The problem with nuclear fusion power concepts such as Tokamaks which rely on electomagnetic confinement of the nuclear plasma is that the perfection of the technology is always 50 years into the future and it uses more energy than it produces.
A PACER power plant which stands for Peaceful Atomic Confined Explosion Reactor is the only way we can harness the power of nuclear fusion using today's technology. Like the Orion atomic rocket a Pacer power plant uses the energy derived from underground explosions of hydrogen bombs in order to superheat water to power steam generators.
The biggest environmental objection to a conventional fission power plant is that radiation is produced and nuclear waste is generated. Of course technology exists to contain radiation and to reprocess waste however with a nuclear fusion power plant there is much less radiation and waste so the problems are much more managable.
I would like to say that if a Helium 3 atomic bomb could be invented as a pure fusion device that is laser ignited there would be no radiation produced which would make this type of power the cleanest and greenest power on the planet. So why has not a Helium 3 atomic bomb been invented?. Because there are no military applications for this technology. For one it is 100 times more difficult to achieve ignition with Helium 3 as it is with Hydrogen, second the explosive power of Helium 3 is only a tenth of hydrogen and three removing radiation from an atomic bomb makes it less deadly therefore serving no military purpose. However radiation free Helium 3 atomic bombs are indespensible for its use for peaceful atomic explosions therefore research of this technology should not be delayed.
However one minor stumbling block is that Helium 3 is only available on the Moon. However with the Orion atomic rocket we have the technology to boost millions of tons of payload to Earth orbit and land thousands of tons of mining equipment on the Moon. However the major objection of Orion was radioactive fallout that resulted in a death toll of up ten shortened lives for each launch. However this calculation was based on using fission bombs. If fusion bombs were used the radiation would be negligible and if pure fusion Helium 3 bombs were used to propel Orion the radioactive fallout would be zero.
So you're saying that PACER would need lunar He3 to operate on earth.
Can you point to a link on literature a paper or abstract on PACER. Are you describing a single explosion? 'cause that would be an energy bottleneck that's hard to contain. You must be thinking controlled micro explosions the only regime successful @ that are stellar systems maybe laser hotpoint system but that's wasteful energy usage.
irridiating boron-7 with fast neutrons in the core of a fast spectrum reactor creates tritium which decays into He3 with a half-life of 12.3 years.
A 'He-3' bomb would have to be triggered the same way a conventional thermonuclear device is triggered: it uses a fission primary to provide heat and compression to a fusion secondary. As such, there will still be plenty of radionucleide products.
He-3 is not used as a fuel for nuclear weapons because it is a net sink for neutrons and not a source. As such, it reduces the total energy output of the weapon by soaking up neutrons that would otherwise be causing fissions which would be providing energy for compression--less compression, means less yield.
-- Edited by GoogleNaut on Sunday 5th of December 2010 02:27:29 AM
-- Edited by GoogleNaut on Sunday 5th of December 2010 02:28:23 AM
PACER power plants were conceptualized in the 1970's. They operate underground in caves and are contained in the same way that underground tests of nuclear weapons are contained. But yes I suppose if one tried to build a man made structure to contain a nuclear explosion that would present a problem because the building may have to be a mile high and 2 miles wide.
Helium 3 is not needed for a Pacer power plant but would be required for an Orion atomic rocket launch if zero radiation is insisted on. Remember the original environmental impact report for project Orion was based on fission weapons. Pure fussion bombs were proposed for Orion but the idea scared Ted Taylor because of the dangers of nuclear proliferation. However it was later realized that a pure fusion bomb would require a billion dollar super laser in order to achieve ignition so I doubt if these devices would be a proliferation threat since most terrorists want to build cheap and dirty bombs.
Read some of the PACER in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist. Ok, PACER is a PNE type project sound intriguing enough. Personally, the idea has merit. But fission/fusion pulse device technology for electrical energy has not been adequately studied for years. There is still more work in plasma containment in underground or in-space PNE use. Funds are available for ITER TOKAMAK not for research in fusion pulse production. The issues are the typical non-fission fusion pulse implosion electromag or inertial confined production, post confinement of fusion plasma etc.. Frankly, a lot depends on political will to see an Int'l effort in research in PNE pulse device use. I do understand an underground water jacket reactor facility concept. And no, there are no issues that some 'daffy' terrorist would ever have access. I know this type of science has moved to computer modeling but at some point a scaled project would need to be built and tested. I tend to think the Russians might be more receptive to this science than the west. Maybe if the Yanks continue to drag feet on START treaty they may get cross and begin a PACER project and push for a return to the Partial Test Ban Treaty allowing nuke explosions for purposes of PNE experiment/use. Of course the best course of action would be that all parties agree to a lift ban on nuke explosions for PNE's.
-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Monday 6th of December 2010 05:05:53 AM
The reason why the environmentalists do not want to allow an exception to the test ban treaty is because they are hoping that our aging stockpiles of nuclear weapons become duds so they are afraid that the information gained from a peaceful atomic explosion will be used to increase the realiability of our existing weapons stockpile.
However a pure fusion Pacer reactor operating on Helium 3 fuel and ignited by a super laser would be worthless as a tool for weapons research because no one is going to use a 4 billion dollar laser to ignite a weapon.
Today the National Ignition Facility in California uses micro explosions in its fusion reactor however in order to gain energy the explosions would have to occur 5 times a second. But the plant was only designed for one explosion every 5 seconds. So the old joke still stands that fusion power is a viable technology that is always 50 years in the future. A Pacer power plant on the other hand would only require 3 explosions a day. Also bigger explosions are easier to achieve than smaller explosions which will be a big advantage for Helium 3 fuel because this fuel is a hundred times harder to achieve ignition and only gives one tenth of the yield.
Of course atomic explosions will be a public relations disaster for the nuclear industry. Micro-explosions combined with techno babble like the words nuclear pulse can fly under the radar of public opinion because the public does not understand the technology. However macro-explosions will be impossible to disguise and the environmentalists will quickly condemn the Pacer power plant as an obscene Dr. Strangelove invention. However using this logic the Sun itself must be the universe's most obscene invention because it operates as a continuos atomic explosion. And let us not forget that according to the logic of the environmentalist we must be criminals for driving cars because we are in essence blowing up napalm bombs inside our cylinders.
What the environmentalists fail to realize is that a radiation free Pacer power plant along with space based solar power will be the cleanest and greanest energy possible. Much cleaner than wind power which requires strip mining 50 tons of steel for each windmill.
I tend to partially agree with your logic. But there are cleaner fuels for fusion pulse. The main obstacle to PNE, PNE RESEARCH, PNE use is the current political and financial status in the U.S. The United States is dominated by the politics of the hydrocarbon industry (DOE director is investor) lock-stock & barrel. Enviro politicos are supported by the commodity protective tactics (scarcity play) used by the hydrocarbon industry with help from the gov't subsidy green industry. Any technology and its political sector who threatens this cabal will be attacked by the academic anti-nuke green body politic. with the usual fake talking points and criticisms. The only scenario I see for domestic future nukes would be when the 'Great Recession' teens begin to see the evident fault lines appear like the rampant frequent racket of war making, military interventionism, failed Keynesian economic boom/bust favoring war, loss of civil rights and stagnant wages. Massive GDP-to-debt ratios, high taxation and spending to support in part a parasitic green energy sector evident in high cost consumer/business electrical bills. All of this will tend to make for a lively domestic debate on energy future. Case in point, recently NASA desperate for funds announces confused semi ET type life hoping to snag some funding. Reality is the future of nuke will never be solely private, there will always be direct gov't participation it's a fact of life in the U.S. In the meantime foreign interests in nuke technology and research science will continue to trump U.S. efforts I just don't see PNE use concepts like; PACER, NEO prevention, in-space propulsion, oil/gas drill mishap mitigation ever adopted. I can imagine even present power plant reactors will be phased out due to the powerful petroleum-enviro lobby. In fact most of Ed Teller's concepts for PNE were adopted by the USSR back in the day.
-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Thursday 9th of December 2010 03:37:12 AM
-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Friday 10th of December 2010 03:38:30 AM
