Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

[REWahoo]

This news got lost in the noise of the market slide and ebola panic...

Quote:

(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready for use in a decade.

Quote:

In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.

Could be big news if it comes to fruition.

Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project | Reuters

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Could be big news if it comes to fruition.

I've been waiting for a working fusion reactor since I was a kid...

Still, LM doing the work is better than some university lab consortium. Yes, I'm biased toward actual engineers trying to building the thing.

This article has a few more details:

High Hopes – Can Compact Fusion Unlock New Power For Space And Air Transport? | Things With Wings

and this

Lockheed Martin Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Concept will have 20 times more plasma is ten times smaller and targets a 100 MW prototype in 2019

has some good discussion about it if your interested.

[samclem]

Wow. If such a promising ("incredible"--in the most derogatory sense?) announcement was from small startup company I wouldn't give it much credence, but coming from Lockheed, this could really mean something.

I notice that they are suggesting applications in warships etc, where high $$ per MW are not a big concern, if there are offsetting operational advantages. So--the development and initial units will probably be pretty expensive. But, as the technology matures (and the patents expire)--this could be tremendously important. Still, based on numerous unfulfilled promises, fusion has the reputation of being "the energy source of the future--and it always will be". Hopefully, this really is a breakthrough.

[martyb]

Interesting. I spent 5 of my last 5 1/2 yrs working as a QA guy for the government in a Lockheed Martin facility involved in missile defense stuff.

[Walt34]

Yes indeed! Clearly a DeLorean will be too small for the time machine.

[eytonxav]

I would never think to associate LM with this type of research/development.

Instead of a small one, I'd like to see a large scale fusion reactor to solve our energy problem forever. That would be a major game changer and definitely the next big thing.

[Telly]

This smells a bit skunky to me... and it's emanating from the internet.

[GrayHare]

I wonder if any of this news has been involved in the decline of petroleum energy stocks during the past few months.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5 Instead of a small one, I'd like to see a large scale fusion reactor to solve our energy problem forever. That would be a major game changer and definitely the next big thing.

The one they envision isn't truly "small"--it is enough to power about 80,000 US homes. The good thing about this sze is that they hope to integrate it into the existing US gas turbine electrical production infrastructure. They'll leave the turbines in place, and these reactors become the source for the hot gas (instead of burning NG or coal).

Interestingly, at about the same time Lockheed made this announcement, another small fusion design was announced by researchers at Univ of Washington. Here's an article on their design. The lead researcher in that project had this to say (on an internet comment board) about the Lockheed approach (from this Aviation Week site):

Quote:

This design has two doughnuts and a shell so it will be more than four times as bad as a tokamak. (Our concept has no coils surrounded by plasma and solves the problem.) I would have to study their scientific publications on the confinement claim to see if their data justifies the claim. I have not seen the papers, but the nuclear engineering clearly fails to be cost effective. Our claim of the possibility of fusion cheaper than coal is backed by scientific papers in top journals.

Competition is good--we just need one design that is practical.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Competition is good--we just need one design that is practical.

Yes, but that Betamax vs VHS shakeout period can be an expensive process.

[FUEGO]

I'd hate to be the guy running the lab in charge of developing this technology where I used to work. Incredible claims to clients were the name of the game, then the boss man would come to me and say "we're smart people, we'll figure it out". By that he meant I was a smart person and I BETTER figure it out.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Yes, but that Betamax vs VHS shakeout period can be an expensive process.

It's not like we're trying to split the atom here. How bad can it be?

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO It's not like we're trying to split the atom here. How bad can it be?

We have been splitting atoms for more than 60 years, but have not been able to join them.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound We have been splitting atoms for more than 60 years, but have not been able to join them.

Oh we've been able to join them for 60 years also, just that side effects
are a wee bit dangerous.

[NW-Bound]

Very true! The H-bomb is not a controlled fusion process.

[M Paquette]

There has been a well known constant in physics for a long time. Nuclear fusion will be practical 20 years from the present.

It will be interesting to see where we actually are in 10 years.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrayHare I wonder if any of this news has been involved in the decline of petroleum energy stocks during the past few months.

No. The time scales are way too different. Also, cars run on liquid fuel, at least most of them. Not too many over the road electric trucks either, or locomotives running on batteries. Maybe way in the future these possible reactors might power a locomotive.

Ha

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Maybe way in the future these possible reactors might power a locomotive.

Yes, I doubt these reactors would ever be put aboard land vehicles to power them, but they still might be used to replace liquid motor fuels . . . eventually. If electricity ever did become "too cheap to meter" (in the parlance of the old Atoms for Peace days), we might see more electric vehicles--with and without batteries. In-pavement induction transmission to vehicles, etc. Also, if electricity gets very cheap it can be used to produce liquid fuels that can be used in fuel cells, etc for transportation purposes.

Extremely cheap electricity would change LOTS of things.

[Lakewood90712]

Going out a hundred years or more, it's the only thing imaginable as a large power source, to replace fossil fuel and nuke fission plants. Using fission reactors, we could run out of uranium, after the fossil fuels are mostly gone. Solar/ wind will not be enough, no idea if wave power can be harassed.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewood90712 Solar/ wind will not be enough, no idea if wave power can be harassed.

Not sure, but as Hurricane Sandy showed, it can certainly harass us.