Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

[thriftyandboringinohio]

The web is buzzing today with news that Lockheed Martin has made order-of-magnitude improvements for nuclear fusion reactors.




Here is article at Aviation Week and Space Technology
http://aviationweek.com/technology/s...eactor-details

Here is related video

[radon]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockh...wer-four-years

Chase didn't give a whole lot more technical detail, but he seemed confident in predicting a 100mW prototype by 2017, with commercial 100mW systems available by 2022

Looks like their schedule slipped a bit. The diagram reminds me of a cavity resonator. It's a game changer if it works. I guess we'll have to find something else to do with all that bunker fuel.

His thesis if anyone is interested:

http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/thes...ireThomas.html

[touhy]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

Color me skeptical. Ash, what do you say?

[ASH]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

The way I read the Aviation Week article, Lockheed Martin says they have a design concept which they estimate ought to give them an order of magnitude improvement over the conventional hot fusion approach. I don't think they've actually built and tested anything in which fusion occurs yet. I like what they're trying to do and I hope they get the resources needed to develop it, but at the stage they're at, this looks like fundraising and feasibility studies rather than announcement of an actual result.

[jk]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

The way I read the Aviation Week article, Lockheed Martin says they have a design concept which they estimate ought to give them an order of magnitude improvement over the conventional hot fusion approach. I don't think they've actually built and tested anything in which fusion occurs yet. I like what they're trying to do and I hope they get the resources needed to develop it, but at the stage they're at, this looks like fundraising and feasibility studies rather than announcement of an actual result.

thanks for giving us your read on this. i guess we can cross our fingers and hope it works out. "power too cheap to meter," anyone?

[ASH]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

The Good:

• No "new physics" in seeming contradiction with well-established results.
• The nature of the claimed improvement is straightforward (although the method of solution obviously requires skill and cleverness); it addresses a real design problem that is indeed the main problem with realizing economically viable hot fusion, so it will be huge if it is achieved.
• The claimed property of an "inherently stable configuration" with a "self-tuning feedback mechanism" specifically addresses the fundamental problem with hot fusion using language that demonstrates knowledge of the problem. This is much more reassuring than when someone claims to have solved the problem of fusion power, but fails to demonstrate working knowledge of the major engineering issues of the field.
• Basically, the guy doesn't say anything that flags him as suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect which often is at play in these types of threads.¹ He's saying the right things to sound credible, and he's credentialed, so perhaps he can deliver.

The Bad:

• I saw no reference to any actual measurements of plasma confinement and stability. I got the impression that they're about to start building experimental rigs, rather than reporting data from experiments.
• Plasma stability is enormously difficult to model computationally, so it's unclear if his assessment of the design's inherent stability is correct. All I really saw were solid models, and what might have been output from a finite element model.
• I see more boilerplate background and boosterism about future payoff than I see data, so it sounds like more of a PR/marketing exercise than a scientific announcement.

So... not a crackpot, but apparently not a man with much in the way of empirical results yet, either. (Initially I mistakenly thought he didn't have a background in plasma physics because the article described him as an "aeronautical engineer", but I see from his dissertation that indeed he does. So that's a good sign.)

¹Footnote: The Dunning-Kruger Effect probably applies to me, since I happily offer opinions on technology like this, trusting in my training in the fundamentals and superficial grasp of the issues, rather than deep and specialized expertise in plasma physics. Beware the confident internet pundit!

[radon]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

thanks for giving us your read on this. i guess we can cross our fingers and hope it works out. "power too cheap to meter," anyone?

Even if it isn't too cheap to meter it would be a godsend for those of us who live at high latitudes and burn oil/diesel for our electricity.

[LorenS]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

Fusion power is not quite as clean as many folks envision. The intense neutron flux generated by fusion can cause structural damage to metals (in particular) and can also create induced radioactivity in other materials. We won't be getting off scott free from nuclear waste if we finally get fusion going.

The sun is not so "clean" when you don't have a few miles of atmosphere protecting you from it.

[radon]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

The intense neutron flux generated by fusion can cause structural damage to metals (in particular) and can also create induced radioactivity in other materials.

They could wrap the chamber in a fertile material. Hybrid seems to be a good buzzword these days. Brand it as a hybrid reactor. Use the thorium cycle.

[radon]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

One thing that bothers me about this is the timing of the announcement(s). Wouldn't it be better for the press to notice that US military ships are no longer taking on fuel etc? This is a potentially disruptive technology that could be used for a strategic advantage. What does Lockheed hope to gain by floating articles like this to the press? Do they have an oil/coal play in the futures market? Why isn't this hush hush?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

The Good:

• No "new physics" in seeming contradiction with well-established results.
• The nature of the claimed improvement is straightforward (although the method of solution obviously requires skill and cleverness); it addresses a real design problem that is indeed the main problem with realizing economically viable hot fusion, so it will be huge if it is achieved.
• The claimed property of an "inherently stable configuration" with a "self-tuning feedback mechanism" specifically addresses the fundamental problem with hot fusion using language that demonstrates knowledge of the problem. This is much more reassuring than when someone claims to have solved the problem of fusion power, but fails to demonstrate working knowledge of the major engineering issues of the field.
• Basically, the guy doesn't say anything that flags him as suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect which often is at play in these types of threads.¹ He's saying the right things to sound credible, and he's credentialed, so perhaps he can deliver.

The Bad:

• I saw no reference to any actual measurements of plasma confinement and stability. I got the impression that they're about to start building experimental rigs, rather than reporting data from experiments.
• Plasma stability is enormously difficult to model computationally, so it's unclear if his assessment of the design's inherent stability is correct. All I really saw were solid models, and what might have been output from a finite element model.
• I see more boilerplate background and boosterism about future payoff than I see data, so it sounds like more of a PR/marketing exercise than a scientific announcement.

So... not a crackpot, but apparently not a man with much in the way of empirical results yet, either. (Initially I mistakenly thought he didn't have a background in plasma physics because the article described him as an "aeronautical engineer", but I see from his dissertation that indeed he does. So that's a good sign.)

¹Footnote: The Dunning-Kruger Effect probably applies to me, since I happily offer opinions on technology like this, trusting in my training in the fundamentals and superficial grasp of the issues, rather than deep and specialized expertise in plasma physics. Beware the confident internet pundit!

Thanks for weighing in, ASH!
I see it largely that way too.

Lockheed is a giant multinational and their marketing guys have made a splash with this lab novelty.
To me, the best case outcome would be the next generation of working big-science research labs.
I think the Joint European Torus facility holds the record with a five second contained fusion reaction.
This work might, in say ten years, get a one-minute reaction with a net positive thermal output.
Be a good use for a few hundred billion dollars building new reactor consortiums, which Lockheed hopes to help spend.

Never put down a step up. We won't get there if we don't work towards it.

[ASH]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

One thing that bothers me about this is the timing of the announcement(s). Wouldn't it be better for the press to notice that US military ships are no longer taking on fuel etc? This is a potentially disruptive technology that could be used for a strategic advantage. What does Lockheed hope to gain by floating articles like this to the press? Do they have an oil/coal play in the futures market? Why isn't this hush hush?

The way it reads to me is as marketing. They'd rather spend the government's money to develop it, and the usual objective of a defense contractor hyping a potential new technology is to raise interest in the capability among the people who control DoD R&D funds. The Aviation Weekly article is pretty similar to the sort of superficial treatment appearing in most trade publications, where the objective is to raise the visibility of your company and maybe attract some customers. It reminds me of the type of advertising you see at airports with a lot of federal government traffic, or in publications read by a lot of Washingtonians. You see advertisements for specific weapon systems, but also advertisements whose main message is "We built all this cool shit, and we're really competent, so you should award future contracts to us to develop more cool shit." That's the context in which I interpret this announcement.

As for the financial angle, it doesn't sound like they've reduced the concept to practice, so at this point the story is all blue skies and rapid development for reasonable sums... the same story that's told to get initial funding on most any R&D project. They are so far away from having an actual compact fusion reactor that talk of a futures trading play is premature. I imagine they believe in the potential of the approach; it sounds good to me. It's true that they're out to make a buck, but by the old-fashioned way: by getting someone else to accept the risk of funding development, and then being there to reap the reward of building and selling these things.

[ASH]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

Never put down a step up. We won't get there if we don't work towards it.

Well said!

[DRumsfeld2000]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

Nuclear waste will soon be almost eliminated from new nuclear power stations:-


Technology revolution in nuclear power could slash costs below coal
A report by UBS said the latest reactors will be obsolete by within 10 to 20 years, yet Britain is locking in prices until 2060
A general view of the security fence at Heysham Nuclear Power Station on March 17, 2011 in Heysham, United Kingdom
Scientists have already designed better reactors based on molten salt technology that promise to slash costs by half or more Photo: Getty Images

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

9:23PM BST 24 Sep 2014



The cost of conventional nuclear power has spiralled to levels that can no longer be justified. All the reactors being built across the world are variants of mid-20th century technology, inherently dirty and dangerous, requiring exorbitant safety controls.

This is a failure of wit and will. Scientists in Britain, France, Canada, the US, China and Japan have already designed better reactors based on molten salt technology that promise to slash costs by half or more, and may even undercut coal. They are much safer, and consume nuclear waste rather than creating more. What stands in the way is a fortress of vested interests.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report for 2014 found that 49 of the 66 reactors under construction - mostly in Asia - are plagued with delays, and are blowing through their budgets.

Average costs have risen from $1,000 per installed kilowatt to around $8,000/kW over the past decade for new nuclear, which is why Britain could not persuade anybody to build its two reactors at Hinkley Point without fat subsidies and a "strike price" for electricity that is double current levels.

All five new reactors in the US are behind schedule. Finland's giant EPR reactor at Olkiluoto has been delayed again. It will not be up and running until 2018, nine years late. It was supposed to cost €3.2bn. Analysts now think it will be €8.5bn. It is the same story with France's Flamanville reactor.

We have reached the end of the road for pressurised water reactors of any kind, whatever new features they boast. The business is not viable - even leaving aside the clean-up costs - and it makes little sense to persist in building them. A report by UBS said the latest reactors will be obsolete by within 10 to 20 years, yet Britain is locking in prices until 2060.

The Alvin Weinberg Foundation in London is tracking seven proposals across the world for molten salt reactors (MSRs) rather than relying on solid uranium fuel. Unlike conventional reactors, these operate at atmospheric pressure. They do not need vast reinforced domes. There is no risk of blowing off the top.

The reactors are more efficient. They burn up 30 times as much of the nuclear fuel and can run off spent fuel. The molten salt is inert so that even if there is a leak, it cools and solidifies. The fission process stops automatically in an accident. There can be no chain-reaction, and therefore no possible disaster along the lines of Chernobyl or Fukushima. That at least is the claim.

The most revolutionary design is by British scientists at Moltex. "I started this three years ago because I was so shocked that EDF was being paid 9.25p per kWh for electricity," said Ian Scott, the chief inventor. "We believe we can achieve parity with gas (in the UK) at 5.5p, and our real goal is to reach 3.5p and drive coal of out of business," he said.

The Moltex project can feed off low-grade spent uranium, cleaning up toxic waste in the process. "There are 120 tonnes of purified plutonium from nuclear weapons in Britain. We could burn that up in 10 to 15 years," he said. What remained would be greatly purified, with a shorter half-life, and could be left safely in salt mines. It does not have to be buried in steel tanks deep underground for 240,000 years. Thereafter the plant could be redesigned to use thorium, a cleaner fuel.

The reactor can be built in factories at low cost. It uses tubes that rest in molten salt, working through a convection process rather than by pumping the material around the reactor. This cuts corrosion. There is minimal risk of leaking deadly cesium or iodine for hundreds of miles around.

Transatomic Power, in Boston, says it can build a "waste-burning reactor" using molten salts in three years, after regulatory approval. The design is based on models built by US physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s, but never pursued - some say because the Pentagon wanted the plutonium residue for nuclear warheads.

It would cost $2bn (overnight cost) for a 550-megawatt plant, less than half the Hinkley Point project on a pro-rata basis. Transatomic says it can generate 75 times as much electricity per tonne of uranium as a conventional light-water reactor. The waste would be cut by 95pc, and the worst would be eliminated. It operates in a sub-critical state. If the system overheats, a plug melts at the bottom and salts drain into a cooling basin. Again, these are the claims.

The most advanced project is another Oak Ridge variant designed by Terrestrial's David LeBlanc, who worked on the original models with Weinberg. It aims to produce power by the early 2020s from small molten salt reactors of up to 300MW, for remote regions and industrial plants. "We think we can take on fossil fuel power on a pure commercial basis. This is a revolution for global energy," said Simon Irish, the company's chief executive.

Toronto-based Terrestrial prefers the "dry tinder" of uranium rather than the "wet wood" of thorium, which needs a blowtorch to get started and keep going, typically plutonium 239. But it could use either fuel.

A global race is under way, with the Chinese trying everything at the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear and Applied Physics, reportedly working under “warlike” pressure. They have brought forward their target date for a fully-functioning molten salt reactor - using thorium - from 25 to 10 years.

Ian Scott, at Moltex, originally planned to sell his technology to China, having given up on the West as a lost cause. He was persuaded to stay in Britain, and is talking to ministers. "The first stage will cost around £1bn, to get through the regulatory process and build a prototype. Realistically, only the government can do this," he said.

A state-venture of such a kind should not be ruled out. The travails of Hinkley Point show that the market cannot or will not deliver nuclear power on tolerable terms. The project has degenerated into a bung for ailing foreign companies. We have had to go along with it as an insurance, because years of drift in energy policy have left us at an acute risk of black-outs in the 2020s.

There is no reason why Britain cannot seize the prize of molten salt reactors, if necessary funded entirely by the government - now able to borrow for 10 years at 2.5pc - and run like a military undertaking. A new Brabazon Committee might not go amiss.

The nation still has world-class physicists. The death of Britain's own nuclear industry has a silver lining: there are fewer vested interests in the way. We start from scratch. The UK's "principles-based" philosophy of regulation means that a sudden pivot in technology of this kind could be approved very fast, in contrast to the America's "rules-based" system. "I would never even think of doing it in the US," said Dr Scott.

It would be hard to argue that any one of the molten salt technologies would be more expensive than arrays of wind turbines in the Atlantic. Indeed, there is a high likelihood that the best will prove massively cheaply on a kW/hour basis.

Such a project would kickstart Britain's floundering efforts to rebuild industry. It would offer some hope of plugging a chronic and dangerously high current account deficit, already 5pc of GDP even before North Sea oil and gas fizzles out. It is fracking on steroids for import substitution.

Britain split the atom at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge in 1911. It opened the world's first commercial reactor at Calder Hall in 1956. Surely it can rise to the challenge once again. If not, let us cheer on the Chinese.

[Southernguy]

Re: Lockheed Says they have a Fusion Energy Breakthrough

I know nothing about nuclear reactors. But "if something sounds to good to be true; it is"