Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

When Peer Review Fails NIF Debacle

  1. Aug 22, 2007 #1

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "When Peer Review Fails" NIF Debacle

    Anyone have or seen comments on

    C.E. Paine, M. McKinzie, T.B. Cochran, "When Peer Review Fails
    The Roots of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) Debacle", 2000
    http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif2/nif2inx.asp

    Some primary criticisms:
    -Cost escallation from $400M to $4B
    -Beam energy derating down now to 0.6MJ, while the Halite-Centurion weapons experiments showed perhaps 20MJ is needed for ignition.

    I'm unable to find any direct answers for the criticisms on the NIF site. I'll add one of my own: I dont see any handling of the 1st wall problem, which for a pulsed concept like NIF, must handle 10^8 more energy than a steady state design while protecting the beam entry points.

    mheslep
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 22, 2007 #2
    I thought the Spallation Neutron Source in Oak Ridge was to be used for research into "first wall" materials?

    Besides, I think NIF is supposed to be for weapons research, not energy production, although that is a nice addition to getting it to work.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2007
  4. Aug 23, 2007 #3

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    mheslep,

    The fact that the report is from the NRDC - National Resources Defense Council - should tell it
    all for you - the report is a bunch of CRAP!!!!

    Christopher Paine and the NRDC have been against NIF from day 1.

    Progress at NIF has been proceeding apace - with MAJOR accomplishments in 2007:

    http://www.llnl.gov/nif/project/news_NIF_leapsforward.html

    As far as the power of the laser, NIF has already demonstrated that a single beam can develop
    10.4 kJ of ultraviolet light [ the Nd-Glass laser actually produces near infrared which is then frequency
    tripled to ultraviolet by KDP crystals ]:

    http://www.llnl.gov/nif/project/news_nel1.html#doe

    When all 192 independent beams are online - each producing 10.4 kJ - the entire laser will have
    an output of 2 MJ which EXCEEDS the design target energy for NIF. I don't know WHERE
    Paine came up with the idea that NIF had been "derated".

    NIF was designed WITH the full results of experiments done on Nova, Omega, and the
    Centurion-Halite program in mind.

    http://www.llnl.gov/etr/pdfs/12_94.1.pdf

    As the report states, the NIF concept was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences,
    and DOE's own prestigious review group, the JASONS.

    I don't know where Paine got his cost escalation number from; but NIF was NEVER projected to
    cost only $400M. NIF's predecessor, the 10-beam Nova laser; cost more than that!! Only an
    IDIOT would project that the much more ambitious 192-beam NIF would cost only $400M.

    Recommendation #1 by this NRDC paper from 2000 states that NIF should be deferred until LLNL
    built and operated a single beamline for NIF. That is EXACTLY what LLNL did and completed in 1994.
    The laser was known as "Beamlet" and there is a picture of Beamlet
    in the following article:

    http://www.llnl.gov/str/Powell.html

    NIF consists of 192 lasers of the Beamlet design. If one is going to make 192 identical
    copies of the Bemlet for NIF; I don't see the merit in the NRDC recommendation that
    LLNL should first build an 8-beam laser, then a 48-beam laser.... The ONLY reason
    I can see to do that is to draw out and delay the program and run up the costs. That
    of course is EXACTLY what NRDC would like to see happen - because it would give
    impetus for Congress to kill the program; which is the result NRDC hopes to achieve.

    NIF did have cost overruns - due to bad management, NOT technical problems. From the
    American Institute of Physics:

    http://www.aip.org/fyi/2000/fyi00.006.htm

    "The University of California President's Council National Ignition Facility Review Committee was
    chaired by Steve Koonin, vice president and provost of the California Institute of Technology. The
    committee's report (November 1999; 13 pages; can be accessed at
    http://labs.ucop.edu/nr/nr112399.html/) found that "management deficiencies, rather than technical
    problems, are the root cause of the cost and schedule overruns." The committee finds that Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory, the University of California, and DOE all share the blame for poor
    management of the project. The report identifies a series of management failings, including insufficient
    technical definition and implementation plan; lack of effective system engineering and integration;
    inadequate mechanisms to measure progress; lack of management attention at senior levels; a
    do-it-yourself mentality that discouraged outside expertise; insufficient communication mechanisms;
    and an ineffective review process.

    The committee described three "contributing factors" to the overruns. First, the contingency funding of
    15 percent was too low for a project of this size and complexity (the committee recommends about 30
    percent). Secondly, the baseline cost and schedule were established too early, before the technical
    definition and implementation plan were complete. Finally, some project activities suffered shortfalls in
    funding. The report estimates a 12-18 month delay in design of some of the laser equipment, additional
    delay in design of the laser and target system infrastructure, and corresponding cost growth on the order
    of 30 percent of the total estimated cost (or about $400 million). Construction of the conventional facility
    is about 70 percent complete and remains on schedule."

    Perhaps THAT'S where Paine got his $400M number. The $400M is NOT the total cost of the
    facility - it is an overrun of 30% on the $1.2B due to the factors listed in the second paragraph above.
    As noted above, the $1.2B baseline cost was an underestimate. Congress and DOE wanted a
    baseline cost from LLNL BEFORE the full technical design and implementation plan was complete.

    As is pointed out above - much of the overrun was due to shortfalls in funding. When Congress cuts
    the budget for the project - then NIF can't buy materials that are needed in a timely manner. Then
    when those materials are ultimately purchased - the cost has gone up.

    LLNL addressed the first wall problem LONG ago. In a commercial reactor, LLNL envisions that the
    target could be surrounded by a "shower" of a molten salt of lithium, beryllium, and flourine. See the
    HYLIFE-II on the last page of:

    http://www.llnl.gov/nif/library/ife.pdf

    In fact, one of the missions of NIF is to do tests to determine the performance of SEVERAL first wall
    designs. First wall design has NOT been ignored - see page 6 and Figure 7:

    www.llnl.gov/nif/icf/icfpubs/qrtly_reports/jan-mar95/Logan.pdf

    Once again, we have another thoroughly DISCREDITED report from NRDC. In my opinion, I would think
    they should give up - they already have ZERO credibility in the nuclear field. I guess they want to explore
    the realm of NEGATIVE numbers.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  5. Aug 23, 2007 #4

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Candyman,

    EXACTLY!!!! Although NIF has applications as a tool for ICF research - the PRIMARY mission for
    NIF is part of the DOE's nuclear weapons program; Stockpile Stewardship.

    That's why NRDC has nothing but BAD to say about NIF - they have been rabidly opposed to
    the DOE nuclear weapons program.

    Christopher Paine betrays his bias in his personal addendum to the report. He states that the
    ICF program will only result in a proliferation of personnell trained in thermonuclear weapons
    technology. The USA has always had a cadre of scientists trained in thermonuclear weapons
    technology based at the two nuclear design labs, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.
    These scientists are bound by the USA's classification laws and procedures, and are not
    allowed to disseminate nuclear weapons technology and information. When NIF is complete,
    these scientists will operate just as they have done for decades; but instead of blowing holes
    in the Nevada desert - their experiments will be done on NIF. The argument that NIF will
    somehow increase the dissemination of thermonuclear weapons technology is unsubstantiated.

    The main drive behind NIF was by the Clinton Administration's desire not to have to resume nuclear
    testing. President Clinton wanted to have the CTBT - Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - yet
    President Clinton ackowledged that the US was going to maintain possession of nuclear weapons
    for the indefinite future:

    "As part of our national security strategy; the United States must and will retain strategic nuclear
    forces sufficient to deter any future hostile foreign leadership with access to strategic nuclear forces
    from acting against our vital interests and to convince it that seeking a nuclear advantage would be
    futile. In this regard I consider the maintenance of a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile to be a
    supreme national interest of the United States.

    --President Wllliam J. Clinton
    August 11, 1995

    NIF is about the only device capable of doing experiments in the thermonuclear regime that had
    heretofore only been accessible via underground nuclear testing. Since the weapons laboratories
    needed to have access to that physical regime for the management and stewardship of the nation's
    nuclear detterent; NIF was the only technology that could obviate the need for underground nuclear
    testing.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  6. Aug 23, 2007 #5

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Fair enough, but then it should not be named the National IGNITION Facility implying the opposite.
     
  7. Aug 23, 2007 #6

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That may be; I note that the NRDF report references itself frequently in the43 footnotes. However, many of the other references certainly are not 'crap' sources (Science, DOE reports, etc), and positing a press release from the owners of the $4B budget in response doesn't go far toward refuting the 'crap'. How about a GAO review, or some other peer reviewed work?

    Can you comment then on the assertion, based on the Centurion-Halite experiments, that 20MJ are required for ignition and therefore even with complete NIF design goal success it would not come close to ignition?
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  8. Aug 23, 2007 #7

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Morbius -

    Yes I see some nice graphics but no calculations, no numbers. Specifically with current wall materials what scale of power does NIF predict? No doubt a low megawatt reactor can be built, but 1GW? How does one protect the laser or ion apertures in the reaction chamber? A liquid Flibe bath must be behind the first wall (?) which would do well at handling the averaged energy flux just as is planned for ITER, but the peak energy is the problem here (10^8 x greater than average) and wall would ablate away with every shot.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  9. Aug 23, 2007 #8

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Apparently the assertion comes from this '99 NIF report (reference [6] by Paine et al):
    NIF Technology Review
    that states in several places that as of '99 the optics could only only tolerate 3j/cm^2 though they hoped for 8 J/cm^2; 3 J/cm^2 * NIF beam size=pi*20cm^2 = 3.8kJ per beam; with 192 beams ~ 0.7MJ. Your links indicate the optics limits have been much improved recently.

    mheslep
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  10. Aug 23, 2007 #9

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    mheslep,

    It wasn't LLNL's idea to call it that, anyway.

    Congress MANDATED it - because it is supposed to achieve IGNITION.

    Besides, calling it IGNITION does NOT imply the opposite - i.e. does NOT
    imply that the facility is NOT a part of the weapons program.

    The word IGNITION means that the fusion reaction is self-sustaining. What you want
    to do with that self-sustaining fusion reaction is a totally different matter.

    However, Congress was told that NIF would achieve thermonuclear ignition, and
    Congress demanded that the facility have a name with the word "ignition" in it.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  11. Aug 23, 2007 #10

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    mheslep,

    No the liquid Fibre is NOT behind the first wall - it IS the first wall.

    In the HYLIFE-II concept, the liquid Fibre is not a bath but a shower.

    The liquid is pouring out of the shower head in a whole forest of spray; like a shower head
    set to a series of "needle sprays" - but with the needles VERY CLOSE together.

    The laser beams actually shoot in extremely narrow angles between the needle sprays.

    The laser window ports don't "see" enough of the exploding fusion pellet to get damaged.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  12. Aug 23, 2007 #11

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes well since:
    then its no surprise that
    You said up thread, in all caps:
    Ignition, which LLNL told Congress it would do, as I said implies the PRIMARY mission is energy development and that weapons research is not PRIMARY.
     
  13. Aug 23, 2007 #12

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    mheslep,

    I think you and others are misreading what is meant here. It's NOT that the '99 optics could not tolerate
    8 J/cm^2 at all; but how much deterioration the optics would see; and what the frequency of replacement
    would be. That's basically an operational issue for NIF.

    The implication of the NRDC article was that the optics could only handle 3 J/cm^2; therefore the
    system couldn't achieve its objective which required 8 J/cm^2 That was NEVER the issue.

    The question is how many shots at 8 J/cm^2 could the system withstand before some of the optics
    needed to be replaced. The '99 optics could only withstand fluences of 3 J/cm^2 without degradtion;
    i.e. they would not be sacrificial components.

    If one had to live with the same materials available in '99; then parts of the system would be
    sacrificial.

    However, as the Technology Review article stated; there wasn't really a question of whether the
    damage thresholds could be increased; but whether the project would get the funds and time to do the
    necessary research. They stated that in any project of the size and scale of NIF, there would always
    be technology development in the process of building the facility - it really isn't practical to do all
    the technology develpment up-front.

    Again, much of the program was really pushed forward by the desire of the then Clinton Administration
    to have the Stockpile Stewardship program up and running, including an experimental facility
    capable of reaching the thermonuclear regime; in time to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    Much of the problem here with damage thresholds had to do with "cleanliness". The question was how
    to get the NIF laser bay clean and dust free. After all, prior to the installation of the lasers; the laser
    bay would be a construction site. The laser bay was going to have dust and dirt in it as one would
    find in any industrial setting or any construction site of a commercial building.

    It's the dust in the air, when it alights on optics and gets blasted by the lasers, that absorbs energy
    which is deposited in the optics on which the dust sits. There was a big question as to how the
    laser bay was going to be cleaned and how successful that cleaning would be. Like any research
    project; those problems were worked and solved.

    The laser bays have been cleaned. The optics is assembled in a clean room, and sealed in what are
    called LRU's - Line Replaceable Units. These are big "cells" that are transported by special robots
    from the clean room assembly area to the laser bays [ see 3rd picture in 3rd row shows 2 of the
    3 robots]:

    http://www.llnl.gov/nif/project/lib_highlights.html

    As reported in the update I cited; the optics technology development problems have been resolved
    and that the NIF beamlines are performing at levels exceeding design specification.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  14. Aug 23, 2007 #13

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    mheslep,

    NO - that doesn't follow AT ALL!!!

    Congress was told that NIF would achieve ignition.

    Congress was also told that the PRIMARY mission for NIF was the Stockpile Stewardship program.
    In fact, NIF was funded under the "umbrella" of the Stockpile Stewardship program, of which it is a major part.

    Whether the system achieves ignition or not is a technical goal - do you get more energy out of the
    system than you put into the system. Another way of looking at this question is to realize that it
    is the same as asking "How much energy do you get out of the system?"

    If you put "Y" Joules into the system, and get out "X" Joules, and X < Y; then you didn't ignite and
    X is lower than Y.

    However, if you get "Z" Joules out because you achieved ignition i.e Z > Y; then because of the
    higher output "Z" - you can "visit" more space in the thermonuclear regime.

    So whether or not NIF achieved ignition is another way of saying how useful it will be for visiting
    regions of the thermonuclear regime that physicists would like to "visit" to do experiments.

    Whether those experiments are in support of an energy program or a nuclear weapons program is
    a totally different consideration than the physics goal of reaching ignition. BOTH applications would
    be enhanced if the laser achieves ignition.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  15. Aug 23, 2007 #14

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Interesting challenge. Fine control of molten spray in a vacuum. I imagine the pellet injection in such a bath is complicated too, but I suppose not overly. With regards to the laser windows, hmm. We're looking at an output of 20 to 40 MJ per shot? Assuming the energy release is ~ isotropic, and that the wall and windows might be, say, 1M away from the target then the wall flux is 100 to 300joules per cm^2 per shot, though still at a rate of 10 to 30 GW. I suppose steel, etc could handle that for a while but exposed thin film coated optics? With the radiation mostly as high MeV neutrons? No way to mechanically shutter in 10ns time frames.

    EDIT: after more review of the beam path it appears that a) the optics are more like 2 to 3 meters away but b) the wedge lens exposure is also quite large - more like 10's to 100's of cm^2, the debris shield not withstanding.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  16. Aug 23, 2007 #15

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Cool, looks like a wafer fab clean room. Also, the growth of the large crystals is impressive.
     
  17. Aug 23, 2007 #16

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    mheslep,

    The optics are about 5 meters away from the target.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  18. Aug 23, 2007 #17

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    mheslep,

    Why would you think there is a problem with control of the spray in a vacuum.
    Quite the opposite - there's nothing to perturb the spray - it just falls in laminar flow.
    There's no turbulence to disrupt the flow - no entrainment of gas....

    The pellet injection is simple too. The pellet injector is in the center of the "shower head"

    You can devote as much area to the injector as you want. That is you put the injector at
    the center of the shower head, and the first ring of molten salt nozzles can be at any radius
    from the center that you desire.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  19. Aug 24, 2007 #18

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    mheslep,

    Yes - cleanliness is one of the major factors in terms of damage.

    Any little bits of dust and dirt that alight on the optics will absorb laser energy
    and explode; which can damage the optics.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  20. Aug 24, 2007 #19

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The nozzle exhaust of a rocket launch is a good example. Near sea level the exhaust trails vertically in column under the rocket, but at high altitude (low pressure) the exhaust column expands outward in all directions. Also, I would expect the spray to have some surface vaporization and out gassing, expanding into the path of the beam. Then, the spray must impact on some surface (1st wall?) from which it must back splash, mixing with the exploded pellet and housing debris. None of this must be allowed to enter the beam path and must all be completely evacuated prior to the next shot.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2007
  21. Aug 24, 2007 #20

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ok, how does one protect large optics ( the wedge lens) 5M away from a small thermo nuclear explosion?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: When Peer Review Fails NIF Debacle
Loading...