Talk:Nuclear fusion/Annotated bibliography of p-B11 fusion

Annotated bibliography of p-B11 fusion

Author Art Carlson
Last revised: August, 1998.
Status: It was fairly complete when written, but my be out of date by now.

There are a number of reactions that produce energy through nuclear fusion. Of these, d + t -> He4 + n may be classified as "conventional" because it has, by virtue of having the largest cross section at the lowest temperature, been the focus of almost all research to date. The reactions using various proportions of deuterium and helium-3 as the fuels may be called "advanced" since they are harder to produce, but have the advantage of involving less radioactivity. Reactions that are even harder, but produce even fewer neutrons, have been called "exotic". Of these, p + B11 -> 3 He4 has been the most popular. This bibliography lists scientific publications dealing with this reaction, in rough order of quality, including my commentary.

1. W. Kernbichler, R. Feldbacher, M. Heindler. "Parametric Analysis of p-11B as Advanced Reactor Fuel" in Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research (Proc. 10th Int. Conf., London, 1984) IAEA-CN-44/I-I-6. Vol. 3 (IAEA, Vienna, 1987).

This paper is somewhat hard to understand but is probably the latest and best reference for the power balance of p-B11. Includes effects of non-Maxwellian ions and nuclear elastic scattering (NES) recoils. Concerning Q: "However, there is little reason to believe that the fuel has the potential to reach reasonable Q-values, regardless of the quality of the confinement. ... Even for the 'reference' parameter set - which defines the upper bound of the fuel performance with respect to confinement and impurity parameters - the maximum value of Q was found to be as low as 1.89 at Ti=320keV; moderate synchrotron losses shift the maximum to Q_p=1.68 at 250 keV, as compared to the breakeven requirement of Q_be = 3.6." To understand exactly what they are saying requires some close study of their paper, but we call attention to their pessimistic tone and to the fact that their definition of Q_p is the normal definition plus one. Concerning radioactivity: "The neutron production occurs mainly through 11B(fast-alpha,n)14N." Also mentioned are the 11B(p,gamma)12C, 11B(fast-alpha,p)14C, and 11B(p,n)11C reactions.

2. M. Heindler and W. Kernbichler (Alternative Energy Physics Program, Graz Univ. of Technology, Austria) "Advanced fuel fusion" Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems (ICENES '89, Karlsruhe, Germany, 3-6 July, 1989). U. von Moellendorff and B. Goel, eds. World Scientific (Singapore) 1989. Pp. 177-82.

Concerning Q: "The plasma Q value is found to peak at about Q=2 for temperatures around 300 keV, well below reactor breakeven requirement. No mode of operation or plausible modification of the parameters could be identified which would bring p-B11 to ignition. The sensitivity studies indicate that neither data uncertainties nor the effect of physics phenomena which were not included in the analysis, such as nuclear elastic scattering, could potentially change the conclusion." It is not clear in this paper, but in their other work the authors define "plasma Q" = P_fusion/P_lost, so P_fusion/P_in peaks at about 1, consistent with other studies. Concerning radioactivity: "neutron production increases monotonically with temperature from 0.002 at 100 keV to 0.01 at 500 keV.... Higher radiation and neutron levels may be actually expected from impurities associated with the fuel, mainly deuterons and B10."

3. R. Feldbacher and M. Heindler. "Basic Cross Section Data for Aneutronic Reactor". Nucl. Instrum. & Meth. in Physics Research A271 (1988). Pp. 55-64. [Long title: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Feasibility of Aneutronic Power: Review of Searches for Nonradioactive Nonproliferating Nuclear Energy Held at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, Sep 10-11, 1987. Sponsored (as a point of interest) by the Tesla Foundation.]

Contains the most extensive list of reactions and plots of cross sections that I have run across. For p-B11 includes the cross section as a function of energy from 12 different sources. The Appendix of this issue, pp. 229-35, entitled "Aneutronic energy - Definitions and background", deserves mention as a nice introduction, including some interesting history, but it doesn't specifically mention p-B11.

4. John M. Dawson. "Advanced Fusion Reactors". Ch. 16, pp. 453-501, in Fusion, Vol. 1, Magnetic Confinement, Part B, ed. by Edward Teller. 1981, Academic Press, New York.

Thorough discussion of various reactions (including plots of vs. T), various loss processes, energy recovery (overall efficiency of 65-75% for bremsstrahlung), and confinement with multipoles. He mentions the problem of alpha ash, "One needs a method to remove alpha particles after they give up their energy to the plasma, while leaving the rest of the plasma in tact[sic]", and leaves it at that. He calculates a maximum ratio of fusion power to beam power slightly larger than 1 for for T near 300 keV and n_B/n_p = 0.1 or 0.2. Including reactions from the slowing down beam, this ratio could become as high as 1.4.

5. John M. Dawson. "CTR Using the p-11B Reaction", Part C of "Alternate Concepts in Controlled Fusion", Report EPRI ER-429-SR, ed. by Francis F. Chen. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, May 1977.

Same direction but less detail than Dawson, 1981.

6. J. Rand McNally, Jr. "Physics of Fusion Fuel Cycles". Nuclear Technology/Fusion, Vol. 2, Jan 1982, pp. 9-28.

Very good, thorough, and fairly recent. Gives 1946 as the year of the first serious consideration of light element burning. Suggests "very dense plasmas which confine gamma rays and bremsstrahlung" [J/R/McNally, Jr., "Gamma-Driven Fusion Burns," unpublished] as "new physics phenomenon" that could enable ignition of less reactive exotic fuels. "The p-11B fuel cycle is the only proton-based fuel cycle with adequate reactivity for serious consideration here. ... No steady-state burn has yet been projected for p-11B, although ignition prospects appear good for bremsstrahlung losses and alpha removal only [G.W.Shuy and R.W.Conn, "Physics Phenomena in the Analysis of Advanced Fusion Fuel Cycles," PPG-522, University of California, Los Angeles (1980); see also "Charged Particle Cross Section Requirements for Advanced Fusion Fuel Cycles," Proc. Int. Conf. Nuclear Cross Sections for Technology, NBS Special Publication 594, p. 254, U.S. National Bureau of Standards (1980)]." And "Note Added in Proof: Recent p-11B studies incorporating more exact nuclear elastic scattering effects indicate that it will not ignite over radiation losses (J. D. Gordon et al., "p-11B Multiple Evaluation," presented at Third IAEA Technical Committee Meeting and Workshop on Fusion Reactor Design and Technology, Tokyo, Japan, October 5-16, 1981)."

7. T. H. Rider, thesis, MIT (1995).

Excellent and very general, though the mathematical rigor (not necessarily the strength of the arguments) lets up when he talks about p-11B. "For p-11B, the Maxwellian-averaged value of <sigma*v>_fus at T_i = 1 MeV (where the available graphs end [34,35]) is 3.65e-16 cm^3/sec and is still rising as the temperature is increased further. According to Ref. [35], the maximum cross section is approximately 8e-25 cm^2 and occurs for protons with an energy of roughly 620 keV striking a plasma of essentially motionless boron ions. Based on the results for the other fuels discussed above, this energy should also correspond to the approximate location of the peak beam-plasma reactivity, yielding <sigma*v>_fus \approx 8.7e-16 cm^3/sec for 620-keV monoenergetic protons and very low-energy boron ions." Ref. 34: J.R. McNally, Jr., K.E. Rothe, and R.D. Sharp, Fusion Reactivity Graphs and Tables for Charged Particle Reactions. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Report ORNL/TM-6914, 1979. Ref. 35: R. Feldbacher, The AEP Barnbook DATLIB, INDC(AUS)-12/G. IAEA International Nuclear Data Committee, Vienna, October 1987.

8. Robert W. B. Best. "Advanced Fusion Fuel Cycles". Fusion Technology, Vol. 17 (July 1990), pp. 661-5.

Brief discussion of various fuels and confinement concepts. "Because of high radiation losses, p-11B is very hard to burn in magnetic confinement[13], but laser-compressed large p-11B pellets may ignite, absorbing the radiation." Ref. 13 is Kernbichler et al. (1995), "Parametric Analysis of p-11B as Advanced Reactor Fuel" in 10th PPCNFR, London.

9. L. John Perkins, James H. Hammer, and R. Paul Drake. "Fusion, the Competition, and the Prospects for Alternative Fusion Concepts". Chap. 23 in Current Trends in International Fusion Research, ed. by Panarella, Plenum Press, New York, 1997.

Generally a plea for alternate concept research. Singles out the FRC as "provid[ing], perhaps, the best reactor prospects of all of the low density, magnetically confined schemes". Mentions shape-enhanced fusion (see next entry) and antiproton catalysis [D.L.Morgan, L.J.Perkins, S.W.Haney, "Antiproton Catalyzed Fusion", Hyperfine Interactions 101, 503 (1996)] as examples of barrier reduction, which "may offer the only glimmer of hope for the truly advanced fuels, such as p-11B, which otherwise have a prohibitively-high barrier for application in a conventional thermonuclear system". This statement is notable for its involuntary pessimism and its recent date of publication. Incidently, the conclusion in "Antiproton Catalyzed Fusion" is that an antiproton cannot catalyze more than a single fusion reaction before annihilating, making it uninteresting for energy production by at least 6 orders of magnitude.

10. L.J.Perkins, "Shape Enhanced Fusion: Increasing the Reactivity for Some Advanced Fusion Fuels", Phys. Letters. A, Vol. 236(4), 15 Dec 1997, pp. 345-350.

Perkins deserves praise for his originality and perseverance, but this paper, like his on "Antiproton Catalyzed Fusion", tends to reinforce my opinion that, beyond the moderate improvement from spin polarization, there is no real hope of finding a nuclear effect which will change the general picture of fusion cross sections. The nature of this mechanism is such that a large enhancement (by an order of magnitude) can only occur at low energy where the cross section is already low. The maximum cross section for p-B11 (near 600 keV) is increased by ideally 30%. The resonance near 160 keV may be enhanced enough that the maximum of some figures of merit, e.g., sigma/E^3/2, which is proportional to the fusion power density at fixed pressure, may shift to that energy, but the 160 keV resonance is very narrow and would be even harder to exploit than the one at 600 keV.

11. George H. Miley. "Overview of Advanced Fuel Fusion". In Proc. of the Course and workshop on Tritium and Advanced Fuels in Fusion Reactors, Varenna, 1989, pp. 633-58.

Discusses various reactions and confinement concepts. The problem of ash is at least indirectly acknowledged by tau_E = tau_p and tau_E = 0.5 tau_p contours in Fig. 8. 52 references.

12. Thomas A. Weaver and Lowel L. Wood. "Some promising approaches to advanced CTR reactor systems." Report UCID-16870 from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, August 8, 1975.

An early examination of alternatives to D-T fusion. Cites Weaver, Zimmerman, and Wood, UCRL-74352 (1972), and Weaver and Wood, UCID-16229 (1973), as the first proposals to use p-B11 and other advanced fuels. Refers to p-B11 as "the most promising [exotic fuel system] by a substantial margin", but also says the p-B11 "will fall short of classical ignition conditions by 20-50%, if an optically thin, steady-state plasma is considered".

13. S. A. Cohen. "A fusion power plant without plasma-material interactions". PPPL-3245 Preprint: April 1997, UC-420.

This is an innovative power plant concept that chooses p-B11 as the fuel. Unfortunately, the power balance is based on Q values from the literature that are either misquoted, irrelevant, or faulty.

14. N. Rostoker, M. Bindebauer, H. J. Monkhorst, "Fusion Reactors Based on Colliding Beams in a Field Reversed Configuration Plasma". Comments Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 18, 11 (1997).

This is the paper on the Colliding Beams that provides the most details (i.e., they take enough rope to hang themselves). The parameters are changed in the 1997 Science paper by one or two orders of magnitude, which may be read as their having discovered that it won't work the way they describe it in this paper.

15. Norman Rostoker, Michl W. Bindebauer, Hendrik J. Monkhorst. "Colliding Beam Fusion Reactor". Science, Vol. 278, 21 Nov 1997, pp. 1419-22.

This is the paper that has gotten the most publicity and was the motivation for the work leading to this bibliography. My critique is scheduled to appear as a Technical Comment in the 1998 Jul 17 issue of Science.

16. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Aneutronic Energy, Washington, D.C., 1989. B.C.Maglich, ed.

I haven't seen this, but Heindler and Kernbichler reference it as a "recent collection of aneutronic fuel studies".