Skip to main content

11 years later...

 11 years later, is there a viable path forward to a LIFE 2.0?


LIFE (Laser Inertial fusion energy) was suppose to be a fusion power plant design based on the success of NIF, with the benefit of current technologies not available during the NIF construction phase.

When NIF failed to reach ignition in 2012, it took the air out of the funding for the LIFE project. LIFE would need to reliably generate more energy out than facility “wall plug” energy in, at a rate of 10 times per second. NIF fires ~once a day or so. A tall order for the LIFE project.

Comments

Anonymous said…

This was never credible.
Anonymous said…
Ed Moses snake oil.
Anonymous said…
I think what you're proposing or discussing is a design study, rather than an actual design.

This is fine if it's critical analysis of how an actual concept might work in the future, given advancements in technology, it could illustrate how given parts of the system might work and so on. It could be used to motivate research programs to address some of the shortcomings of current technology or scientific understanding.

I assume you may be right that it could require "not credible" or incredible technology advances to work, but part of the exercise could be to scope that out.
Anonymous said…
I worked on LIFE. It was an interesting intellectual challenge, but was not a practical technology for the forseeable future. Was it worth the money spent on it? Yeah, i think it was. Bringing together a very multidisciplinary group of smart people to intensively explore an idea is what National Labs are supposed to do. Was it a practical idea? No.

The echoes of LIFE should not take away from the achievement of getting alpha heating and ignition in laboratory fusion. That's a NIF milestone to be celebrated.


Back to LIFE....

Ignoring the problems (which are formidable) with creating a fission "blanket" to use fusion neutrons to fission the U-238 in spent fuel (or another source of U-238 or a Th-based fission fuel), a practical indirect-drive ICF fusion device would need to ignite a hohlraum target at a rate of at least 10Hz, and targets would need to cost less than $1 each. When I retired from the Lab, a good target took weeks to months of effort by a large team of PhD scientists and talented technicians to produce. I doubt that degree of effort Figure many $100K/target. A reduction in production time and cost of many orders of magnitude would be required for a practical ICF power source.

Next, consider that the target must be aligned *perfectly* with the laser beams to insure ignition, and that must be done at least 10 times per second. The rep rate of a NIF-class laser is, at best hours (credibly decreased by transitioning to diode-pumpe lasers instead of flashlamps), and a rep rate at the laser power thus far need to achieve ignition would destroy the optics in very short order. Furthermore, a reliable tracking system would be needed that could provide exquisite tracking of each target into the "firing chanber" and equally exquisite timing and firing control of the lasers. None of that is possible today or for the forseeable future..

For LIFE, the idea was to use the high-energy fusion neutrons to fission non-fissile (i.e., isotopes that do not fission when exposed to low-energy neutrons) actinides like U-238 or Th-232 and to use further those neutrons to transmute the radioactive fission products in commercial spent nuclear fuel to stable nuclides That idea is noble, but has an enromius set of different issues, ranging from the form of the "fission blanket", to the lack of neutron-reaction cross-section data on excited nuclear states so we current;y have no reliable way of modeling the neutron-capture reactions in a very-high-flux neutron environment.

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!