Six reasons why hydrogen-boron fusion would be the ultimate solution to global warming

1) The pollution from hydrogen-boron fusion is essentially zero. Per unit of electricity generated, the life cycle pollution impacts from hydrogen boron fusion are less than natural gas, or even wind or photovoltaics (solar cells). (Let alone nuclear fission, oil, or coal.) Even life cycle carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen-boron fusion are less than for photovoltaics or wind, because the amount of material needed to build a hydrogen-boron plant of a given electrical size is a tiny fraction of the material needed for a similar size plant.

2) The energy is extremely high density (extremely compact). When combined with reason #1, this means that hydrogen-boron fusion plants can be located even in the middle of densely populated cities. A hundred hydrogen-boron fusion plants could be located in the basements of buildings in downtown Manhattan, and could supply all the electricity needed by NYC.

3) Due to reasons #1 and #2, hydrogen-boron fusion completely eliminates the need for a nationwide electrical grid. No more high-tension lines, brownouts or blackouts.

4) Due to reasons #1, #2, and #3, electricity from hydrogen-boron fusion can be delivered to sites hit by disasters long before electricity from conventional sources. After major hurricanes, electrical power is often out in some areas for weeks, or even months. With hydrogen-boron fusion, a tractor-trailer trucks containing hydrogen-boron electrical generating plants could be used to repower a city like New Orleans in less than a week.

5) Hydrogen-boron fusion is continuous, not intermittent. Unlike solar cells and wind, hydrogen-boron can produce as much power as needed, any time needed. An electrical grid powered significantly by photovoltaics or wind would have a horrendous problem trying to match the intermittent supply of those energies with the demand for electricity.

6) Hydrogen-boron fusion can be used to power virtually ANY device. For example, airplanes use petroleum, because it has such high energy density (per unit volume and per unit mass). And the space shuttle’s external fuel tanks contain hydrogen and oxygen. But fusion is roughly a million times more powerful per unit mass than chemical reactions. So the amount of hydrogen required to fly from NY to LAX could literally be found in the bottled water brought on board for passengers to drink. And the space shuttle’s external tanks could be literally replaced by fuel weighing less than the astronauts themselves.

Comments

[anon]

Seriously? H-B fusion as the solution, when we can't even reach the break-even-point with D-T? Go on dreaming.

[Jack]

Dec 18, 2008: Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc. announces the initiation of a two year long experimental project to test the scientific feasibility of Focus Fusion.

Focus Fusion is:
controlled nuclear fusion using the dense plasma focus(DPF) device and hydrogen-boron fuel.
Hydrogen-boron fuel produces almost no neutrons (e.g. no radioactivity) and allows the direct conversion of energy into electricity.

Goals:
to confirm the achievement of the high temperatures first observed in previous experiments at Texas A&M University.
to greatly increase the efficiency of energy transfer into the tiny plasmoid where the fusion reactions take place.
to achieve the high magnetic fields needed for the quantum magnetic field effect which will reduce cooling of the plasma by X-ray emissions; and
to use hydrogen-boron fuel to demonstrate greater fusion energy production than energy fed into the plasma (positive net energy production)

The experiment will be carried out in an experimental facility in New Jersey using a newly-built DPF device capable of reaching peak currents of more than 2MA.

This will be the most powerful DPF in North America and the second most powerful in the world. For the millionth of a second that the DPF will be operating during each pulse, its capacitor bank will be supplying about one third as much electricity as all electric generators in the United States.

there still is hope Id say. What do you guys think?

[GK]

Mark,

Coming back to the 21st Century economic growth topic, I see that your analysis was in 2004, off of data until 2000.

Now, can you do a new analysis that includes World GDP data until 2008 (where GDP projections for 2008 are fairly well defined at this point). The data exists on the IMF website.

The inclusion of more data through 2008 might help refine your forecast.

[Mark Bahner]

Hi,

It would be very cool. I'm with you, if I can find $30 million to spare I'm going to put a hydrogen-boron generator in my basement.

Oh, I wouldn't do that! ;-)

As you've pointed out, it may never be developed.

But there are cool things you can put in your basement right now. I think you can buy a home fuel cell that runs on natural gas that will provide most of your home's electricity and heat for "only" $20,000-30,000.

http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci030723.html

http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Electrical-Electronics/chp-fuel-cell

[stats]

It would be very cool. I'm with you, if I can find $30 million to spare I'm going to put a hydrogen-boron generator in my basement.

[Mark Bahner]

What do you know that the Wikipedia author doesn't?

There's no contradiction between anything in the Wikipedia article and anything in my blog post. The Wikipedia article discusses how difficult it may be to develop hydrogen-boron fusion. And my blog post discusses how, if hydrogen-boron fusion *is* developed, it will be the ultimate solution to global warming (and energy needs in general).

But I'll change the title of the post to, "Why hydrogen-boron fusion would be the ultimate solution to global warming".

[stats]

This is the first time I have ever heard about hydrogen-boron fusion. So I looked it up on the internet and the first article that came up was from Wikipedia. The author (or authors) seem pessimistic about the real world uses of this type of energy generation. The authors cite a number of issues with containment, etc. The authors even state that aneutronic fusion has yet to be proven scientifically feasible.

What do you know that the Wikipedia author doesn't?