Polywell, ITER and the Helium Supply
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:01 am
Some days ago, in the darkness of night I wrote an article, but couldn't post it. Below is the cleaned version.
On Helium and the Fusion Reactor
It seems that access to an ongoing supply of economic Helium is going to be very critical for both the ITER/Tokamak and the Polywell Inertial Electrostatic Containment system, and other designs. It cools the powerful coils which are necessary for the operation of the world's most well-developed and best fusion reactor designs. Presupposing that at least one design achieves sustained net energy production and is commercialized, Helium may be required in large quantities, on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately, liquid helium supplies are running out.
Helium Supplies Endangered, Threatening Science And Technology
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093943.htm
Two quotes from the article:
"When we use what has been made over the approximate 4.5 billion of years the Earth has been around, we will run out," Sobotka said. "We cannot get too significant quantities of helium from the sun — which can be viewed as a helium factory 93 million miles away — nor will we ever produce helium in anywhere near the quantities we need from Earth-bound factories. Helium could eventually be produced directly in nuclear fusion reactors and is produced indirectly in nuclear fission reactors, but the quantities produced by such sources are dwarfed by our needs." (ed: the 'needs' referred to are not tomorrow's commercial fusion reactors, but only today's modest uses in experimental reactors, balloons, etc.)
"The price of liquid helium is about $5 per liter, having gone up more than 50 percent over the past year because of what Sobotka calls "conventional" economics. He cited the withdrawal of some companies from the marketplace, and the emergence of others that are not yet in production, as the driving force behind higher prices, and (as yet) a scarcity of the element."
Now, they're talking about supplies for the demands of today, which are trivial compared to the requirement if Tokamak/Polywell were to provide even a third of the world's current energy needs.
Sadly, even if the design produces lots of net energy, if it doesn't make all of its Helium needs, then it will not have a long-term future. The He net-loss reactor will need an ongoing infusion of new Helium in order to continue operating; recovery rate (never mind total supply) of the element is beginning to decline.
Helium supplies are already running out, with only today's small-scale experimentation and other commercial users, never mind tomorrow's thousands of reactors required to fulfill humanity's energy needs. Even if the loss rate over time inside a reactor is small, just the initial charge for so many reactors may deplete the remaining stocks.
The affordability of Helium today is only a byproduct of its status as byproduct of fossil fuel extraction. As we all know, fossil fuel, especially oil, is already in decline worldwide, and its decline is steepening.
As each oil well's production reaches a point where it is not economic to pump more oil, that well's Helium contribution is gone too: whatever remains will be trapped when pumping is stopped, because it is not economic to get the helium on its own. Most of these He-yielding wells are located in Texas, which is on the steep decline side of its Hubbert curve.
Even if in the future the price rises high enough to make its recovery economic, the cost of energy to extract it may make it entropically uneconomic to harvest, depending on reactor yield. Even then, reserves are still limited on an absolute basis and losses to the atmosphere permanent, which means a future pinch of extinction for the dependent systems. To quote once again from the above article:
"Scientists haven't even approached mining helium out of the air because costs are too prohibitive."
Apart from a mission to the Moon to collect it, the future of the world's remaining, economically-accessible helium is falling in proportion with the fossil fuel pumping industry's production, in a never-ending downward curve. The majority of the world's remaining supply is located in less than desireable regions, ex:
"Sobotka believes that Russia will be the world's major source of helium in 30 years."
This is not inspiring news, considering how Russia has already behaved with regards to its fossil fuel exports - nationalization and tighter state control. Do we really want to be dependant on one or two (the US has the second largest supply at present, according to the article) nations for a gas which is hoped to be in so many future fusion reactors generating energy worldwide?
If you could for a moment, imagine the resource wars yet to come, fought over the remaining depleted Helium supplies on an Earth at the tail end of its fossil-fuel Hubbert curve.
Ironically, the very decline that made so critical fusion's development, may first throttle and finally choke to death any chance of its implementation on a scale which would satisfy the world's energy needs.
There are only two escape routes visible at the moment, neither mutually exlusive:
1. The device's own production of Helium, which if sufficient can make the net requirement for ongoing resupply zero.
2. The discovery of a vast supply of cheap helium, with cheap being the operative word. Expensive energy is almost as bad as none at all, and it is cheap fossil fuel energy that built this world and only energy of a similar cheapness will maintain it, never mind allow it to be expanded.
If there is enough helium for a while and net-helium-loss reactors are successful and commercialized, the price of Helium will be driven up, making it much costlier for other researches and industries which use it, including the development of new reactor designs of any flavor that use this gas.
A sad requiem for any device that requires helium to run, loses it over time, and cannot produce the stuff on its own at a rate sufficient to replace loss, all cycles included.
If reactors are net He producers, the requirement for priming will limit the rate of reactor rollout, and this limit is getting tighter with each passing year.
On Helium and the Fusion Reactor
It seems that access to an ongoing supply of economic Helium is going to be very critical for both the ITER/Tokamak and the Polywell Inertial Electrostatic Containment system, and other designs. It cools the powerful coils which are necessary for the operation of the world's most well-developed and best fusion reactor designs. Presupposing that at least one design achieves sustained net energy production and is commercialized, Helium may be required in large quantities, on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately, liquid helium supplies are running out.
Helium Supplies Endangered, Threatening Science And Technology
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093943.htm
Two quotes from the article:
"When we use what has been made over the approximate 4.5 billion of years the Earth has been around, we will run out," Sobotka said. "We cannot get too significant quantities of helium from the sun — which can be viewed as a helium factory 93 million miles away — nor will we ever produce helium in anywhere near the quantities we need from Earth-bound factories. Helium could eventually be produced directly in nuclear fusion reactors and is produced indirectly in nuclear fission reactors, but the quantities produced by such sources are dwarfed by our needs." (ed: the 'needs' referred to are not tomorrow's commercial fusion reactors, but only today's modest uses in experimental reactors, balloons, etc.)
"The price of liquid helium is about $5 per liter, having gone up more than 50 percent over the past year because of what Sobotka calls "conventional" economics. He cited the withdrawal of some companies from the marketplace, and the emergence of others that are not yet in production, as the driving force behind higher prices, and (as yet) a scarcity of the element."
Now, they're talking about supplies for the demands of today, which are trivial compared to the requirement if Tokamak/Polywell were to provide even a third of the world's current energy needs.
Sadly, even if the design produces lots of net energy, if it doesn't make all of its Helium needs, then it will not have a long-term future. The He net-loss reactor will need an ongoing infusion of new Helium in order to continue operating; recovery rate (never mind total supply) of the element is beginning to decline.
Helium supplies are already running out, with only today's small-scale experimentation and other commercial users, never mind tomorrow's thousands of reactors required to fulfill humanity's energy needs. Even if the loss rate over time inside a reactor is small, just the initial charge for so many reactors may deplete the remaining stocks.
The affordability of Helium today is only a byproduct of its status as byproduct of fossil fuel extraction. As we all know, fossil fuel, especially oil, is already in decline worldwide, and its decline is steepening.
As each oil well's production reaches a point where it is not economic to pump more oil, that well's Helium contribution is gone too: whatever remains will be trapped when pumping is stopped, because it is not economic to get the helium on its own. Most of these He-yielding wells are located in Texas, which is on the steep decline side of its Hubbert curve.
Even if in the future the price rises high enough to make its recovery economic, the cost of energy to extract it may make it entropically uneconomic to harvest, depending on reactor yield. Even then, reserves are still limited on an absolute basis and losses to the atmosphere permanent, which means a future pinch of extinction for the dependent systems. To quote once again from the above article:
"Scientists haven't even approached mining helium out of the air because costs are too prohibitive."
Apart from a mission to the Moon to collect it, the future of the world's remaining, economically-accessible helium is falling in proportion with the fossil fuel pumping industry's production, in a never-ending downward curve. The majority of the world's remaining supply is located in less than desireable regions, ex:
"Sobotka believes that Russia will be the world's major source of helium in 30 years."
This is not inspiring news, considering how Russia has already behaved with regards to its fossil fuel exports - nationalization and tighter state control. Do we really want to be dependant on one or two (the US has the second largest supply at present, according to the article) nations for a gas which is hoped to be in so many future fusion reactors generating energy worldwide?
If you could for a moment, imagine the resource wars yet to come, fought over the remaining depleted Helium supplies on an Earth at the tail end of its fossil-fuel Hubbert curve.
Ironically, the very decline that made so critical fusion's development, may first throttle and finally choke to death any chance of its implementation on a scale which would satisfy the world's energy needs.
There are only two escape routes visible at the moment, neither mutually exlusive:
1. The device's own production of Helium, which if sufficient can make the net requirement for ongoing resupply zero.
2. The discovery of a vast supply of cheap helium, with cheap being the operative word. Expensive energy is almost as bad as none at all, and it is cheap fossil fuel energy that built this world and only energy of a similar cheapness will maintain it, never mind allow it to be expanded.
If there is enough helium for a while and net-helium-loss reactors are successful and commercialized, the price of Helium will be driven up, making it much costlier for other researches and industries which use it, including the development of new reactor designs of any flavor that use this gas.
A sad requiem for any device that requires helium to run, loses it over time, and cannot produce the stuff on its own at a rate sufficient to replace loss, all cycles included.
If reactors are net He producers, the requirement for priming will limit the rate of reactor rollout, and this limit is getting tighter with each passing year.