Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

[Jeff7]

Quick, someone call Adlep!

Don't worry, some of their engineers will work in SI units, and others will work in imperial units. The thing will blow up.


Seriously though, our country should be investing a shit ton of money into fusion research.

"Wait, you said fission, right? The one where the atoms......uh oh."




I wonder what their design is? That article is somewhat less than even marginally technical.

"We have a thing that totally works and will be ready in 10 years. Yup."

If true I wonder if environmentalist and global warming nuts will embrace or oppose the technology.

It runs on plasmafied pandas.

I saw this today too. It's an interesting concept and obviously exactly what the world needs.
A modular 100MW reactor the size of a business jet engine is awesome.
Aviation weekly had a good write up:

http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

It sounds like they have made a few breakthroughs but they still need to prove the theory is feasible.

Arstechnica also had an article and they thought Lockheed was bringing it up now to pursue some outside help/funding to spread the R&D risks out.

It's exciting, but still a big IF. After all fusion is always 20 years away.

(Speaking for myself, I want one for the ISS, huge fragile solar arrays are a pain in the ass)

Thanks for the link.


So....we'll see. A working fusion reactor design would be amazing to have (assuming Lockheed doesn't patent and license out their electricity at ridiculous rates). But we went from a perpetual state of "It's 30-50 years away" to "We're building a basic test unit later this year, and a full prototype in 5 years."



But hey, if they did manage to figure out a solution, great.

I'm still curious about the neutron situation. The article says that the neutrons smack into the reactor walls to heat them, and then use that heat to boil water and spin turbines. Wasn't neutron bombardment of reactor walls a problem, since it slowly damages and erodes the walls? Are they meant to be replaceable?




Turbines: I remember one unusual fusion concept I came across, where the fusion plasma would be pulsed past coils of wires. It would work like a transformer. The changing magnetic field of the pulsed plasma would induce voltage into the coils, thus bypassing the significant efficiency losses caused by using heat to make steam spin a turbine. The only losses would be in the wiring and magnetic couplings. I don't know if anything's being done with that though.

 

[hal2kilo]

This looks like it could be a really interesting development for the future if it can be workable.

Probably will be.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...n-energy-project/ar-BB9ex4t?ocid=ansnewsreu11

Been following progress on fusion power for over 20 years. I'll not hold my breath. I'm in the ECF camp myself.
UDub (University of Washington for non natives) is also claiming they've got a design based on a modified Sphereomak (calling it a Dynomak, need money to see patent) that could be comercially viable in 10 years
One thing's for sure, Big Fusion is dead. (hint ITER).

 

[JEDIYoda]

half will be hid from academia.

nothing wrong with that!!

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Someone like Dave would likely still oppose it because Lockheed (an evil corporation) invented it, see Monsanto. Some (hopefully tiny) amount of environmentalists only want to reduce global population and see advances like this as a threat. Still others might oppose it because they'd prefer to redistribute existing wealth than create new wealth if it goes to the "wrong" people. And some are just plain Luddites who would oppose this on principle because new technologies are scary.

This technology would not create more farmable land or create the raw materials needed to move to more artificial forms of agriculture.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

So....we'll see. A working fusion reactor design would be amazing to have (assuming Lockheed doesn't patent and license out their electricity at ridiculous rates). But we went from a perpetual state of "It's 30-50 years away" to "We're building a basic test unit later this year, and a full prototype in 5 years."



I'm still curious about the neutron situation. The article says that the neutrons smack into the reactor walls to heat them, and then use that heat to boil water and spin turbines. Wasn't neutron bombardment of reactor walls a problem, since it slowly damages and erodes the walls? Are they meant to be replaceable?

PARA 1) When the human genome was decoded, it was planned as a 7 year project. At year 6, 1% of the human genome was decoded. At year 7, it was 100%. Development doesn't always appear to occur in a linear manner. With fusion if you figure there are 100 problems to solve that are dependent upon 300 previous solutions that are dependent upon 500 previous solutions ..... you can start to see how those 100 problems are not solved easily solved. Maybe 1% at 30 years. But as those 300 and 500 problems are solved .... it then becomes 10% at 35 years and then you realize that the last 90% that are unsolved will be solved at year 40.

PARA 2) Yes, the walls would get damaged but there are risk mitigations available via materials science. Making a wall that lasts 30 years should be easily doable.

 

[Dman8777]

15 million degrees celsius on the back of a truck? I'm skeptical...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Been following progress on fusion power for over 20 years. I'll not hold my breath. I'm in the ECF camp myself.
UDub (University of Washington for non natives) is also claiming they've got a design based on a modified Sphereomak (calling it a Dynomak, need money to see patent) that could be comercially viable in 10 years
One thing's for sure, Big Fusion is dead. (hint ITER).

I read up on ITER a few weeks ago and was amazed at all the technical hurdles involving containment of the reaction. I wonder how Lockhead plans to do it.

"Fusion is like trying to put the Sun in a box - but we don't know how to make the box."

 

[werepossum]

Quick, someone call Adlep!





"Wait, you said fission, right? The one where the atoms......uh oh."




I wonder what their design is? That article is somewhat less than even marginally technical.

"We have a thing that totally works and will be ready in 10 years. Yup."




It runs on plasmafied pandas.




Thanks for the link.


So....we'll see. A working fusion reactor design would be amazing to have (assuming Lockheed doesn't patent and license out their electricity at ridiculous rates). But we went from a perpetual state of "It's 30-50 years away" to "We're building a basic test unit later this year, and a full prototype in 5 years."



But hey, if they did manage to figure out a solution, great.

I'm still curious about the neutron situation. The article says that the neutrons smack into the reactor walls to heat them, and then use that heat to boil water and spin turbines. Wasn't neutron bombardment of reactor walls a problem, since it slowly damages and erodes the walls? Are they meant to be replaceable?

Turbines: I remember one unusual fusion concept I came across, where the fusion plasma would be pulsed past coils of wires. It would work like a transformer. The changing magnetic field of the pulsed plasma would induce voltage into the coils, thus bypassing the significant efficiency losses caused by using heat to make steam spin a turbine. The only losses would be in the wiring and magnetic couplings. I don't know if anything's being done with that though.

That plasma containment concept is the most interesting I've seen, but also the most risky. Lose containment for a microsecond = big bada boom.

Thanks for the link, Mongrel. This seems like great news to me, although it could well be that while a prototype is buildable in five years, a practical model will still be twenty years away.

The relative size of this proposed reactor brings to mind the Convair NB-36H. Are we in line for nuclear-powered aircraft to return?

 

[Binarycow]

get it right and working and there's a Physics Nobel Prize for those guys 20 years from now.

Go U.S.A. !!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thebobo]

I remember reading in the 70s that fusion reactors where 10-20 years away.

Also that bio computers where 10 years away.

And that disco would be dead at the end of the decade.

1 out of 3 ain't bad.

 

[werepossum]

I remember reading in the 70s that fusion reactors where 10-20 years away.

Also that bio computers where 10 years away.

And that disco would be dead at the end of the decade.

1 out of 3 ain't bad.

Of the three, that's the one I'd have voted to kill.

 

[cabri]

skeptics

 

[Meghan54]

Yes please. Any time I work in imperial units it slows stuff down. Decimals are simply easier to work with especially if you bring a calculator into the mix.

I'm sure you understand working with decimals does NOT imply working with metric, right?

I've seen and used imperial units, specifically inch measurements, being measured in the 0.0001" range. I've got a micrometer that has a tolerance of 0.001". And that's the reason the mistake was made converting imperial to metric....the measurements looked exactly the same....both in decimals.

 

[MongGrel]

I saw this today too. It's an interesting concept and obviously exactly what the world needs.
A modular 100MW reactor the size of a business jet engine is awesome.
Aviation weekly had a good write up:

http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

It sounds like they have made a few breakthroughs but they still need to prove the theory is feasible.

Arstechnica also had an article and they thought Lockheed was bringing it up now to pursue some outside help/funding to spread the R&D risks out.

It's exciting, but still a big IF. After all fusion is always 20 years away.

(Speaking for myself, I want one for the ISS, huge fragile solar arrays are a pain in the ass)

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Iterate, Iterate, Iterate.

 

[IronWing]

I read up on ITER a few weeks ago and was amazed at all the technical hurdles involving containment of the reaction. I wonder how Lockhead plans to do it.

"Fusion is like trying to put the Sun in a box - but we don't know how to make the box."

I'm kind of wondering if containment is really needed. If you can create a pressure-temperature bubble and hold it long enough to get a chain reaction of x generations before it blows itself apart, could it be enough to get more power out than you put in? And then do again and again instead of trying to stabilize a plasma. Just thinking.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm kind of wondering if containment is really needed. If you can create a pressure-temperature bubble and hold it long enough to get a chain reaction of x generations before it blows itself apart, could it be enough to get more power out than you put in? And then do again and again instead of trying to stabilize a plasma. Just thinking.

Interesting idea, pulse fusion.

 

[zinfamous]

If true I wonder if environmentalist and global warming nuts will embrace or oppose the technology.

why would you wonder? There's really only one type of response to such a technology.

....or is it that you fundamentally don't understand jack about climate change, science, and the people you don't like? Oh yeah, that's it.

 

[werepossum]

why would you wonder? There's really only one type of response to such a technology.

....or is it that you fundamentally don't understand jack about climate change, science, and the people you don't like? Oh yeah, that's it.

Nope, plenty of self-styled environmentalists are dead set against any form of nuclear power.

And as with any form of nuclear power, the stakes are high. Catastrophic failure can poison the land for up to centuries.

 

[Paratus]

15 million degrees celsius on the back of a truck? I'm skeptical...

There just isn't a large amount of plasma and it's magnetically isolated from the shell. So while the temperature is high the shell never sees any material at 10 million degrees. It only has to be designed to handle to energy output of the reactor which in this case is 100MW. That should be doable with a pressurized water loop or maybe a molten salt.

Interesting idea, pulse fusion.

There was a space propulsion idea based on pulsed fusion. It's basically what the NIF is. Blast a fuel pellet with lasers until it fuses. The fusion is inertially contained like a bomb. Then feed another pellet in multiple times a second. Of course at the NIF they feed the pellets in like once a year.

Nope, plenty of self-styled environmentalists are dead set against any form of nuclear power.

And as with any form of nuclear power, the stakes are high. Catastrophic failure can poison the land for up to centuries.

Wereposum, unless I'm missing some sarcasm, a fusion reactor cannot go boom nor spew radiation across the land. A fusion reactor is basically a vacuum chamber with a small amount of very very hot compressed gas.

Once containment is lost the gas expands very quickly. You may remember from physics that when a gas expands it cools. So the fusion reaction stops as soon as the containment is lost, the plasma cools, and you're left with a warm neutral gas. No kaboom.

The only radiation produced in an operating fusion reactor is in the steel shell and is equivalent of low level medical waste.

Fusion is not fission and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[MongGrel]

I guess that would be what NIF does, but had not really thought about that till this came up.

I'd mostly looked at NIF in passing.

Few beers slows me down, but I'm more of a hardware guy than the concept ones.

But I help the concept guys out now and then a lot too

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
Wereposum, unless I'm missing some sarcasm, a fusion reactor cannot go boom nor spew radiation across the land. A fusion reactor is basically a vacuum chamber with a small amount of very very hot compressed gas.

Once containment is lost the gas expands very quickly. You may remember from physics that when a gas expands it cools. So the fusion reaction stops as soon as the containment is lost, the plasma cools, and your left with a warm neutral gas. No kaboom.

The only radiation produced in an operating fusion reactor is in the steel shell and is equivalent of low level medical waste.

Fusion is not fission and shouldn't be treated as such.

No sarcasm, I was thinking that a fusion reactor could fireball if it lost containment from a runaway reaction. That's probably just wrong as it's been awhile since I've read up on it and I suspect I'm conflating breeder reactors with fusion reactors.

My brain is full, so now every time I learn something new I forget something old. This time it was fusion reactor behavior, apparently. That's actually good news since I still have to find my way home.

 

[Paratus]

No problem guys. Just thought I would share some info and correct some honest mistakes. God knows we don't need mistakes turning this into another climate change debate.

 

[Jeff7]

PARA 1) When the human genome was decoded, it was planned as a 7 year project. At year 6, 1% of the human genome was decoded. At year 7, it was 100%. Development doesn't always appear to occur in a linear manner. With fusion if you figure there are 100 problems to solve that are dependent upon 300 previous solutions that are dependent upon 500 previous solutions ..... you can start to see how those 100 problems are not solved easily solved. Maybe 1% at 30 years. But as those 300 and 500 problems are solved .... it then becomes 10% at 35 years and then you realize that the last 90% that are unsolved will be solved at year 40.

I'm just really curious as to what the breakthrough was. Or who knows, maybe we were just a lot closer than we thought we were.

PARA 2) Yes, the walls would get damaged but there are risk mitigations available via materials science. Making a wall that lasts 30 years should be easily doable.

Sort of like sacrificial anodes on underwater things, except longer-lasting.

 

[glenn1]

why would you wonder? There's really only one type of response to such a technology.

....or is it that you fundamentally don't understand jack about climate change, science, and the people you don't like? Oh yeah, that's it.

There's absolutely zero evidence that GMO products are harmful in any way and yet people protest them. There's huge amounts of evidence that vaccines are tremendously helpful and yet people oppose them. Environmentalists have oppposed wind power, solar power, hydroelectric power, tidal power, geothermal power, biomass power, biofuel power, of course nuclear, and probably a few other non-fossil fuel power sources I've left off the list.

So given the above why do you think fusion will somehow be exempt from environmentalist opposition?

 

[FerrelGeek]

No problem guys. Just thought I would share some info and correct some honest mistakes. God knows we don't need mistakes turning this into another climate change debate.

Give it time, it'll go there. Just like the Ebola threads are now all about the healthcare debate.