This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Lockheed Martin Claims To Be in the Fusion Business Now

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 16, 2014
Filed under , ,

Lockheed Martin Pursuing Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Concept (with video)
Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details, Aviation Week
“I studied this in graduate school where, under a NASA study, I was charged with how we could get to Mars quickly,” says McGuire, who earned his Ph.D. at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Scanning the literature for fusion-based space propulsion concepts proved disappointing.”
Scientists Are Bashing Lockheed Martin’s Nuclear Fusion ‘Breakthrough’, Business Insider
Although Lockheed Martin issued a press release saying it had several pending patents for its approach, the company has yet to publish any scientific papers on this latest work.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

79 responses to “Lockheed Martin Claims To Be in the Fusion Business Now”

  1. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    This device, even if not useful as a producer of power, will be the all- time most dangerous device for proliferating fissile material for atomic bombs. 10s of thousands of these devices will turn the world into a Pu239/U233 (not U235) floodplain.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      This is a fusion reactor, not a fission reactor. Its byproduct would primarily consist of Helium.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        Helium is only one byproduct. The main output is neutrons. The baseline reactor specified by LockMart produced a neutron flux in the blanket sufficient to breed 2 bombs worth (for a crude weapon, more for a modern device) of Pu239 or U233 per year depending on what fertile species is used) Scale up or down from there for the range of sizes they propose.
        The IAEA cannot manage the few hundred large neutron sources now (fission reactors large and small, accelerators, various huge fusion experiments, etc). Imagine 10s of thousands of powerful neutron sources in commercial, industrial, and government possession.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          your initial comment is strongly misleading, then. you implied that the direct byproduct of the reactor would be Pu239/U233. this is not the case.

          you’d need to design a very significantly modified fusion reactor to breed fissile materials for a weapon.

          is what you suggest possible? yes.

          is it a direct byproduct of the Lockheed design? no.

          it is a problem that might happen 20, 30 years down the road when this fusion technology is mature and in widespread use.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            If a proliferating nation possesses these, then adding the depleted uranium from a single artillery shell to the blanket would be all it takes.

            Since these have little value unless thousands of them are in commercial trade, diverting one is a no brainer.

            But, my concern was more direct. Any national entity or subnational group capable of superconductor management could reverse engineer one and either clandestinely create a designed production machine(s) or mod existing ones.
            International control agencies are incapable of safeguarding even existing production capabilities.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            it is a problem that might happen 20, 30 years down the road when this fusion technology is mature and in widespread use.

            Well… yes. That is my whole point.
            Once something like this goes widespread IT IS TOO LATE.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            You can also design this system for the neutrons to neutralize the bad byproducts of a fission reactor. Thus we have the situation where a bow and arrow can be used to provide food, or kill a fellow human. It has always been this way.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            It does not matter that a neutron flux can convert mildly radioactive long-lived transuranics into (relatively) shorter-lived fiercely radioactive fission products (as if that were something worth doing). –
            It is that the same neutron flux from a single one of these devices, in the wrong hands, can create the material in a single year to obliterate a city and destroy millions of lives. And think of thousands of these in commercial traffic.

            I do not fear arrows to quite the same degree..

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            Yer one of them glass half empty guys I see.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

            -Einstein

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            a quote that refers to the atomic bomb, of course. not a fusion reactor.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            a quote that refers to the atomic bomb,
            Exactly!, that is the point. Our politics, our economic behaviors, our diplomatic and military activities, etc, do not take real consideration in what a few thousand megatons truly means. And in this case (and other dual-use nuclear technologies) we have not changed our mode of thinking and choose to ignore what horrendous nightmares the flip side threatens us with.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            He died over half a century ago and we are still here…

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            oh, easy problem to fix, then. make sure that “the wrong hands” don’t get a hold of it.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “Human society is too diverse, national passion too strong, human aggressiveness too deep-seated for the peaceful and warlike atom to stay divorced for long. We cannot embrace one while abhorring the other; we must learn, if we want to live at all, to live without both.”
            – Jacques Cousteau, oceanographer/engineer

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            yet another quote about the atomic bomb. thanks, yales.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            yet another quote about the atomic bomb.

            Exactly!

            That is what this whole discussion is about!. Cousteau was specifically and precisely making my point that there is no “peaceful atom”. The “peaceful” technology cannot be stopped from becoming a basis for nuclear armament.

            As he pointed out speaking at the UN: “we must learn, if we want to live at all, to live without both.”

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            “there is no “peaceful atom”. The “peaceful” technology cannot be stopped from becoming a basis for nuclear armament.”

            I completely disagree.

            the benefits – particularly that it is a source of plentiful electric power – far outweigh any potential risks. there are many more ways to beneficially use fusion power than to use it negatively.

            besides, any nation truly determined to build a nuclear weapon will build one anyway, no matter what technology they have or don’t have – take a good look at North Korea and Iran – so we might as well develop fusion technology for peaceful purposes, and use it for power generation.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            I’m not sure which hands are the wrong hands. I can see, however, a future where certain countries, along with their citizens, are denied efficient power production.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I’m not sure which hands are the wrong hands
            Exactly
            Bad machine to put on the (way future) market.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        After I saw the original article in Aviation Week, I saw how the LM spokesperson minimized the risk, but make (misleading) claims about the side issue of tritium proliferation, while totally ignoring the use of these style of machines with seeded targets by proliferators. I forwarded the article author with a number of relevant papers and he said he will ask LM to address the risk.
        BTW- as an aside to the main fissile production of Pu239 and U233, the other tritium proliferation risk – the spokesperson said no big deal because only gram quantities are bred. Well.. only gram quantities are used in boosting fission warheads!

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        http://www.osti.gov/scitech

        Sections 5 and 6 are most relevant:
        http://www.inmm.org/source/

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          the first paper is from 1982 and the second is from 2010, both predate the Lockheed fusion project. both discuss the application as it applies to large tokamak reactors. they do not consider the much smaller Lockheed reactor.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Physics is physics. Tokamak, Inertial Confinement, this Skunk Work, whatever. The point was to show you that D-T fusion reactors (including the LockMart unit) produce vast quantities of neutrons. That flux is used to provide the turbine heat.
            They also convert u238 to Pu239 or Th232 to U233.
            The amount of fissiles it can produce is directly proportional to power output. Thus a 1 gig fusion reactor can produce 10 times more Pu239 and U233 than the 1/10th gigawatt lockMart reactor. The base LockMart neutron flux is sufficient to produce ~2 bombs a year, each.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            “They also convert u238 to Pu239 or Th232 to U233.”

            yeah, but only if you stick some U238 or Th232 in the reactor.

            this conversion does not happen if you don’t.

            which is my point from the beginning.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            True, and you don’t have to lock your doors if nobody would ever try to sneak in. The whole point of latent and active proliferation is the diversion of dual use capable technologies to the Dark Side.
            That is the whole point of export controls on rocket tech. computers, precision manufacturing tech, all valuable important useful positive stuff – unless you are evil.

            A single misused mini-fusion machine leaves the world at threat of losing cities.

            As Dyson pointed out. it is not necessary.

            It is a future technology who’s time has passed.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            “As Dyson pointed out. it is not necessary.

            It is a future technology who’s time has passed.”

            I 100% disagree with both statements. A fusion device the size of a shipping container that can power 80,000 homes will always be more economical than any kind of solar power.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Yes. It should also be remembered that Dyson is only one physicist, one person. Science doesn’t march on Dyson’s orders, ponderings, or statements.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            And LockMart is one company, and we don’t have to march on their commercial endeavors.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Yes, but by your comments, we apparently need to be ruled by fear. Sorry, I don’t buy your world view.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “…by your comments, we apparently need to be ruled by fear.”

            I do understand why you may think that. But it really isn’t true. It is when the cost/benefit ratio gets so extreme, with the costs so utterly catastrophic that I think it is unacceptable.

            Consider the aspirin. It has many benefits, particularly in preventing 2nd heart attacks. Yet it also leads to stomach bleeding. One can make a reasonable decision in a particular case that it is a great idea to take a daily pill.
            Look at a wind turbine. It produces clean renewable power and it also if sited poorly harm wildlife and damage the viewshed.
            Again, an informed decision about 2 not extreme possibilities.

            But consider this neutron source. Yes it provides a strong heat source, useful and convenient. Yet it also offers the opportunity to create horror weapons of destruction beyond anything imaginable. But there are an abundance of heat and power alternatives, all with various costs and benefits. This reactor is not the sole choice. but it is the one with so-so benefits, yet unparalleled costs.
            The world was, is, and will be filled with peoples, nations, and individuals who are capable of anything, no matter how unspeakable.
            I believe, as do many others, such as Cousteau or Theodore B. Taylor, that the ratio simple makes it a non-starter.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            If your argument is based on the logic behind the statement that aspirin “leads to stomach bleeding” (the correct statement would be that it may lead to stomach bleeding), then there’s no further discussion to be had. You’ve staked out your position based on nothing more than the fear of someone you fear getting a fusion reactor, a small one in this theoretical case. Again, you’re playing on fear that people might have. You’ve yet to provide a single, rational explanation for why such a device should not be produced. I’m of the opinions that sustainable fusion, if attained by LM or anyone, will be monumental development and benefit to human kind and that decisions based on fear are generally lousy decisions.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I think (actually, I know) I have not been clear with my aspirin analogy. I was not saying that aspirin should not be used. I was saying that it should be used in many cases (I use it myself) as the GI bleeding is usually (but not always) mild, and that it is a symmetrical well balanced risk/benefit. Something that a patient and doctor could reasonably call either way, depending on the particulars of the case.

            I was comparing it to what I see as a way extremely unbalanced risk/benefit ratio for fusion reactors, where a heat source (available in many other sustainable ways) is measured against the spread of atomic weapons.

            “You’ve yet to provide a single, rational explanation for why such a device should not be produced.” I thought I was doing that, but my writing ability seems to be limited and unpersuasive. Oh, well. One last try (really):

            From Gsponer and Jean-Pierre:

            a fusion hybrid is about ten times more effective than a fission reactor to breed plutonium or tritium. In particular, for a given material output, its production of heat, nuclear waste, and traceable fission products (such as K85) is at least ten times less than with a fission reactor. This makes such a facility easier to hide from inspection.

            Moreover, the sub-critical blanket of a hybrid reactor is more appropriate for plutonium production than a critical fission reactor. With an appropriate design, continuous extraction of plutonium is easy.

            Even for long neutron irradiation times in the blanket, the quality of the plutonium produced in a fast hybrid blanket is better than that produced in a critical reactor. A rather small facility, e.g., 10 MW(th) of fusion power, producing plutonium and tritium in a mixed uranium/lithium blanket, could be sufficient to maintain a minimal deterrent based on a few dozen high quality boosted fission bombs.

            Of course, one may object that any fusion facility would be big, expensive, and very sophisticated. That is not necessarily the case. As will be seen in the section on alternate fusion systems, some of them might be quite small and rudimentary

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            That is not a power plant. It is just the “burner” for a full size 100 megawatt power station costing many 100’s of millions or more, with its steam generators, massive cooling systems, electrical generators, etc. That shipping container just is the “boiler”. Altho we have not the slightest idea what this device will cost, with its superconductors, unobtainium cooling system, tritium management, nuclear diversion safeguards, decontamination, etc., it will sure be more expensive than the nat gas boiler it replaces.

            Currently, various renewable energy technologies are often cost equivalent to fossil fuels, and recall, this will not be available until decades from now, if ever. Renewables are skyrocketing downward in cost.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            i would still take a fusion powerplant over ten thousand acres of solar panels or a hundred thousand acres of windmills.

            http://www.entergy-arkansas

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            BIPV take zero extra space and a turbine takes a 1/4 acre and does not preclude other uses. The gross area of a wind farm is not relevant. CETO or Gorlov style hydro machines have zero surface impact, HDR enhanced geothermal is compact, and the list goes on and on.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Where exactly is the authority derived to prevent anyone from developing more sustainable energy?

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think a proliferative technology is ‘sustainable”, but government and international agencies do have the authority to regulate, encourage, or prohibit energy technologies.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        7 Conclusions
        The PPCS-A concept for a tokamak fusion power plant was modeled in MCNP to conduct calculations of it’s plutonium production potentials…. For blankets near the plasma production rates between 10-20 kg Pu-239 can be achieved in a 20 degree sector. … The results for the isotopic composition shows that the plutonium is weapon usable with over 90% Pu-239 even for high burnups.
        … even very low masses of fertile material are sufficient to produce significant amounts of weapons usable fissile material (even depleted uranium could be used) and could be exempt by a state from IAEA
        safeguards. Additionally fusion power plants do not fall under the IAEA definition of a reactor or a facility.
        a fusion power plant would give a host state a significant break out capability, which is important especially when thinking of a future nuclear weapon free world.

        • John Kavanagh says:
          0
          0

          Who is thinking of a nuclear weapon free world? I’m happy with our arsenal, whether for planetary defense, or political deterrence. Nukes are for having – to keep the peace, not for using. Nuclear disarmament comes with the likely destabilizing peril of conventional war between great powers.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Living in a Nuclear Armed Crowd is not a positive thing. There is no such thing as deterrence if unlimited number of actors are involved.
            Remember, this is about clandestine diversion.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            That is exactly what many of our troubles in the world today are showing..

    • Spacetech says:
      0
      0

      Huh?

  2. Michael Bruce Schaub says:
    0
    0

    I have to assume this is a government sponsored hoax designed to send Russia and China off on a wild goose chase. Otherwise, the article would seem to be in violation of ITAR.

  3. Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
    0
    0

    I’ve been keeping an eye out for news of Lockheed’s progress ever since I heard about their fusion power project about a year ago. It’s nice to hear some positive results!

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      What results? What publications? Right now the only thing we have are unsubstantiated claims by Lockheed Martin.

      • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        I’d say that a compact fusion reactor design that seems workable to Lockheed Martin after a year’s worth of study is a positive thing, regardless of whether or not it pans out in the end. it would be nice if they get to a research prototype phase in the next year’s time.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          The plan is to reach a prototype in five years. This is a classic “paper reactor”

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            My apologies, yales. I misinterpreted what McGuire says in the Aviation Week article.

            “The Skunk Works mind-set and “the pace that people work at here is ridiculously fast,” he says. “We would like to get to a prototype in five generations. If we can meet our plan of doing a design-build-test generation every year, that will put us at about five years, and we’ve already shown we can do that in the lab”… An initial production version could follow five years after that.”

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Hyman Rickover, “Father” of the US Nuclear Navy, and also “Father” of commercial nuclear power – the Shippingport Atomic Power Station wrote an essay back in the ’50s on “paper reactors”:

          Paper Reactors, Real Reactors” (5 June 1953)
          It is incumbent on those in high places to make wise decisions and it is reasonable and important that the public be correctly informed.

          An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:
          (1) It is simple.
          (2) It is small.
          (3) It is cheap.
          (4) It is light.
          (5) It can be built very quickly.
          (6) It is very flexible in purpose.
          (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components.
          (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

          On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics:
          (1) It is being built now.
          (2) It is behind schedule.
          (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items.
          (4) It is very expensive.
          (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems.
          (6) It is large.
          (7) It is heavy.
          (8) It is complicated.

          The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone sees it.

          The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of “mere technical details.” The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solution requires manpower, time and money.

          Unfortunately for those who must make far-reaching decision without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor technology, and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more.

          Yet it is incumbent on those in high places to make wise decisions and it is reasonable and important that the public be correctly informed. It is consequently incumbent on all of us to state the facts as forthrightly as possible

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          Postive to Lockheed Martin, but everyone else will have to take LM’s word for it since they’ve published nothing, released no data of any sort. Given that, they’re at the about the same point as Eagleworks is with their new quantum vacuum drive. LM doesn’t get extra credit because they’re LM.

          While I’m interested to see what results they might have, I remain highly skeptical as does the physics community.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            Fair enough. whether someone tells you they have a dragon in their garage or they say the sky is blue, you should always take unsupported claims with a grain of salt. though if a team from Lockheed’s Skunk Works says they’ve come up with a clever idea, i’m inclined to believe them. i also am looking forward to hearing more 🙂

          • Evil13RT says:
            0
            0

            They’re looking to build it tho, not get the science verified. Either they can or they can’t, but I wouldn’t expect public doubt to have much effect on the situation.
            If it succeeds then all of this prognostication will be forgotten.

      • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        I don’t know if you’ve seen these yet or not, but LM’s Flickr feed has some great pictures of their experimental setup

        https://www.flickr.com/phot

        and there’s some very interesting discussion of how the mechanics of it might work here

        http://www.talk-polywell.or

  4. SJG_2010 says:
    0
    0

    It appears that this device is at least prtially based on the designs that are proven to perform Fusion using the Farnsworth Fusor technology.
    Not only is the theory sound, but GE patented the technology as a neutron source and sell the devices commercially.
    (editt) Robert Bussard (not Freeman Dyson) bid to build a break-even version of the device years ago.
    A contract was awarded by the NRL to Bussard to build the next generation of device, and then a complete news blackout about the technology followed. Havent heard any news for years.
    I suspect that this is a result of the research, but I see no mention of Bussard in the tech briefs.
    One thing you can be sure of: Lockheed would NOT have announced this if it was not sound engineering.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Freeman Dyson:
      I do not agree that humanity needs economical fusion power in order to survive, unless you include the sun as a fusion power source. The sun is a splendid fusion reactor that will continue running for several billion years. All we need is to learn how to use sunlight economically. There are probably many ways to achieve this.

      • Todd Austin says:
        0
        0

        For the curious, the source of the above quote:

        http://science-beta.slashdo

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Freeman Dyson is a fascinating character (beyond creating the Dyson Sphere).
          He was brought in during the first couple of years of Project Orion, working as theoretician on Ted Taylor’s team designing a gigantic spacecraft powered by atomic bomb explosions.
          You definitely would have needed a good pair of sunglasses watching an Orion launch!

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Duplicate post

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      I would be really interested in any sort of evidence that “Freeman Dyson bid to build a break-even version of the device”

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      After reading up a little on fusor and polywell concepts I agree that the Lockheed device appears to be a variant of inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC), which actually does produce fusion, just not at breakeven levels. At least it is cheaper than building a Tokamak. But the Lockheed press release confuses the issue (intentionally?) by mentioning only magnetic fields. The many proprietary developers of IEC guard their research and never work as a team, and that may be why they have failed. Maybe DOE should provide the funding, rather than DOD, and at least get all the facts out in the open. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

  5. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Scientists Are Bashing Lockheed Martin’s Nuclear Fusion ‘Breakthrough’

    “Swadesh M. Mahajan, a thermonuclear plasma physicist at the University of Texas, told Mother Jones reporter James West that there were many reasons to be skeptical of the announcement. Specifically, “We know of no materials that would be able to handle anywhere near that amount of heat,” for a device as small as Lockheed is proposing.”

    http://finance.yahoo.com/ne

  6. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    Charles Seife is too pessimistic for my tastes, but he did make the good point over at Slate that this isn’t the first time the Lockheed Team has put out deadlines. Put this in an “I’ll believe it when I see it” category, although I would like for it to work out.

  7. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    It’s not impossible that this device will be successful, but the history of fusion power is littered with promising failures. There’s nothing in the limited material released that allows any meaningful assessment. If, as has been suggested, the work is purely theoretical so far, than it is misleading to call it a breakthrough, as containment instabilities are often unanticipated.

  8. Jake Sagaser says:
    0
    0

    The amount of stupidity in this comment stream is amazing. The only industry that can take on fossil fuels is the privatized military industrial complex. The design utilizes tritium. If we were trying to build weapons grade materials, there are easier, less expensive, and more discrete ways of doing it. Lockheed would not release this if they didn’t already have something significant. This could be revolutionary as in environmentally the development of the century.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Accusing people acting stupid is not productive.
      “If we were trying to build weapons grade materials, there are easier, less expensive, and more discrete ways of doing it.”
      No, not really. Buying a turnkey, legal bomb machine (with special export financing) is preferable to creating a centrifuge system illegally, as Iran is painfully aware of.

  9. Rune says:
    0
    0

    So all you guys are REALLY freaked out about proliferation issues. Well, two things then:

    a) If it can be done, it will be done, and doesn’t matter what you think about. You can’t put fences on an idea, better to get ahead of it and develop it in a responsible manner, for example developing the cleaner, harder, “neutron-free” nuclear reaction. Yup, it could be used wrong anyway, let’s make it easier to use it well.

    b) Active nuclear reactors are anything but subtle. The things can be detected from ORBIT due to neutron emission. So if you have an unlicensed reactor, you’d better not be breeding something nasty because when a drone blows it up, all the nuclear contamination will come from the bred material and it’ll be your fault.

    So yeah, perils and opportunities. But it won’t end the world, or turn us into gods overnight, just another transformative energy technology that we will screw some times and get right others. I mean, look at what we did to the world once we tamed fire…

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      A) this research is very, very high tech. If it is actively discouraged, its spread is slowed or halted, and its detection is unambiguously flagged as weapons related, which carries a very high cost. The easier path, like Magnox reators are easily detected (as the Syrians found out). Aneutronic alternatives are no barrier to proliferation. They simply are used in spallation mode and generate neutrons that way.

      B) This is not a fission reactor. It is the gamma radiation that are the flag for fission reactors.The neutron emission of fusion machines can be shielded rather well with sufficient low-z material. But it does not matter. You (the proliferator) bought one legally from LockMart and right out in plain sight are making Clean, Safe, Sustainable Power, while radiating targets on the sly to breed fissiles, (taking extra precautions, no doubt, to use fission suppression blanketing techniques).
      This is exactly what Britain did with its Magnox reactor fleet. (North Korea did the same thing)

      I don’t know if it will, as you say “end the world”, but what will occur the day after, say, New Delhi, India is obliterated by an atomic bomb? Will the leaderless Indian military blame terrorists? Pakistan? China? How will they respond?

  10. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    Well worth a read is this rather biting article over at Slate, Fusion Energy’s Dreamers, Hucksters, and Loons, Bottling up the power of the sun will always be 20 years away

    This week, Lockheed Martin supposedly managed to achieve a “breakthrough” in nuclear fusion that has gotten a lot of media attention. As Charles Seife points out, it did so “without having built a prototype device that, you know, fuses things on an appreciable scale. It’s a stunning assertion, even by fusion-research standards. But a quick look at the defense contractor’s ambitious plan—a working reactor in five years—already shows the dream fraying around the edges. A year and a half ago, the company promised that fusion was four years away, meaning that the schedule is already slipping. Negative one years of progress in 20 months is, sadly, business as usual for fusion. At this rate, it’ll take Lockheed Martin at least a decade before the natural endpoint: desperately spinning victory out of an underwhelming result generated by a machine whose performance comes nowhere near predictions—and which brings us no closer to actually generating energy from a fusion reaction.”

  11. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Who is financing the work? Contract, internal, collaboration?

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Don’t know, but I read this as implying internal funding:

      After completing several of these design-build-test cycles, the team anticipates being able to produce a prototype in five years. As they gain confidence and progress technically with each experiment, they will also be searching for partners to help further the technology.

      “We’ve strategically chosen this time because of our technical progress and exposure to our patents pending,” a Lockheed spokeswoman said in an e-mailed statement. “We are also looking for partners to work with us on the project, plus we think it is important for the public and decision makers to understand the real promise that compact fusion has for our nation and the world as a near-term solution to our energy needs.”

      Lockheed said it would look for partners in industry as well as the academic community, McGuire said. The team at Lockheed is made up of about 10 people, he said.

      Lockheed Martin didn’t say how much money it will invest in the project. But as with many defense contractors, the company has ramped up its investment in energy projects such as wind, solar and tidal energy over the last few years.

      For the nuclear fusion project, the company hopes to take a cue from the venture capitalist world, McGuire said. That means the team will seek additional funding after successful technology demonstrations at every stage, he said.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Perhaps they did this with seed funding from DOD and did not get funded for further development, but got some patents out of it. Both DOD and NASA have funding that is reserved for “low-TRL” or early research only, to provide an opportunity for new ideas. Unfortunately many good ideas hit the “valley of death” when the seed money runs out. So they are looking for follow-on funding. But for a company this large to be seeking venture capital is not a good sign. It invites the question, if this is such a sure thing, why aren’t you developing it with your own money?

  12. lucasbachmann . says:
    0
    0

    Thorium is better than fusion because the technology to build a reactor for that is 50 years in the past instead of 50 years in the future.

  13. Joseph Mahma says:
    0
    0

    This is purely a public relations campaign to get public and congressional support. It’s a waste of money. This technology is already utilized elsewhere.

    If Lockheed was really interested in nuclear energy, they’d be pushing a liquid thorium reactor. However, that would economically destroy the petrochemical industry which much of their stockholder base has interest in maintaining.