Skip to main content

Ignition question

Not including the NIF in Livermore, CA, what other ignition facility or scalable module to ignition proposals is DOE reviewing (if any), and what are their construction costs?

Comments

Anonymous said…
I hope you are joking. The DOE will not be entertaining new "ignition facility" ideas for a generation, anyone seriously proposing one now would heckled out of the room.
Anonymous said…
There is an interesting new approach to low-gain ignition on NIF that was just published in Physical Review Letters.
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.255003
Anonymous said…
Just because you're a MIT professor you can claim ignition with a 1D calculation. Incredible. This field is intellectually bankrupt.
Anonymous said…
You can claim ignition in 1D, AND get it published in PRL. The field is more than intellectually bankrupt, it is corrupt.
Anonymous said…
NIF is costing half a billion dollars per year to operate. I would prefer that it be closed immediately but if is going to stay open for another five years then it needs some new ideas. The double shell and revolver concepts do not require high convergence for any shell. They don't have to keep their fuel near a Fermi degenerate adiabat. They use a simple pulse shape and perhaps polar direct drive. They are not sensitive to laser plasma instabilities. On the other hand they do not promise high gain (perhaps only three). Their designs are immature (unlike the NIF point design which has been under development since 1991). Livermore managers understand that NIF cannot use the next five years simply to study why the point design failed. So they are supporting development of these alternative capsule concepts.
Anonymous said…
Probably they'll end up doing whatever Omar Hurricane, the hero of break even fusion and stockpile stewardship, tells them to do.
Anonymous said…
General fusion.
Anonymous said…
Double shells and deviations from adiabatic compression are fine if you had >10 MJ of UV drive instead of 1.8 MJ. Also target chamber is not set up for direct drive. Cost is estimated to be $800M to move and adjust laser port locations and move diagnostics ports. Do you have a "fat" wallet ? Elan Musk, anyone ?
Anonymous said…
They have to do something in the next 5 years. Better to try several approaches and snow the next review panel with "promising" data, than to come up empty handed in explaining why the NIC failed AND have nothing else to pursue.
Anonymous said…
The high-foot was supposed to be "promising". Now it's a dead-end. I guess they can wash, rinse, and repeat on something else.
Anonymous said…
What else are they going to do with ICF? Ignition is out of reach at NIF, no other facility will do it, and no one will pay for an even bigger facility to gamble with. What they should be doing, quietly, is plotting the peaceful death of ignition and gain in ICF, and playing up the other benefits to the stockpile. I wager that is what we will be hearing more of in the coming years.
Anonymous said…
http://www.firefusionpower.org/ICF_Program_Framework_2016.pdf

http://www.firefusionpower.org/ICF_HED_Review_Report_2015_Update.pdf

If you are interested and spending an afternoon reading stuff.
Anonymous said…

"If you are interested and spending an afternoon reading stuff."

Ya right, I hate LANL and only read things that give me information to have it closed. Once it is closed than I am vindicated and will no longer suck. This logic is a little weak but tell what what are my choices...face reality, no can do on that, no can do indeed.
Anonymous said…
Shunning

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!