Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Englandd12 t1_iyv70ef wrote

Hey...finally something I can answer. I'm doing a PhD in Nuclear fusion materials. We ideally want to do the DT reaction due the fact it has the highest specific reactivity at lower temperatures even when compared to DD, DH etc reactions. It also produces a free neutron, which we can use for tritium breeding using a lithium breeder blanket, so the intent is we can produce self-sustaining tritium within the chamber.

1,520

DoubleDot7 t1_iyvfwfj wrote

>it has the highest specific reactivity at lower temperatures

Does that mean that deuterium-tritium reactions need less energy for the reaction to start? Is that because tritium is less stable than the other isotopes?

264

RobusEtCeleritas t1_iyvicsj wrote

It means that the Coulomb barrier is a little bit lower. It's unrelated to the stability tritium, it's just possible to make this reaction occur at a reasonable rate at lower temperatures.

262

financial2k t1_izsx87h wrote

How much lower is this temperature?

Is the main motivation of using Tritium the lower temperature or actually the breeding reaction?

How far apart is the fusion temperature from the fusion ignition temperature and how is each one defined?

1

RobusEtCeleritas t1_izt7by2 wrote

>How much lower is this temperature?

Here is the reactivity as a function of temperature for a few candidate reactions.

>Is the main motivation of using Tritium the lower temperature or actually the breeding reaction?

The main motivation is the temperature. Obtaining fuel for DD is not an issue, because there's plentiful deuterium in nature (seawater, for example). It's a nice benefit, and quite important for tritium, which is not found naturally in large amounts. We have to produce tritium somehow, and having the reactor breed its own fuel is a nice way to do that.

>How far apart is the fusion temperature from the fusion ignition temperature and how is each one defined?

Not sure what you mean here.

2

financial2k t1_iztmlqb wrote

Thanks.

How far apart is the fusion temperature from the fusion ignition temperature and how is each one defined?

This was answered in a comment below somewhere. perhaps even by you

2

[deleted] t1_iyvj5ib wrote

[deleted]

44

treefor_js t1_iyvuhla wrote

This is not correct. Temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the particles - you express plasma temperature in units of eV (energy unit). If one element is heavier then it'll have a slower average velocity. DT reactions require lower temperatures to achieve their highest cross section for fusion reactions. Meaning you need to put less energy into the system.

  • HEDP plasma physicist
44

ChipotleMayoFusion t1_iyw8hte wrote

Isn't that exactly what Robus said? The DT reaction is favorable because it reaches high reactivity at lower temperatures. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Fusion_rxnrate.svg/330px-Fusion_rxnrate.svg.png

1

treefor_js t1_iyw9ick wrote

That was the conclusion, yes. However, the reasoning was not correct.

Edit: the other thing to note here is not just that it takes a lower temperature to reach higher reaction cross sections but the loss mechanisms that scale with temperature as well. It's a balancing act to keep the plasma warm to use the fusion products to keep burning the fuel without it cooling off rapidly. Bremsstrahlung radiation - x-rays generated by accelerated charged particles, is the main culprit here.

8

ChipotleMayoFusion t1_iywmfex wrote

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Maybe I misunderstood what his post was getting at. I have heard that proton-Boron is basically impossible because the brems losses at the temperature where reactivity is sufficient will always be higher, or almost always higher. I think this is what you are saying, you can't just focus on the temperature. Sam Wurzel had a great talk on this at APS 2021, clarifying Qeng vs Qsci and how that changes depending on your recirculating power fraction and other factors.

2

treefor_js t1_iywn305 wrote

Oh nice. I didn't get a chance to go to that one. Came down with a stomach bug for a day or two in Pittsburgh. Also wish I had time to go to the commercial fusion breakout this year, but alas. There's always next year.

3

ChipotleMayoFusion t1_iywnxfg wrote

I'm glad you were able to attend at all, a lot of the US national labs people were not there due to COVID travel rules.

1

treefor_js t1_iywoopg wrote

I sat in on one of the MagLIF sessions and I think there was one live talk with like 10 recorded ones. It was a weird conference. Basically just networked with university folks. So much better turn out this year with national lab folks returning.

2

[deleted] t1_iyvl308 wrote

[removed]

4

TinnyOctopus t1_iyvpco3 wrote

As you suppose, it's the sourcing of the tritium that's the problem, but I think you're underselling the difficulty. For the DT fusion, the plasma composition can be mostly D, which is difficult but not impossible to purify out of naturally occurring water (prevalence is generally about 1 in 10,000 to 100,000 hydrogen atoms). Tritium is about 1 to 10^18th hydrogen atoms, which is a million million times less common than even the uncommon deuterium. Which means tritium needs to be manufactured, and at a certain point, the amount of energy being put in to make the tritium fuel will become prohibitive, making the economics of a T-T rector nonviable.

29

UWwolfman t1_iz0py64 wrote

>Does that mean that deuterium-tritium reactions need less energy for the reaction to start?

Yes and no.

Focusing on energy "needed to start" misses the key physics and related engineering issue.

When two fusion reactants (such as deuterium and tritium) collide, that vast majority of the time they do not fuse. Instead they scatter off of each other. This is true even if they have enough energy to fuse. The reactants only occasionally fuse when they collide. The specific reactivity is a measure of how often they fuse.

While the scattering collisions conserve energy, they lead to thermal conduction. Without some sort of thermal insulation, a fusion-ing plasma will cool off quickly and fizzle due to this collision induced thermal conduction. In fusion we call this insulation (energy) confinement.

So the key issue for engineering an economical fusion power plant is not providing enough heat to the fuel we can do this, but instead it's about building a good enough insulator to keep the plasma warm.

The more reactive the plasma, the more leaky the our insulator can be. It turns out the deuterium-tritium has the highest reactivity of all fusion fuels.

>Is that because tritium is less stable than the other isotopes?

It's complicated, but I'd argue is has more to do with He-4 being a very stable isotope. There are other factors, such a a relatively low coulomb barrier compared to high-Z reactants.

3

cloudjianrider t1_iywwbdc wrote

You have just blown my mind. Free neutrons? Tritium breeding with a lithium breeder blanket!?! There is so much I do not know.

27

Atechiman t1_iyyxvig wrote

When you do the reaction as dt you are left with a neutron. This neutron can be used with lithium to convert certain hydrogen into tritium basically.

6

[deleted] t1_iyw1nal wrote

Are thorium/U233 reactors actually viable for power production or is it like the old industrial myths in the 80’s about 100 mpg motors being quashed by the oil companies?

19

echawkes t1_iywbcdh wrote

It is certainly possible, and experimental reactors have been built to show that it could work.

Sixty or seventy years ago, people thought uranium was scarce, and that we would need breeder reactors (either on thorium/uranium or uranium/plutonium fuel cycles) to make nuclear power viable. However, breeder technology was never fully developed because uranium turned out to be a lot more plentiful and cheap than people expected. There just hasn't been any compelling reason to develop a new technology to make uranium when it's so much easier and cheaper to just dig it out of the ground.

31

WazWaz t1_iyx9md4 wrote

Uranium is scarce, but the demand for it is low - known reserves would last about 5 years if it was our only electricity generation method (of course, we'd start using breeders, recycling, etc. if that was the case, and probably find more reserves too).

3

echawkes t1_iyxs0g7 wrote

I wouldn't say that uranium is scarce. Significant deposits of uranium are found on every continent (except Antarctica, so far). In a list of the elements that have more than trace quantities in the earth's crust, uranium appears around the middle.

12

WazWaz t1_iyzg1py wrote

As I said, if we used it for all our electricity, it would last 5 years. That's pretty scarce, considering how little we use.

−1

Atechiman t1_iyyywgd wrote

A kilogram of Uranium can generate ~24 terrawatt hours. World reserves of Uranium is 8,000,000 tonnes (8 billion kilograms) . 192 billion terrawatt hours. Worldwide electrical consumption is 23 thousand terrawatt hours.

It would take roughly 6.26 million years to burn through uranium reserves.

11

Malkiot t1_iyznf3t wrote

You can't look at world reserves of uranium. You have to look at world reserves of U235 which makes up about 0.76% of all Uranium. You also can't take the total amount, but have to take the commercially viable amount and the amount of energy Uranium contains cannot be converted 1-to-1 to electrical energy.

​

>The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals.

Source: World Nuclear Association an organization promoting nuclear energy.

From our current perspective, when comparing to our previous industrial development, 90 is pretty good. But nowhere near enough in the long term and we'd have to fall back to renewable again unless we use breeder reactors which would improve the sustainabiliy of nuclear or figure out fusion.

So, while nuclear does have some advantages from present knowledge, we may as well skip the 90-year nuclear phase and go for renewables straight away.

6

WazWaz t1_iz13knp wrote

And to be clear, that 90 years is at present consumption rate. Nuclear is about 10% of world electricity use, so if it was 100% it would last 9 years. Electrify the road transport sector alone and that comes down to 5 years.

1

LucubrateIsh t1_iyxdyvr wrote

Sure. It isn't necessarily all that different from other fast reactor designs like ebr-2. The idea usually gets combined with some other thorium salt ideas that I have no idea about the viability in terms of cost of

1

juxt417 t1_iz00lel wrote

They are viable but they are having issues with the molten salt in the reactor.

1

[deleted] t1_iyvlrlm wrote

[removed]

8

[deleted] t1_iyw3af8 wrote

[removed]

4

ProneMasturbationMan t1_iywfeqx wrote

>it has the highest specific reactivity at lower temperatures even when compared to DD, DH etc reactions

Why?

3

RobusEtCeleritas t1_iyws6yx wrote

Lower Coulomb barrier, which means that the cross section begins to increase at lower energies, which means that the convolution of the cross section with a Maxwellian distribution function is higher at lower temperatures.

11

redruben234 t1_iyy98oh wrote

Question about the lithium blanket: doesn't it seem like a potential future problem? Will the lithium get used up this way? It's already a valuable material

3