| MIT Fights for Clean Power With Holy 
    Grail of Fusion in ReachIn the first part of a week-long series at the breakthrough 
    university, our resident geek looks down the belly of extreme machines with 
    forces some 100,000 times stronger than the Earth's—and forecasts the future 
    of efficient energy.
 
      By Erik SofgePublished on: February 25, 2008 CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — This is what a 
    fusion lab is supposed to be like. As I walk in, a woman’s voice is on the 
    speakers, counting down from 10. Banks of chairs face banks of computer 
    monitors, where data is literally streaming across application windows that 
    are pulsing, multicolored and reassuringly complex. And at the head of the 
    control room is a massive projection showing a diagram of the fusion chamber 
    nearby—a top-down view of the donut-shaped, concrete-lined structure that’s 
    about to fill with superheated ionized gas, or plasma. On the same wall is 
    looped footage of the last “shot,” a brief attempt to harness that plasma, 
    and make fusion a little more feasible. The countdown is over, and there’s a 
    sound straight out of sci-fi—a high tone coupled with a deep, resonating 
    hum. On a tiny, black-and-white monitor mounted on the ceiling, a 1-second 
    flash ripples across the screen. A sign lights up over the door leading to 
    the chamber, indicating that the oxygen is too low for anyone to approach 
    without breathing gear, and the clock starts again. Next shot in 15 minutes.
 MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC) is about as Hollywood-worthy 
    as science gets. The stakes, after all, could hardly be higher. If fusion 
    can be perfected, it could mean a golden age for power production, with 
    systems providing all of the benefits of nuclear reactors—but none of the 
    drawbacks. Fusion is, to some extent, the exact opposite of fission: Instead 
    of splitting atoms, fusion combines them, creating larger atoms and 
    releasing a massive amount of energy in the process. Despite the high 
    temperatures often associated with plasma, fusion is a relatively stable 
    reaction, generating little to no radioactive waste. Even in a worst-case 
    scenario, there’s no chance of a fusion reactor turning into a catastrophe 
    on the scale of Three-Mile Island or Chernobyl. “Fission can run away,” says 
    Miklos Porkolab, director of the PSFC. “Fusion can only fizzle.” Since 
    there’s no chain reaction at work, the biggest danger associated with fusion 
    is a temperature collapse. And even if the materials lining the chamber were 
    to suddenly give way because of sabotage or terrorism, the introduction of 
    debris into the plasma cloud would actually smother the process at an even 
    faster rate. Fusion is fragile, difficult to maintain and ultimately its own 
    worst enemy. But it is not dangerous.
 
 That quality makes it utterly useless as a weapon, Porkolab explains, which 
    is why the federal government decided to declassify its fusion research 50 
    years ago and make the results public. That was effectively the birth of 
    open, academic fusion in the United States. So a half-century into this 
    quest for one of science’s holy grails, are we any closer to grace?
 
 The answer, not surprisingly, is mixed. Here at MIT, the fusion center’s 
    primary research tool is the Alcator C-MOD, the largest university-run 
    fusion reactor in the world, and one of only three “tokamaks” in the 
    country. Tokamaks are reactors that use magnetic fields to control the flow 
    of plasma. Extreme machines like the C-MOD, which has the most powerful 
    magnetic fields of any tokamak (and some 100,000 times stronger than the 
    Earth’s) have enhanced our understanding of fusion. But a truly efficient 
    reaction, with more energy released than poured in, is still decades away.
 
 The problem, Porkolab says, is turbulence. To increase the chances of a 
    fusion reaction, a cloud of plasma must be incredibly hot and dense. As the 
    atoms become more closely packed and excited, the natural tendency for 
    nuclei to repel each other can be overcome. C-MOD uses microwaves to heat 
    the ionized gas and magnets to shape it, building up pressure within the 
    plasma. But as any meteorologist can tell you, juggling temperature and 
    pressure is a recipe for bad weather. “We have our own storms, inside the 
    plasma, just like in the atmosphere,” Porkolab says. Temperature gradients 
    within the plasma can lead to eddies, and the more unstable the cloud 
    becomes, the more heat it loses. When the temperature gets low enough, the 
    reaction dies. Plasma turbulence, in other words, is the biggest obstacle to 
    fusion, limiting current reactors to brief pulses and preventing the kind of 
    long-term reaction necessary for true power production.
 
 That's why, when the next countdown begins in the control room, and I try to 
    catch the real-time flash of the plasma shot on that tiny ceiling-mounted 
    monitor, it’s gone before my camera can even focus. The replay starts to 
    loop on the main screen—a slightly misleading bit of pyrotechnics, since the 
    visible light released by the shot is generated at the edges of the plasma 
    donut, where temperatures are at their lowest, and where fusion is not 
    likely to occur. And while it’s possible that C-MOD’s pulses could one day 
    last longer than seconds, this particular tokamak won’t reach the promised 
    land. In many ways, C-MOD’s most important job is to pave the way for a 
    reactor 10 times its size, called ITER.
 The product of an international collaboration, ITER will be the world’s 
    largest tokamak, and according to MIT’s Porkolab, it will be capable of 
    pulses as long as 8 minutes, generating up to 500 megawatts of power (the 
    most powerful tokamak, Britain’s JET, tops out between 10 and 20 MW). The 
    jointly developed reactor will have roughly the same shape as C-MOD, but 
    with 1000 times more volume in its chamber, and radio-frequency arrays 
    operating at much higher frequencies. The goal for ITER is a self-sustaining 
    reaction, where the plasma cloud remains stable and intact for long periods. 
    For that to happen, scientists like Porkolab are using supercomputers to 
    more precisely model plasma turbulence, and to develop novel methods of 
    avoiding it. One technique is to go beyond simply surrounding the cloud with 
    magnetic fields and slice it into cross sections, creating layers that flow 
    alongside each other, similar to the titanic superheated clouds on Jupiter. 
    This process can break up the eddies that lead to instabilities and create a 
    more sustainable environment for fusion.
 But even ITER, which is scheduled to be built within 8 to 10 years, is 
    intended as a research facility—not as an answer to our current energy 
    dilemma. It might produce an overall surplus of energy, but it won’t be 
    cost-effective production. For that, Porkolab estimates we’ll have to wait 
    for ITER to show results, possibly in the 2020s, and then wait another 
    decade or so while demo reactors are built. That means we’d see economically 
    feasible fusion power by 2035, at the earliest, and increasingly efficient 
    commercial reactors somewhere in the middle of the century.
 
 Even that protracted timeline now appears optimistic. Since 2006, when seven 
    member countries committed to the ITER’s $10 billion budget, federal funding 
    for scientific research in the United States appears to have bottomed out. 
    The U.S. agreed to pay 9.1 percent of the project’s total cost—but of the 
    $160 million contribution planned for this year, Congress has approved just 
    $10.7 million. Porkolab says eight ITER engineers had been laid off without 
    severance pay.
 
 The C-MOD reactor is also limited by shrinking science funds. With more 
    financial support, it could operate for 24 weeks out of the year. “Progress 
    is very slow. We’re only running about half the time,” Porkolab admits. The 
    work is likely to slow even further because of nationwide cuts to 
    high-energy physics programs; such cuts have already led to 200 layoffs at 
    Fermilab, a Department of Energy-funded particle accelerator in Illinois. If 
    belts are in need of tightening, it might seem reasonable to limit research 
    that appears to be wandering on the fringes. But when the primary goal of 
    fusion is a revolution in clean energy, and the rest of the world is 
    preparing to take a historic step in that direction, scientists fear it’s a 
    particularly dangerous time to limit C-MOD and effectively pull out of ITER.
 
 But even if C-MOD never reaches its full research potential, there’s more 
    than one way to cook a plasma donut, and scientists are also working 
    feverishly on those. I leave C-MOD’s eerily perfect control room, with its 
    starship-computer voice and distant, periodic generator rumble, for an 
    entirely different set of pop-culture associations. Deeper, more 
    subterranean, is a three-story-tall jumble of stainless steel—a mad 
    scientist’s vision called the Levitating Dipole eXperiment, or LDX. Through 
    grates in the floor, I can see researchers in hard hats weaving among the 
    cables on the level below. In this reactor, the process of fusion 
    confinement is complicated even further—a superconducting ring is lowered 
    into the center of the chamber, where it levitates within the plasma. The 
    resulting magnetic field is closer to the kind of field produced by planets 
    like Jupiter. This project, which is a collaboration between MIT and 
    Columbia University, is currently the only fusion experiment in the United 
    States that uses the same kind of superconducting magnets that ITER will 
    use. The project achieved a successful levitation this past November; 
    unfortunately, there will be no levitation today, no plasma ignitions or 
    ominous countdowns. For the LDX, glimpses of plasma—and the holy grail 
    within—are few and far between.
 Copyright © 2008 Hearst Communications, Inc. All Rights 
    Reserved.  To subscribe or visit go to: 
    http://www.popularmechanics.com
     |