Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

DaveHein

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
619
Reaction score
17
A news item at Yahoo News states that Lockheed could have a working fusion reactor in 10 years. The webpage at Lockheed Martin doesn't say that they could have a working reactor in 10 years, but states that they could have a compact fusion prototype built in 5 years. Their claim is that the compact fusion device will allow them to experiment with new ideas at a more rapid pace than they could with the current experimental platforms that are the size of a building.

Are practical fusion reactors really only 10 years away?
 
A news item at Yahoo News states that Lockheed could have a working fusion reactor in 10 years. The webpage at Lockheed Martin doesn't say that they could have a working reactor in 10 years, but states that they could have a compact fusion prototype built in 5 years. Their claim is that the compact fusion device will allow them to experiment with new ideas at a more rapid pace than they could with the current experimental platforms that are the size of a building.

Are practical fusion reactors really only 10 years away?
I'll believe it when I see it. The details:

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

Here's another very recent revolutionary fusion reactor claim from another source, perhaps why Lockheed revealed their formerly secret tech:

Fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141008131156.htm
 
They don't build billion dollar Tokamak fusion reactor vessels because its fun. I think they'd build them smaller (and save a bundle of money) if they could.

I'm going to go with "I'll believe it when I see it." It would be great if they did, but fusion of any sort has been a continuing series of disappointments for the last fifty years.
 
They don't build billion dollar Tokamak fusion reactor vessels because its fun. I think they'd build them smaller (and save a bundle of money) if they could.

I'm going to go with "I'll believe it when I see it." It would be great if they did, but fusion of any sort has been a continuing series of disappointments for the last fifty years.
Both of these new reactor technologies rely on containment methods that allow them to be much smaller, but it's definitely still a see it to believe it situation.
 
Hmmm....

"Fusion fuel, made up of hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium"

The cost to make tritium is crazy expensive...

"Commercial demand for tritium is 400 grams per year[3] and the cost is approximately US $30,000 per gram."

Unless they come up with some new process... Not gonna happen.
 
Last edited:
The cost to make tritium is crazy expensive...

"Commercial demand for tritium is 400 grams per year[3] and the cost is approximately US $30,000 per gram."
And I thought fusion energy was free. I guess that's why the Science Daily article is titled "Fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal". This must assume that the cost of a gram of tritium will get below the cost of coal that produces the same amount of energy.

From one reference I saw, 100 Kg of deuterium is equivalent to 1.5 Million tons of coal. So I think that works out to 1 gram being equivalent to 15 tons of coal. From what I can tell coal is about $50 per ton. So a gram of deuterium would have to get down to $750 to break even with coal.

EDIT: Heavy water cost around $50 for 100 grams, and 20% of that is deuterium. So deuterium can be obtained for $2.50/gram, which is 300 times cheaper than the equivalent amount of coal.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm....

"Fusion fuel, made up of hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium"

The cost to make tritium is crazy expensive...

"Commercial demand for tritium is 400 grams per year[3] and the cost is approximately US $30,000 per gram."

Unless they come up with some new process... Not gonna happen.

In a fusion bomb they burn deuterium and tritium is made, and then consumed, in the process. Isn't it? Or is that done when burning lithium? I forget which.
 
Long Term it might be cheaper than coal, but for not, it is not a contest. Coal is cheaper.
 
Long Term it might be cheaper than coal, but for not, it is not a contest. Coal is cheaper.

Well, even more important than cost at this point is the fact that fusion doesn't work.

Comparing the cost of coal to a technology that doesn't exist is a moot point.
 
I'd rather see practical Thorium reactors.

FC

Could not agree more. US has the largest deposits on the planet, enough to last thousands of years. It cannot go critical (mass) or be remade into a bomb. SAFE nuclear power. Why we don't embrace this is beyond me.
 
Comparing the cost of coal to a technology that doesn't exist is a moot point.
But in 10 years it will exist. Coal and petroleum will become obsolete and we'll all be driving around in our electric cars. We'll have fusion powered rockets that will get us to the moon in a few hours, and to Mars in a few weeks. I know it's only 10 years away because they said so back in the 70s. :)
 
I remember a big deal was made when it was announced that a means had been developed that allowed for the scavenging of the helium ash from the reaction without pulling, thus cooling, so much energy from the reaction that the process collapses. It was hailed as the final hurdle towards a sustainable fusion reactor.

That was in 1988!!

Along about 1998, ten years later, one of the big names in fusion research retired. He gave a statement which went something along these lines “I now believe that we are no closer to fusion power than we were when I first entered the field 40 years ago. He went on a great deal more than that but the upside was his belief that sustained, energy positive fusion, might be impossible to develop/produce.
 
I remember a big deal was made when it was announced that a means had been developed that allowed for the scavenging of the helium ash from the reaction without pulling, thus cooling, so much energy from the reaction that the process collapses. It was hailed as the final hurdle towards a sustainable fusion reactor.

That was in 1988!!

Along about 1998, ten years later, one of the big names in fusion research retired. He gave a statement which went something along these lines “I now believe that we are no closer to fusion power than we were when I first entered the field 40 years ago. He went on a great deal more than that but the upside was his belief that sustained, energy positive fusion, might be impossible to develop/produce.

I don't think anything is truly impossible, unless it violates some law of physics. Warp drive and transporters are probably impossible, but fusion power is probably doable. That said, it has definitely been a very long and discouraging wait.

It may be that fusion power is not something you can accomplish with incremental improvement on existing designs, and it will require some kind of revolutionary breakthrough in materials or engineering approach. And that's the kind of thing that you can't predict when it will happen. It could be 10 years away. Or it could be 500 years away. Or it could be tomorrow.
 
The problem this researcher pointed out is that with our existing understanding of nuclear fusion, along with our, then current, level of technology we should already have a working fusion reactor; that several of the recent experimental fusion reactors should have proven successful. And yet none of them have and what’s worse none of them have given any data as to why they don’t work.

This of course means that there aren’t any leads as to where to go with any further ongoing development. Basically fusion researchers now are just trying things willy-nilly in the hope they get lucky. Kind of like Edison trying hundreds of different materials for the filament in his light bulb.

What amazes me is that a fusion reactor power plant is, when all is said and done, nothing but a boiling water steam turbine generator. I think there are cheaper and easier ways to turn water into steam.
 
The problem this researcher pointed out is that with our existing understanding of nuclear fusion, along with our, then current, level of technology we should already have a working fusion reactor; that several of the recent experimental fusion reactors should have proven successful. And yet none of them have and what’s worse none of them have given any data as to why they don’t work.

This of course means that there aren’t any leads as to where to go with any further ongoing development. Basically fusion researchers now are just trying things willy-nilly in the hope they get lucky. Kind of like Edison trying hundreds of different materials for the filament in his light bulb.

What amazes me is that a fusion reactor power plant is, when all is said and done, nothing but a boiling water steam turbine generator. I think there are cheaper and easier ways to turn water into steam.

The problem with most of the cheap and easy ways to generate steam is that they involve burning fossil fuels from underground and venting the exhaust into the atmosphere. The fuels are in limited supply, and the pollution is poisoning the planet. The promise of fusion is that the fuel is almost unlimited, and there is little or no pollution.
 
The promise of fusion is that the fuel is almost unlimited, and there is little or no pollution.

Same is true for the Thorium fission fuel cycle and the technology is available NOW. Any who think fusion is "clean" is delusional. The intense neutron bombardment in fusion reactor will create tons of long life radioactive waste just like a fission plant.

The only advantage of a fusion cycle (if it ever can be scaled up, big if) is that it output doesn't increase proliferation risk. But that cat is already out of the bag.

The only benefit of fusion power is that it keeps reseach scientists employed.
 
Hmmm....

"Fusion fuel, made up of hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium"

The cost to make tritium is crazy expensive...

"Commercial demand for tritium is 400 grams per year[3] and the cost is approximately US $30,000 per gram."

Unless they come up with some new process... Not gonna happen.
I'm sure that if the demand would go up, the price would come down..........:wink:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium also indicates that the Canadian's produce 2.5 kg per year by reprocessing the D2O in their heavy water reactors. That's got to be a lot more economical than the US production method.........

Bob
 
Lockheed Martin: Compact Fusion Research & Development

[video=youtube;UlYClniDFkM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM[/video]
 
So according to Thomas McGuire, they'll have a prototype in 5 years, it will be in military vehicles in 10 years and in 20 years they'll provide clean power for the world. And he won't even be at retirement age by the time all the work is wrapped up, and he'll need to find a new job. :)
 
So according to Thomas McGuire, they'll have a prototype in 5 years, it will be in military vehicles in 10 years and in 20 years they'll provide clean power for the world. And he won't even be at retirement age by the time all the work is wrapped up, and he'll need to find a new job. :)

Nah, because he'll be one of the guys who jumps ship to launch one of the companies that builds and sells those little beauties.
 
OK, I do "fusion" (with HUGE Quotation Marks). I am familiar with the Lockheed concept. It has a ways to go before "commercialization", but the fundamental concept is valid. You need to realize that the initial market for such a compact energy source is the US military. Think directed Energy Weaponry and you understand the value of such a compact power source.
 
Could not agree more. US has the largest deposits on the planet, enough to last thousands of years. It cannot go critical (mass) or be remade into a bomb. SAFE nuclear power. Why we don't embrace this is beyond me.

Without the ability to be made into a bomb, it cannot get DOD funding :wink:
 
Back
Top