When Peer Review Fails NIF Debacle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around criticisms of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) as outlined in the report "When Peer Review Fails: The Roots of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) Debacle" by C.E. Paine, M. McKinzie, and T.B. Cochran. Participants explore issues related to cost overruns, energy output, and technical challenges, particularly regarding the first wall problem in the context of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) research and its implications for nuclear weapons.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concerns about the significant cost escalation of the NIF project from an initial estimate of $400M to $4B.
  • There are claims regarding the beam energy derating to 0.6MJ, with references to the Halite-Centurion weapons experiments suggesting that 20MJ may be necessary for ignition.
  • One participant raises a question about the handling of the first wall problem, noting that a pulsed design like NIF must manage significantly higher energy levels compared to steady-state designs.
  • Another participant argues that the criticisms from the NRDC are biased and points to accomplishments at NIF, including the demonstration of a single beam producing 10.4 kJ of ultraviolet light.
  • There is a discussion about the intended purpose of NIF, with some asserting that it is primarily for weapons research rather than energy production.
  • Concerns are raised about management issues contributing to cost overruns rather than technical failures, citing a report from the American Institute of Physics.
  • One participant mentions that LLNL has addressed the first wall problem and envisions using a molten salt shower in future designs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the criticisms of the NIF project, with some defending the facility's progress and others highlighting significant concerns. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the validity of the criticisms or the responses provided.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the initial cost estimates may have been based on incomplete technical definitions and that management deficiencies have been identified as a contributing factor to cost overruns. The discussion reflects ongoing debates about the NIF's role in both energy research and nuclear weapons programs.

  • #31
Update: NIF dedication ceremonies were this weekend, it was quite the party with a wide array of government dignitaries in attendance. It's huge, it's real, and it works.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1697260/super_laser_as_hot_as_a_star_unveiled/index.html?source=r_technology
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
JeffKoch said:
Update: NIF dedication ceremonies were this weekend, it was quite the party with a wide array of government dignitaries in attendance. It's huge, it's real, and it works.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1697260/super_laser_as_hot_as_a_star_unveiled/index.html?source=r_technology
Well congratulations to all concerned on some substantial optical engineering. But 'it works'? The National Ignition Facility, works?

...NIF director Edward Moses said that a fusion reactions triggered by the super laser hitting hydrogen atoms will produce more energy than was required to prompt "ignition."
Not he hopes it will, or it might, it simply 'will'? What's published on this? I thought the Centurion Halite experiments indicated 20MJ were needed for ignition? Here we have something https://newsline.llnl.gov/_rev02/articles/2009/mar/03.13.09-nif.php" delivered to the target (still amazing), but is it known that this is enough for ignition?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33


mheslep said:
I thought the Centurion Halite experiments indicated 20MJ were needed for ignition? Here we have something https://newsline.llnl.gov/_rev02/articles/2009/mar/03.13.09-nif.php" delivered to the target (still amazing), but is it known that this is enough for ignition?

We don't know. This is cutting-edge physics research, we try to extrapolate from what we think we know based on past experiments (Nova, Omega, Centurion/Halite (all results are classified so take open literature commentary with many grains of salt)), but there's a non-zero chance that we've made a mistake. If we find that we've made a mistake, we'll work out how to fix it. Nothing is certain in this business, the same is true in any large experimental facility - we build bigger facilities in order to learn more, and that learning curve isn't always predictable in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator: