactor. By pulsed, I mean they would heat the fuel essentially from zero to a sufficient high temperature for fusion, extract power and repeat the cycle one to 1000 times per second. Another thing they all have in common is that they're soliciting funds from the public to develop their technology.

In trying to decide whether these guys were quacks, I started think about whether it would be possible in a pulsed proton-boron reactor to get more energy out than you put into heat the reactants. I notice these companies have been discussed here before, and since I'm an EE by training, not a physicist, I thought I would post my thoughts to get some feedback.

It seems a critical parameter is the fraction of fuel ions you can get to react in each cycle. If none react, all the energy you put into heat the fuel is wasted. If all of them react, you have saved the world. Somewhere in between is a break even point.

Let's suppose that the fraction of fuel ions that react is f. For proton-boron fusion, you have to heat the fuel to approximately 1E9 Kelvin, or 120 keV in order for fusion to occur (all parameters taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) . Its my understanding that a temperature of 120 keV means the average energy of the ions is 120 keV, and I'm assuming that means you have to add 120 keV of energy per ion in order to achieve that temperature.

Let's generously suppose you can recover 50% of the heat energy you put in. In addition, for each ion that reacts, you get 8.7/2 MeV out (8.7 MeV per 2 ions, one hydrogen ion and one boron ion).

Therefore, the total energy input is
Ein = 120 kEv per ion
and the total energy out is
Eout = Ein/2 + f * 8.7/2 MeV per ion

At breakeven Ein = Eout, or
f * 4.25 MeV = 60 keV
f = 1.4%

As I understand it, f is related to temperature, density, time and the reaction "cross section". Again from wikipedia, the reaction rate r = n1 * n2 * <ov> where n1 and n2 are the reactant densities and <ov> is an average of the ion velocities over the reaction cross section. At 120 keV, <ov> for proton-boron fusion is 3E-27 * 120^2 = 43E-24 m^3/s.

The fraction of fuel burned f = t * r / (n1 * n2) or simply t * <ov>. In order to burn 1.4% of the ions, you would have to sustain the reaction for
t = 1.4% / 43E-24 = 3.3E20 s ~= 103 trillion years.

Basically, what this computation says is that in order to get any net energy out of a proton-boron reactor, you have to heat the reactants to 120 keV and hold them at that temperature for 103 trillion years.

In comparison, the computations for deuterium-tritium are:
Ein = 13.6 keV per ion
Eout = Ein/2 + f * (3.5 + 14.1)/2 MeV per ion
f = 0.077 %
<ov> = 1.24E-24 * 13.6^2 = 23E-23 m^3/s
t = 0.077 / 23E-23 = 3.3E19 = 10 trillion years.

In other words, in order to get any net energy out of a D-T reactor, you have to heat the reactants to 13.6 keV and hold them at that temperature for 10 trillion years.

Based on that result, I'm guessing this computation is not correct. Can anyone show what the correct result would be?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
I see one mistake in the calculations above.

The number of reactions you would get is
# reactions = rate * vol * t = <ov> * n1 * n2 * vol * t

The total ions in the fuel is
total ions = (n1 + n2) * vol

Therefore, the fraction burned is
f = # reactions / total ions = <ov> * n1 * n2 * t / (n1 + n2)

In other words, the fraction burned depends on the ion densities.

If we assume n1 = n2, and generously allow for a cycle time of one second, we can solve for the density needed to achieve energy break even.

n*n/2n = f / (<ov> * t)

n = 2 * f / (<ov> * t)

In order to burn 1.4% of the proton-boron fuel in 1 sec, the density would have to be
n = 2 * 1.4% / (43E-24 m^3/s * 1 s) = 65E19 ions / m^3

In order to burn 0.077 % of the D-T fuel in 1 sec, the density would have to be
n = 2 * 0.077% / (23E-23 m^3/s * 1 s) = 67E17 ions / m^3

For comparison, a standard atmosphere has about 27E22 molecules / m^3, and the highest plasma density achieved to date appears to be on the order of 1E20. Therefore, a pulsed reactor with either a P-B or a D-T fuel would appear to be feasible in theory.

Do these calculations look correct?
 
  • #3
caliente said:
I recently came upon a reference to http://www.focusfusion.org, which led me to discover http://www.prometheus2.net and http://www.electronpowersystems.com. What these companies have in common is they propose to generate power using "clean" proton-boron fusion in a pulsed reactor. By pulsed, I mean they would heat the fuel essentially from zero to a sufficient high temperature for fusion, extract power and repeat the cycle one to 1000 times per second. Another thing they all have in common is that they're soliciting funds from the public to develop their technology.
In trying to decide whether these guys were quacks, I started think about whether it would be possible in a pulsed proton-boron reactor to get more energy out than you put into heat the reactants. I notice these companies have been discussed here before, and since I'm an EE by training, not a physicist, I thought I would post my thoughts to get some feedback.
It seems a critical parameter is the fraction of fuel ions you can get to react in each cycle. If none react, all the energy you put into heat the fuel is wasted. If all of them react, you have saved the world. Somewhere in between is a break even point.
Let's suppose that the fraction of fuel ions that react is f. For proton-boron fusion, you have to heat the fuel to approximately 1E9 Kelvin, or 120 keV in order for fusion to occur (all parameters taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) . Its my understanding that a temperature of 120 keV means the average energy of the ions is 120 keV, and I'm assuming that means you have to add 120 keV of energy per ion in order to achieve that temperature.
Let's generously suppose you can recover 50% of the heat energy you put in. In addition, for each ion that reacts, you get 8.7/2 MeV out (8.7 MeV per 2 ions, one hydrogen ion and one boron ion).
Therefore, the total energy input is
Ein = 120 kEv per ion
and the total energy out is
Eout = Ein/2 + f * 8.7/2 MeV per ion
At breakeven Ein = Eout, or
f * 4.25 MeV = 60 keV
f = 1.4%
As I understand it, f is related to temperature, density, time and the reaction "cross section". Again from wikipedia, the reaction rate r = n1 * n2 * <ov> where n1 and n2 are the reactant densities and <ov> is an average of the ion velocities over the reaction cross section. At 120 keV, <ov> for proton-boron fusion is 3E-27 * 120^2 = 43E-24 m^3/s.
The fraction of fuel burned f = t * r / (n1 * n2) or simply t * <ov>. In order to burn 1.4% of the ions, you would have to sustain the reaction for
t = 1.4% / 43E-24 = 3.3E20 s ~= 103 trillion years.
Basically, what this computation says is that in order to get any net energy out of a proton-boron reactor, you have to heat the reactants to 120 keV and hold them at that temperature for 103 trillion years.
In comparison, the computations for deuterium-tritium are:
Ein = 13.6 keV per ion
Eout = Ein/2 + f * (3.5 + 14.1)/2 MeV per ion
f = 0.077 %
<ov> = 1.24E-24 * 13.6^2 = 23E-23 m^3/s
t = 0.077 / 23E-23 = 3.3E19 = 10 trillion years.
In other words, in order to get any net energy out of a D-T reactor, you have to heat the reactants to 13.6 keV and hold them at that temperature for 10 trillion years.
Based on that result, I'm guessing this computation is not correct. Can anyone show what the correct result would be?
Thanks!
You are correct that the calculations are not quite correct - the times of trillions of years are not correct. I'll have to get back later with regard to the details.

The FocusFusion concept has problems, which we have addressed elsewhere in this forum. The other design by electronpowersystems also has technical problems, but I just haven't found the time to delve into their claims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is a pulsed fusion reactor?

A pulsed fusion reactor is a type of nuclear fusion reactor that produces energy through the fusion of light atomic nuclei, typically deuterium and tritium, in short bursts or pulses. Unlike other types of nuclear reactors, which operate continuously, pulsed fusion reactors only produce energy in short bursts, making them more suitable for experimental purposes.

2. How does a pulsed fusion reactor work?

A pulsed fusion reactor works by using powerful magnetic fields to confine and compress a mixture of deuterium and tritium gas within a vacuum chamber. This compression causes the gas to reach extremely high temperatures and pressures, allowing the nuclei to overcome their natural repulsion and fuse together, releasing large amounts of energy in the process.

3. What are the potential benefits of pulsed fusion reactors?

Pulsed fusion reactors have the potential to provide a nearly limitless source of clean, renewable energy. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, they produce minimal nuclear waste and do not emit greenhouse gases, making them a more environmentally friendly option. They also have the potential to be much safer than traditional reactors, as any malfunction would only occur during short pulses rather than continuously.

4. What are the challenges in developing a feasible pulsed fusion reactor?

One of the biggest challenges in developing a feasible pulsed fusion reactor is achieving the necessary temperatures and pressures for sustained fusion reactions. This requires advanced and expensive technology, as well as precise control and maintenance of the fusion process. Additionally, the materials used in the reactor must be able to withstand the extreme conditions without degrading over time.

5. Is a pulsed fusion reactor a realistic solution to our energy needs?

While pulsed fusion reactors hold great promise for producing clean and abundant energy, there are still many technical and economic challenges that need to be overcome before they can become a viable solution. However, with ongoing research and advancements in technology, it is possible that pulsed fusion reactors could play a significant role in meeting our energy needs in the future.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
53
Views
9K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Back
Top