Mahboobin 10:00
R06
Disclaimer—This paper partially fulfills a writing requirement for first year (freshman) engineering students at the University
of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering. This paper is a student, not a professional, paper. This paper is based on publicly
available information and may not provide complete analyses of all relevant data. If this paper is used for any purpose other
than these authors’ partial fulfillment of a writing requirement for first year (freshman) engineering students at the University
of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering, the user does so at his or her own risk.
THE POWER OF HYDROGEN
Charles Robinson ([email protected])
THE FUTURE OF FUSION
In an age which relies on a vast magnitude of energy to
survive, nothing would hinder the progress of the world more
than to run out of energy. In fact, the way that our current
usage is going, we are bound to exhaust our energy resources
in the form of fossil fuels within the century, according to
many scientists of today. Not only does there seem to be an
upcoming scarcity of these non-renewable fuels, to many
environmentalists, there also seems to be a direct correlation
to global warming. With this steady decrease in the
abundance of these products, it is time to seek out a new form
of energy production so that we can continue to live the way
that we are accustomed to living. There is no better place to
look to for this solution than the most abundant element by
mass in the solar system—hydrogen [1]. Hydrogen, more
importantly two, deuterium and tritium, proves to be the way
to solve the world’s energy crisis through the process of
nuclear fusion. The decision to turn to hydrogen power is not
newly found, but in fact dates back to the ages of the World
War 2, and the development of the Atomic, or Hydrogen,
bomb. While the fusion and fission reactions involve the use
of the atom’s nucleus for power, their actual process is very
different. Most scientists are both optimistic, yet skeptical
because if nuclear fusion can occur, it will be the scientific
innovation that will change is world in an unfathomable way.
The downside to working with fusion it has been researched
for eighty plus years, with little tangible proof of all of its
developments.
THE POWER OF FUSION
For many centuries, the world’s elite scientists have sought
to produce massive amounts of energy by means of nuclear
power. Nuclear power can be produced by one of two
processes. The first is the process which has actually been
implemented, nuclear fusion, which is the process of splitting
an atom’s nucleus. Nuclear fission may be the best source of
nuclear power at the moment: in the coming years, it will
begin to phase out of the equation, due to the fact that its
byproducts are greatly harmful to nature. The radioactive
byproducts are toxic to all life forms. However, there is a
second and more promising method of creating nuclear
power, by the means of nuclear fusion. Fusion, in contrast to
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
11.01.2016
fission is the combining of two atom’s nuclei. According to
Tom Murphy of the University of California, San Diego, the
process of nuclear fusion produces approximately one
terajoule per gram of deuterium [2]. On the other hand, the
fission of the isotope Uranium-235 produces just short of
eighty-three and one half gigajoules. The resulting difference
is that fusion is twenty times more productive than fission [2].
Not to mention, fusion produces a fraction of the number of
radioactive particles than fission does. The overlying tradeoff is that one is in working order, while the other is a work
in progress.
Of the many processes of attempting to execute nuclear
fusion, the two that use isotopes of hydrogen appear to be the
most promising. One method uses two deuterium atoms.
Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen that possesses an extra
neutron giving it an atomic mass of two. In theory, when these
two deuterium atoms are forced together there is a great
amount of energy that is released, as well as an atom of
Helium that is ejected [3]. The second of the methods again
uses deuterium as one of its elements; however, unlike the
first method, it uses tritium as the second particle for reaction.
Tritium, likewise, is an isotope of Hydrogen, only rather than
three neutrons, it possesses three [3]. While the two processes
may seem to have only a slight difference of one subatomic
particle, there is actually a grand difference in the properties
of the interaction of the atoms. For instance, the method which
uses strictly deuterium or the D-D method, is considered to be
more difficult to complete. According to Sor Heoh Saw and
Sing Lee, it requires much more energy to initiate and
complete the fusion of deuterium particles [4]. They go on to
also note that because the energy needed to theoretically
execute the reaction is higher, it would be more difficult to
reach a more efficient break-even point than the D-T or
deuterium-tritium method [4]. From these conclusions it
becomes apparent that the best way to go is by means of the
D-D fusion. The end goal of the development of nuclear
fusion is to produce energy and if it takes a vast amount of
energy to initiate a reaction with a very high break-even point,
the process in the end becomes useless.
THE QUANTUM QUANDARY
Of course if this process were as easy as I have stated it to
be, then we would have been using nuclear fusion since the
Charles Robinson
time just after the atomic bomb was developed. Fusion is
clearly more effective than fission, but one problem exists
with the actual process of the fusion. In order to get these
hydrogen atoms to have to chance of colliding and exerting
this abundance of energy, the atoms must be heated to a
temperature condition which is replicable to the sun. After
all, according to Lev Grossman, what is happening with
nuclear fusion is precisely what is occurring on the surface of
the sun [3]. Grossman says, “…the temperature at which
fusion is feasible on Earth starts at around 100 million degrees
Celsius.” [ 3] Surprisingly enough, the temperature is not
what is preventing this reaction from occurring. Up until this
point, scientists have been able to heat these hydrogen
isotopes to the point which they turn into plasma; what they
cannot seem to tame is the plasma itself.
In order to understand why we cannot easily corral these
quantities of plasma, it is important to know exactly what
plasma is. Plasma is the fourth, less commonly thought of
state of matter, which, as previously stated, occurs when
atoms are heated to temperature of millions of degrees
Celsius. What occurs in the actual plasma is quite fascinating.
Rather than retaining the atoms electrons like the elements
would in any other state of matter, the plasmic atoms actually
shake their electrons loose. Because of the very high
temperatures, the electrons of the atoms are excited and move
at velocities which in fact allow the electrons to become
dislodged [3]. The repercussion of this loss of electrons is the
heart of the problem. When these electrons are dislodged, they
induce a current, which therefore induces a magnetic field [5]
. Now, rather than having just the one magnetic field that is
trying to control the plasma, there exists a second magnetic
field which competes with the first. The end goal of the
induction of magnetic fields results in what is called Magnetic
confinement. Essentially, the magnetic fields act like a fence,
when one the plasma’s particles approach the boundary the
are edged back toward the center of the space [6].
The problem outside of the science of magnetic
confinement exists in the monetary cost to further develop and
experiment with the technology. Currently in southern
France, a large group of nations are working together to build
the ITER, or International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor. ITER is expected to be fully constructed in the late
2020’s however it comes with a grand price tag of twenty
billion dollars [3].Not to mention, this is simply to get
experiment with magnetic confinement. It anticipated that it
will take another five years to harness the energy from fusion
for use. However, just because it may take a while doesn’t
mean that it should discourage us from investing our funds in
it. Like I previously mentioned, if there is a breakthrough with
this technology, there will be an energy revolution. The
revolution would please both the businessmen and
environmentalists. The businessmen could utilize this energy
to reduce the cost of operating the manufacturing companies.
On the flip side, the environmentalists would be content with
the improvement that fusion would offer to nature as a whole.
Fusion would both reduce the carbon emissions, and lower the
production of radioactive material. In our current situation,
almost all of our vehicles run off of gasoline, or other carbon
derivatives. When combusted, these carbon-based fuels emit
carbon dioxide, which is heavily link global warming. Also,
with the implementation of fusion, there would be less of a
dependence on nuclear fission, which produces radioactive
byproducts that have been found to be harmful to the
environment.
IS FUSION WORTH OUR TIME?
As with any new prospective development there are the
supporters and the critics, but in regards to nuclear fusion
there appears to more optimism than anything. There is an
optimism amongst the physics community about the rewards
if nuclear fusion is successfully completed and a slight
pessimism about whether or not its completion is actually
feasible in practice. One example of this jointly optimistic and
pessimistic view comes from, Tom Murphy of the University
of California, San Diego. All throughout his article about the
math behind the topic of fusion, Murphy possesses a positive
tone concerning the massive amount of energy that fusion can
produce. “I am hopeful that fusion can one day become a
practical reality. I certainly understand it to be feasible in
principle. My misgivings mainly lie in the extreme
complexity of the challenge.” [2] Of course, Murphy’s
concern is understandable. After all, we are trying to harness
energy from the combining of particles that we can even see
with the naked eye.
To put the massive energy output into perspective, we can
relate it to everyday quantities that everyone has some
familiarity. As previously stated, water is a key component to
making nuclear fusion occur, and with the incredible amount
of water in the oceans of the earth, there is prospective to be
nearly endless amounts of energy produce. Roxanne Palmer,
gives us an idea of the amount of energy need to fuel San
Francisco’s power need. “If the process can be made to work,
a city like San Francisco could be powered for a year with just
a couple of hundred gallons of water.” [7] Again, to offer an
idea of how much one hundred gallons correlates to, there are
about seventy gallons of water in the average sized bathtub.
[8] Therefore; to power a city the size of San Francisco, we
would need the amount of water which is equivalent to just
over one and one third bathtubs.
CONCLUSION
If we are to gauge the usage of energy at the current point
in our history as a civilization, it is far greater than the amount
of energy we have in supply. Currently, we are operating on
energy engrained in mainly the use of fossil fuels that have a
rapidly depleting reserve. To counter act this depletion, over
the past decade or two, we have begun to make a shift to find
renewable energy sources with a particular focus in
harnessing the sun’s energy in the form of light. While this
2
Charles Robinson
[4] S. Saw, S. Lee. “Scaling the Plasma Focus for Fusion
Energy Consideration.” International Journal of Energy
Research.
08.02.2010.
Accessed
10.25.2016.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.1758/epdf
[5] D. Hambling, R. Webb. “Fired Up.” New Scientist.
01.30.2016.
Accessed
10.25.2016.
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=7
64d7edc-f4f5-40f1-8e2b6756bc9ab4d0%40sessionmgr1&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPW
lwLHVpZCZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=112614073&db=aph
[6] “Fusion.” SUNY Brooklyn. Accessed 10.25.2016.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/physics/sobel/Nucphys/f
usion.html
[7] R. Palmer. “ Just Add Water.” Newsweek Global.
10.18.2013.
Accessed
10.26.2016.
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=d
eb31f22-0a32-45a9-98022d7688b5d0e7%40sessionmgr2&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPW
lwLHVpZCZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=92697904&db=aph
[8] J. Tessaly. “ Shower or Bath?: Essential Answer.”
Stanford Alumni. 03.2011. Accessed 10.29.2016.
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?articl
e_id=28853
ideology of using the sun to attain energy is along the right
path to success in our energy crisis, it is not the most efficient
way of using the sun for energy. Rather, than trying to use the
sun for solely acquiring its energy, we must also use it as a
model from which we can produce our own energy. The
method by which this can be accomplished is by using the
power of nuclear fusion of hydrogen based isotopes. Despite
the exorbitant amount of energy which fusion can produce, it
has little to no meaning if it cannot be one put to practice, and
two, harnessed. Pending the mastering of magnetic
confinement, there would be a revolution in the way that
energy usage is perceived in the modern era. While fusion has
not been possible yet, many scientists in the field see it as the
method of energy that will pave the path to the future.
SOURCES
[1] R. Nave. “Common Elements Important in Living
Organsims.” HyperPhysics. 2012. Accessed 10.25.2016.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html
[2] T. Murphy. “Nuclear Fusion.” UCSD: Do the Math.
01.31.2016.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-themath/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/
[3] L. Grossman. “A Star Is Born.” Time. 11.02.2015.
Accessed-10.25.2016.
http://search.ebscohost.com/Community.aspx?authtype=ip&
ugt=720761967C46754727E665D662156E9267E320E3371
3350332633203&IsAdminMobile=N&encid=22D731263C4
635573726350632453C37370370C377C375C372C372C37
0C376C33013#AN=110516877&db=aph
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the people in my residence hall, for their
help in editing my paper. Also, I would like to give thanks to
my friends and family back home for all their love and support
up until this point.
3