Sponsored by

Aneutronic Nuclear Reactor Physics 137- Energy in the 21st Century

Research Team James Throsby, Jingxian Zhang, Julio Cesar Santiago and Paul Lazureanu

Nuclear Fission

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

•  Light elements combine into heavier elements

•  Mass of product less than mass of reactants

•  Lost mass = Energy

Reactor Type 1: Tokamak

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Reactor Type 2: Magnetized Target

•  Most popular reactor type •  Toroidal plasma chamber •  Central magnet •  Toroidal coils around chamber

•  Combines MCF with ICF ideas •  Plasma toroid shot into spherical chamber •  Chamber contains molten lead-lithium

vortex •  Pistons fire to compress plasma for fusion

Reactor Type 3: Inertial Confinement

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

•  Uses compression to heat fuel

•  Uses small spherical fuel pellets

-  First fusion experiments: 1920’s -  First significant plasma temp/confinement: 1968 -  First controlled release of power: 1991 -  Now, hoping ITER reaches ‘plasma breakeven point’ in 2020

Technological Innovation in Nuclear Physics

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

•  First fusion experiments: 1920’s •  First significant plasma temp/confinement:

1968 •  First controlled release of power: 1991 •  Now, hoping ITER reaches ‘plasma breakeven

point’ in 2020

Current Issues Nuclear Physicists are Facing

•  Uses Main energy in D-T fusion from neutrons •  Neutrons are structurally damaging •  Need better vacuum technology •  Need better magnets •  Fusion much more safe then fission, but still could be

dangerous

Aneutronic Reaction

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

•  1B(p,α)αα aneutronic reaction; Ignition of p-11B fuel: 1

billion K

•  Change in mass converted to energy through fusion:

Energy of reactants – Energy of products

([ m[1H] + m[11B] ] - [ 3m[4He] ])c²

([1.00794amu + 11.00931amu] – 3[4.0026amu])

(2.99E8m/s)² =1.403E-12 J or 8.75 MeV

Prototype

•  Tokamak configuration not practical

•  Linear prototype: colliding beam fusion reactor

•  Stationary vortex suspended, fed by p and 11B fuel

•  Capture α-particles, convert direct to electricity

 

 

Senior Management

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Business Plan

•  CEO: Dale Prouty •  Co-founder: Norman Rostoker •  Chief Tech Officer and VP: Michl Binderbauer •  Stats: >150 employees; >$150 million in funding •  Sponsors: New Enterprise Assoc; Rockefeller’s Venrock; Vulcan Inc.;

Goldman Sachs; Rusnano

•  Significant engineering barriers •  Compartmentalized research o  Plasmoid merging times o  Inverse cyclotron device o  Optimization and enlargement of C-2 o  Publications and patents   •  Realistic first generation reactor

Feasibility

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Four main criteria that need to be satisfied by any type of nuclear reactor in order for it to be considered feasible for meeting commercial output demand: I.  Scalability II.  Stable Plasma Containment

Mechanism III.  Efficient Energy Conversion IV.  Financing

Strong Flux Amplification

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Strong Conversion from Kinetic to Thermal Energy

Design Schematics of C-2 Reactor

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Five key components in Tri-Alpha’s C-2 experimental system: I.  Thomson Scattering II.  C02/He-Ne Interferometer III.  Magnetic Probes IV.  Spectrometers V.  Bolometers

Cross-Section of C-2 Reactor

Bolometers

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Density Profile from C02 Interferometer

Key Approaches to FRC Lifetime Duration

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Three-step engineering process: I.  Dynamic Merging II.  Active Stabilization III.  Wall Conditioning

Dynamic Colliding/Merging FRCs

Conditioning and Stability

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Trajectory of FRC Center

Electrode Biasing

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Quadrupole Fields

Wall Conditioning by Titanium or Lithium Gettering

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Impurity Concentration

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Pros of Tri-Alpha

•  Proton Boron reaction is aneutronic o  No containment vessel needed o  Does not produce radioactive waste •  Does not require tritium as a fuel; this is extremely scarce

and difficult to produce •  Direct conversion to electricity is feasible. •  This can have an efficiency of as much as 90%, compared to

<50% for steam turbines

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

Cons of Tri-Alpha

•  P - B fusion releases only about half the energy of D - T fusion

•  This could in theory be compensated by the higher efficiency of direct conversion but has not been proven in practice

•  Tri Alpha has only experimented with deuterium as a fuel in the C - 2 reactor

•  P - B fuel poses greater challenges due to a much higher burning temperature

•  Unclear if a private company like Tri Alpha can raise enough capital to fund such an ambitious project

"Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because

they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to

postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."[3]

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

We choose to go to the Sun

Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic?... We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

- U.S. President John F. Kennedy

"Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because

they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to

postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."[3]

Nuclear Physics

Company Profile

Nuclear Engineering

Comparative Statistics Conclusion

References Graphics: http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Nuclear%2520physics/Nuclear%20structure/text/Binding_energy_per_nucleon/index.html http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Nuclear_Chemistry/Components_of_the_Nucleus http://www.plasma.inpe.br/LAP_Portal/LAP_Site/Text/Tokamaks.htm http://technotomorrow.com/en/energy/nuclear-power/inertial-confinement-fusion.html http://www.design-engineering.com/features/canadian-firm-pursues-mechanical-approach-to-fusion-energy; http://www.fusenet.eu/node/36 https://www.euro-fusion.org/glossary/tritium-breeding/ All other graphics referenced from articles cited below Text: Anderson, M. Binderbauer, M., Bystritskii, V., Garate E., Rostoker, N., Song, Y. Van Drie, A. and Isakov, I. (2004) Plasma and Ion Beam Injection into an FRC. Plasma Physics Reports (31). pp. 809-817 Biello, D. (10 May 2010). “A Spin on Efficiency: Generating Tomorrow's Electricity from Better Turbines”. Scientific American. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-spin-on-efficiency-with-better-turbines/> Binderbauer, M.W., et al. (2010). Dynamic Formation of a Hot Field Reversed Configuration with Improved Confinement by Supersonic Merging of Two Colliding High-Beta Compact Toroids. Physical Review Letters (105). pp. 1-4 Casacchia, Chris (29 August 2010). "Nuclear Startup: Well Funded, Low Profile". Orange County Business Journal. Orange County, California: Richard Reisman. Archived from the original on 31 August 2010. Retrieved 2 June 2014. "Company Overview of Tri Alpha Energy, Inc.". Bloomberg Businessweek. European Nuclear Society. Mass deficiency. Retrieved November 11th, 2014 from http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/m/massdefect.htm Gota, H., Binderbauer, M.W., et al., and the TAE Team (2011, August). A Well-Confined Field-Reversed Configuration Plasma Formed by Dynamic Merging of Two Colliding Compact Toroids in C-2 Presented at the Innovative Confinement Concepts & US-Japan Compact Torus Plasma Workshops, Seattle, WA. **references truncated; for full reference list, please see attached Tri-alpha report on class forum.