Is this Good News, or not? Lockheed unveils new (nuclear) energy source

[99th_Monkey]

Firstly, I don't have enough of a grasp of the technical nuances of energy creation, but this sounds like it's still "nuclear" energy in some form, with radioactive consequences for all life-forms as we currently know them. Secondly, I do not trust the Lockheed Corporation to be "doing the right thing" vis-a-vis the environment and protecting the web of life we all depend on.

What do you energy science wonks think about this new development? Is it really "new"? Is it really "cleaner"? Etc.


Lockheed announces breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
*100MW reactor small enough to fit on back of a truck
* Cleaner energy source could be in use within 10 years
theguardian.com, Wednesday 15 October 2014 11.57 EDT

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. Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed’s secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work.

Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters. 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.

In recent years, Lockheed has become increasingly involved in a variety of alternate energy projects, including several ocean energy projects, as it looks to offset a decline in US and European military spending. Lockheed’s work on fusion energy could help in developing new power sources amid increasing global conflicts over energy, and as projections show there will be a 40% to 50% increase in energy use over the next generation, McGuire said.

If it proves feasible, Lockheed’s work would mark a key breakthrough in a field that scientists have long eyed as promising, but which has not yet yielded viable power systems. The effort seeks to harness the energy released during nuclear fusion, when atoms combine into more stable forms.

“We can make a big difference on the energy front,” McGuire said, noting Lockheed’s 60 years of research on nuclear fusion as a potential energy source that is safer and more efficient than current reactors based on nuclear fission.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy?CMP=fb_gu

[hedgehog]

1. A functional fusion reactor would be front page news, not an item back in the environmental section

I note the story includes the line

"Lockheed said it had shown it could complete a design, build and test it in as little as a year, which should produce an operational reactor in 10 years,"

and as those who have been watching know, we've been 10 years from a functional fusion reactor the last 50 years.

[JRT256]

9. Two different concepts.

We are talking about two different things here.

First is to achieve a self sustaining fusion reaction in an experimental reactor. That is what they expect to do in a year.

Second is to design and build a practical commercial power plant that uses fusion to generate power. That is what is going to take 20 years.

[CJCRANE]

2. This should be the Manhattan Project or Apollo Mission

of the 21st Century.

Then maybe we wouldn't have to fight over energy resources.

Of course, that still leaves a whole bunch of other stuff to fight over.

NB: I also saw on the RT site that the Russians are working on a fission-fusion reactor.

[99th_Monkey]

13. BUT it would leave Mobil/Exxon/Et. Al. AND the MIC high and dry ..

.. without their usual monopolies on war profiteering to advance the interests of the fossil fuel industry?

I could get behind that.

[MineralMan]

3. Let's see a working version.

This is still in the theoretical stage, and they haven't produce any energy yet. It's still conceptual.

I won't hold my breath yet.

[AngryAmish]

11. I wrote a paper in junior high about fusion.

33 years later little has changed.

[MineralMan]

15. Very true. The theory remains the same.

They're still trying to figure out how to apply it to real life. It will happen at some point, but I wouldn't venture to guess when.

[Travis_0004]

4. Fusion is significantly safer

If something goes out of wack, the chain reaction stops and you can restart the reactor once you fix the problem.

The downside is the material is more radioactive initially, but it has a short half life. In 500 years it would be less toxic than coal ash. (Or put it another way, in 125 years its only 4 times as dangerous. ) 500 years is a long time, but its a huge improvement over the thousands of years for uranium.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. The greatest breakthough of the millennium

If it works.

[Sinistrous]

6. IMO This is neither good news nor bad.

File it under wishful thinking. Fusion energy has been *10 years away* for decades.

[IDemo]

7. If it's Lockheed and Skunk Works,

it will be used to power death-lasers before it becomes plugged into the power grid.

[99th_Monkey]

14. That is precisely my concern

That there is something sinister going on behind Lockheed's happy talk.

[FLPanhandle]

8. There is some hope with this news

Lockheed has some great engineers and the cost/benefit analysis must be favorable for funding it.

However, this is holy grail of energy production and it's not an easy nut to crack.

[Baclava]

10. Every fusion reactor design in the last 50 years has ended up using more energy than it produces

I wouldn't hold my breath either.

[AngryAmish]

12. There is one working fusion design

Except there is the heat, emp, neutron, radiation and sound containment problem.

[Baclava]

16. The result is the same. Current fusion reactors use up more energy than they put in.

Nuclear Fusion Reactors

The earliest patent for a nuclear fusion reaction was made in 1949. Since that time many designs have been tried. One of the problems is to contain the plasma. In stars, the huge mass of the star is enough to allow gravity to confine the plasma. This option is not available on Earth, however, since the plasma is a mixture of positively and negatively charged particles, it can manipulated by a magnetic fields.

The Magnetic Mirror

In the sixties and seventies, machines using magnetic mirror confinement were considered a viable candidate for producing fusion energy. Collisions scattered the charged particles so that the pitch angle was too small for containment. In addition, velocity space instabilities contributed to the escape of the plasma.

The Tokamak

The tokamak uses magnetic fields to confine a plasma to the interior of a torus shaped vacuum chamber. When the plasma has been heated to around 100 million K fusion occurs.

http://www.splung.com/content/sid/5/page/fusion