Aug 30, 2017
Interesting and very different from fission & fusion nuclear energy discussed in media and among industry currently. I am unclear in reading the proposal where the source energy is derived from. Is this a uranium, thorium or other isotope energy - or- something else? Is there a waste management issue?
I look forward to learning more about this concept.
I just researched Lutetium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutetium and learned that "Lutetium is not a particularly abundant element, although it is significantly more common than silver in the earth's crust" which says to me that - well - there's no sustainability in this "fuel" and the cost of extraction would be pretty high. What other materials are extracted from earth in the mining of Lutetium? How does this process help the climate?
Aug 30, 2017
The energy is from the accelerated beta decay of isotope 176 Lutetium to 176 Hafnium. The resultant hafnium is not waste, but useful other metal.
Lutetium is somewhat expensive, about a quarter to third of gold price, still acceptable because of its high nuclear energy: 1MeV above per nucleus.
Sep 3, 2017
Did you try to estimate how many years would it take to commercialize this technology and how much cheaper & GHG-saving would it be, compared with 4th gen nuclear?
Sep 3, 2017
Hi Yanming, could you provide links to your references? I looked up the doi numbers but can't seem to find them. I'm surprised about your inclusion of lutetium given its relatively small availability and lower energy density; it is not known for its use as a fuel.
On a different note, I can't get over how much your sketches temind me of learning about vision in school--takes me back!
Looking forward to more details,Betsy
Sep 13, 2017
Sep 15, 2017
Clean nuclear energy is an alluring concept!
Maybe you can try to apply for ARPA-e funding program of DOE.
Sep 18, 2017
Perhaps the next year budget for ARPA-e of DOE will be greatly cut.
But this research is really promising, I like it.
We need lots of top inventors to Make America Super-powerful Again!
Sep 19, 2017
A man's learning power is always limited. I see you submitted 6 proposals crossing many different scientific fields: mechanics, chemistry, superconductor, nuclear, neutrino, energy. Are you a superman? :)
If it is true, nominating you as secretary of energy may both maximize states interest and realize your lofty aim of full spectrum of renewable energy, I believe so.
Sep 19, 2017
Thanks for Coy's admire.
I am neither superman, nor rocket man, I am just a quick learner, experiment lover, and handyman with diversified curiosities.
Sep 27, 2017
Once upon a time, USA nuclear scientists were considering to develop hafnium Hf178-m2 bomb by releasing artificial-excited energy via gamma rays from its 2nd isomer state 2446 keV / 31 years half life.
Not to mention such idea is so radioactive dirty, in fact, its power density is only very weak 610 watt per kilogram, and no economic way to excite natural hafnium to so high state, therefore it is impossible idea!
According to my deduced equation, the lutetium isomer Lu176m features super high power density at 23 megawatts per kilogram!
Although its power density is far far greater than the Hf178-m2, and easy excite to 122 keV by whatever economic way other than focused neutrinos, but too short half time 3.7 hours to shelve it for decent long time, therefore hopeless to be the replacer of halfnium.
Even I have ability to find a good replacer, I still have no interest in it, because I dislike war, and love peace forever!
Power density calculation formula and more for decay based nuclear fuel or battery, Yanming Wei, 2017, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32730.13764:
Oct 1, 2017
There is error in above calculation of isotope Hf178-m2 heat power density, 610 W/kg underestimated, 1525 W/kg correct.
The hafnium gamma laser weapon is based on the concept that its isomer states could be easily de-excited to ground status by firstly exciting the isomer to more higher level. In fact, to my study and experiment, it is just an imagination of theoretical physicists, because of not feasible and not economical high energy excitation.