Is anything truly impossible?

A recent Scientific American article highlighted the work of two Canadian engineers. Todd Reichert and Cameron Robertson, who built the world’s first (and only) human-powered helicopter.

After they had completed their brilliant and imaginative work, they learned of a recent paper which showed that what they had just done was impossible.

Their achievement put me in mind of Lord Kelvin’s misguided pronouncement:

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.

This is a popular meme: illustrious expert says something is impossible: ingenue shows it is not.

But nonetheless, there are (presumably?) things which, even though they may be imagined, are still either truly or practically impossible.

But how can you distinguish between ideas which are truly or practically impossible, and those which are just hard to imagine?

This is not a merely an academic question

The UK  is currently committed to spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a nuclear fusion experiment called ITER which I am confident will never result in the construction of even a single power station.

Wikipedia tells me the build cost of the project is an astonishing $50 billion – ten times its original projected cost. Impossible projects have a way of going over budget.

I explained my reasons for considering the project to be impossible here

And on reading this Jonathan Butterworth, Head of Physics at UCL tweeted that he:

could write a similar post on why the LHC is impossible. IMHO

But I don’t think he could. Let me explain with some examples:

1. The large hadron collider (LHC) where Jonathan works is a machine called a synchrotron, which is itself a development of a cyclotron.

The first cyclotron was built in a single University physics department in 1932 (History). If, back then, you had told someone the specification of the LHC, would they have said it was impossible?

I don’t think so. Because although each parameter (size, energy etc.) has been stretched – through astonishing ingenuity and technically virtuosity  – the LHC is an extrapolation from something that they knew definitely worked.

2. A modern nuclear power station  is an engineering realisation of ‘a pile of graphite bricks‘ that was first constructed beneath the stand of a playing field of the University of Chicago in 1942.

Within this ‘pile’, the first controlled nuclear reaction took place and worked exactly as had been anticipated. Would the people who witnessed the reaction have said a nuclear power station was impossible?

Definitely not. Everyone in the room was aware of the significance (good and bad) of what had been achieved.

Controlled nuclear fusion, is in an entirely different category from either of these stories of engineering success.

  • It has never worked.

We have never created sustained nuclear fusion and the reasons for the failure of this achievement have always changed as we have understood the problem better.

The rationale for ITER is – cutting through a great deal of technical detail – that it is bigger than previous versions. This increases the volume of the plasma (where energy is released by fusion) in relation to the surface area (where it is lost).

I expect that ITER will meet its technical goals (or most of them). But even on this assumption, they would then have to solve the technical problems associated with confining a plasma at a temperature of 150 million ºC for 30 years rather  than 10 seconds.

As I explained previously, I just don’t think solutions to these problems exist that would allow reliable operation for 30 years with 90% availability required for power generation.

So I think controlled nuclear fusion as a means of generating power is – while perfectly conceivable – actually impossible.

What if – in 50 years time – we make it work? 

Then I will be proved wrong. If I am alive, I will apologise.

However, even in this optimistic scenario, it will be 50 years too late to affect climate change, which is a problem which needs solving now.

And we will have spent money and energy that  we could have spent on solving the problems that face us now using solutions which we know will definitely work.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Is anything truly impossible?”

  1. James Says:

    they might have thought it impossible to record and process all the data produced though – the development of computers and electronics has been amazing.

    Have you seen this approach to fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Fusion ? I have no idea if it will work but it seems different enough to be interesting. You’d hope after getting that much funding already that it is based on something that already worked to some small degree.

    • protonsforbreakfast Says:

      I had not seen that idea. And I don’t rule out the possibility that there is some sweet way to do this that the big-wigs haven’t thought of. But I think it is unlikely.

      In general terms, fusion requires an extremely clean environment that is not compatible with operation at 150 million degrees, operation for 40 years at 90% availability, and an energy flux of around 1000 times the flux from the sun per square metre.

      But I could be wrong: 🙂

  2. H Stiles (@HStiles1) Says:

    If you could choose a project on energy to spend that money on instead, what might be a good use of those funds?

    • protonsforbreakfast Says:

      I would bet the money on tidal power. I would build a Severn Barrage : 5 GW, completely predictable and 7% of UK energy supply.

  3. Nestor Says:

    Interesting Michael, I don’t know enough to comment on physical plausibility but the lack of progress despite vast effort and expenditure to date makes me tend to agree with you. But the question then is… why are large numbers of smart and presumably honourable experts in the field persisting with their claims?

    • protonsforbreakfast Says:

      Nestor,

      You frame the question well. In particular you mention their honour and good will. I believe in that too and i have asked myself the question about why they come to different conclusions than I do.

      I have spoken with fusion researchers from time to time and they seem to me to be highly optimistic. If we accept all the most optimistic arguments, the first power station would be 50 years away. So I think they see a world where there is one more round of fission stations – the ones we are about to build – and then fusion emerges to take the strain.

      My view previously would have seen fusion as a long-odds bet that was worth a few hundred million pounds a year. Now I think not. I think the next 50 years are critical vis-a-vis carbon emissions and I would spend those hundreds of millions year-on-year on the Severn barrage, wind farms, and energy storage to make the wind farms useful. (See the next blog on the problems of wind)

      IN reality fusion is not clean – it involves using uranium as a neutron multiplier. It is resource limited by the amount of lithium on Earth – and lithium has other critical uses. Oh, yes. And it doesn’t work.

      Love to you and your family

      Michael

  4. Nestor Says:

    Thanks Michael, and to yours. It does seem that the resources could be better used elsewhere. How about ’em thorium reactors? They seem quite good.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: