ENGR 0711
R-11
NUCLEAR FUSION BROUGHT TO LIFE AT LAWRENCE LIVERMORE
Joseph W Petrich (jop52@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
The 14 “Grand Challenges For Engineering,” proposed by
the National Academy of Engineering were designed to
“make the world not only a more technologically advanced
and connected place, but also a more sustainable, safe,
healthy, and joyous – in other words, better – place” [1].
World-wide, the best minds in engineering are working to
tackle these difficult and important objectives, one of which
is providing energy from nuclear fusion. From the
Fleischman-Pons “cold fusion” debacle [2] to the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
[3], scientists and engineers have tried for decades to bring
about controlled fusion. I hold that the most promising
current attempt involves the use of concentrated lasers to
incite fusion in solid deuterium/tritium pellets. Fusion is
essential to the development of the human race because our
world is facing an approaching energy crisis, and its
realization would provide nearly unlimited clean power to
humanity.
Though controlled fusion is being studied at various
research institutions, I will focus on the Laser Inertial Fusion
Engine (LIFE), part of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I believe that
LIFE has the greatest short-term promise for establishing
feasibility of electricity generation via fusion. This type of
fusion would actually deplete nuclear waste, and could be
used to test nuclear weapons without negating treaties. As
project director Dr. Ed Moses said in a New York Times
quote, “you’ll have, for all intents and purposes, a limitless
supply of carbon-free energy that’s not geopolitically
sensitive. What more would you want?” [4]. My discussion
of this project will also demonstrate how engineers, through
analysis and problem solving techniques benefit humanity.
SOCIAL ENGINEERING
While the potential benefits from fusion are incredibly large,
securing funding for research has been notoriously difficult
[3]. The memory of the Soviet disaster at Chernobyl, though
a fission energy disaster, is forever linked in the public mind
to nuclear energy, and therefore it is difficult to persuade the
public to support anything nuclear. In addition, the break-
down of the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island further
turned the public opinion against nuclear energy. Finally,
the very public “discovery” of cold fusion in the late 1980s
turned society against fusion research, and scientific
research in general, after it was shown to be a hoax.
Ironically, the aspect of fusion which most scares the
public also creates the largest funding source. Nuclear
fusion is at the heart of nuclear weaponry, and one of the
University of Pittsburgh
Swanson School of Engineering
1
practical applications of NIF is the testing of nuclear
weapons technology without detonating bombs. While
national opinion may be against nuclear proliferation and
development, the Department of Defense, along with the
State Department are very interested in developing nuclear
weapons technology without causing international incidents
or breaking treaties. Thus, NIF is a government project, and,
while vastly over budget [5], it continues to receive funding
and approval from congress. This non-scientific feature of
NIF is an example of an analytical solution to a political
problem that is characteristic of the engineering mindset. By
agreeing to test the health of the nation’s nuclear stockpile
and develop future weapons, engineers and scientists were
able to pursue research to benefit humanity, and that is
aligned with the philosophy of the grand challenges.
BREAKING THE LAW: NET ENERGY GAIN
The problem thus far with nuclear fusion has been collecting
more energy from the fusion reaction than is necessary to
start and sustain the reaction. Prior to LIFE, all verified
fusion efforts have centered on controlling a cloud of helium
plasma at 100 million degrees Celcius within a doughnut-
shaped structure called a tokomak. Though fusion has
occurred under these conditions, the energy required to
power the magnets and supply the liquid helium to cool
them has always exceeded the amount of energy emitted by
the reaction [6]. The reason all this input energy is wasted is
because very little of it is absorbed or used in the fusion
reaction itself. In tests of lasers for LIFE at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, however, nearly theoretical
energy absorption has been attained, with the target pellets
absorbing 90% of the laser energy delivered [7].
This unprecedented absorption level means that fusion
researchers can now use lasers to compress the target pellet
more efficiently than ever, limiting the wasted energy and
maximizing the potential gain from LIFE power. In the
words of an anonymous engineer, “The goal of the engineer
is to come as close to breaking the laws of thermodynamics
as possible.” In this sense, attaining a net gain from fusion
is a serious engineering accomplishment. A popular
paraphrase of one of the laws of thermodynamics is “you
can’t get something for nothing.” Fusion appears to be just
that because the fuel is cheap and plentiful, the reaction
would potentially be self-sustaining, and the byproduct is
non-radioactive helium [8]. Furthermore, the prospect of
supplying humanity with unlimited clean energy adheres to
the philosophy of the “Grand Challenges in Engineering.”
4 October 2010
 Joseph W Petrich

CONCLUSION
LIFE has the great potential of supplying unlimited clean
energy, but many engineering obstacles remain. Aside from
the difficulties of operating the lasers, manufacturing the
deuterium/tritium pellets, and supplying the incredibly high
necessary energy, public opinion must be in favor of funding
nuclear fusion if it is ever to move from the early research
stage to product development and deployment. While
remaining focused on engineering efficiency at NIF, the
engineers working towards LIFE should also be analyzing
public opinion, and solving the problems that lie in the
political realm. It is this part that separates the engineers
from the scientists, the achievers from the idealists.

REFERENCES
[1] (2008). “Introduction to the Grand Challenges for Engineering”
National Academy of Engineering Grand Challenges For Engineering.
[Online], Available: http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/8996/9221.
aspx
[2] Fleischmann, Martin and Pons, Stanley. (10 April 1989).
“Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium.” Journal of
Electroanalytical Chemistry. Vol. 261, pp. 301-308
[3] McKie, Robin. (2008, February). “Fusion 2.0.” Cosmos. [Online].
Available: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1954/full
[4] Broad, William J. (2009, May 25). “In Hot Pursuit of Fusion (or Folly).”
The New York Times. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
05/ 26/science/ 26fusi.html
[5] Bohan, Suzanne. (2010, September 20). “Livermore lab nears launch of
fusion quest, though ignition not expected this month.” San Jose Mercury
News. [Online]. Available: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-
news/ci_16126493?nclick_check=1
[6] (2010, January). “Initial NIF Experiments Show Promise for Ignition.”
Photons and Fusion. [Online]. Available: https://lasers.llnl.gov/multimedia/
publications/photons_fusion/2010/january.php
[7] Bayramian, A. et al. (2010). “A Laser Technology Test Facility for
Laser Inertial Fusion Energy.” Journal of Physics. Vol. 244. [Online].
Available: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/244/3/032016/pdf/1742-
6596_244_3_032016.pdf
[8] Conahan, Gillian. (2009, October 1). “The Care and Keeping of Stars.”
Muse. Vol. 13, no 8. p. 16

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Mark A Petrich for his suggested
reading in years past that sparked my interest in fusion. In
addition, I would like to thank the Seattle Public Library for
making a copious variety of resources available in full text
online.