The Promise of Nuclear Fusion

Phillip Kite,Alexander Richardson

doi:10.5130/pamr.v1i0.1385

Phillip Kite, Alexander Richardson

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.5130/pamr.v1i0.1385

Copy DOI

Abstract

This paper is a meta-study exploring the progression of nuclear fusion technology from a thermodynamic perspective. Thermodynamic parameters such as power, temperature, volume, efficiency and the fusion triple product (nTτ) were analysed in order to investigate the progress that has been achieved and the challenges that lay ahead. Nuclear fusion reactor designs, confinement systems, advantages and disadvantages are discussed herein. The findings conclude that there has been significant progress made in nuclear fusion research and development, to the point of being merely one order of magnitude away from commercial reactor conditions. It was also concluded that there is very little correlation between reactor volume and the current bench mark of fusion reactor performance, the fusion triple product.

Highlights

Nuclear fusion reactions, first conceptualized in 1929 by R. d’E
It is these modest returns that have prompted critics to describe this pursuit of fusion power as essentially fruitless and ‘wishful thinking’ [4]
Considering the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear fusion power generations systems alongside their potential efficiency at 48%, we found that fusion power represents a very real and competitive possibility for our approach to a sustainable energy solution to meet future demands

Summary

Introduction

First conceptualized in 1929 by R. d’E. Atkinson and F.G. Power generation via the process of nuclear fusion has been a long sought after dream. Finding a way to harness the vast amounts of energy available from a fusion reaction has been a complex problem which has involved: many years of research, intense debate, and billions of dollars; with so far only modest returns. It is these modest returns that have prompted critics to describe this pursuit of fusion power as essentially fruitless and ‘wishful thinking’ [4]. Speaking the critics’ arguments are defeatist, morally myopic, and dismiss the idea of nuclear fusion as a pipe dream. Valid criticism does exist, and the points of contention that hold merit must be considered if a realistic approach to energy production is to be taken

Methods

Results

Conclusion