Lockheed's Fusion Power Breakthrough Questioned

[slgrieb]

For those who might have missed it, Lockheed's Skunk Works has announced a breakthrough in fusion technology that could produce a prototype reactor that could fit on a large truck in 10 years. Lockheed claims it could demonstrate the technology in one year.

Well, the problem with Lockheed's technology is that it come from Lockheed with a likely outrageous Federal subsidy attached, and it seems to fly in the face of 40+ years of fusion power research.

Insights, opinions, comments?

[Semper Fi]

No real insight, but it is pretty exciting that there are breakthroughs in this technology...

[CeeBee]

It's been 10 years away for the last 50 years. Let's see a prototype with sustained positive energy balance and then think about fitting it on a truck.

[slgrieb]

It's been 10 years away for the last 50 years. Let's see a prototype with sustained positive energy balance and then think about fitting it on a truck.

It's hard not to think of this project as the F-35 of fusion reactors. Still, it might have been useful if I'd included a link to the blog I was reading. I screwed up.Still, that's what search engines are for, right?

[Overdrv]

The basic idea behind the breakthrough is this. Current fusion reactors use too much energy creating a magnetic field to contain the reaction. the new system varies the field to constrict the reaction and only where needs to be constrained. Thus theoretically using far less energy.

[slgrieb]

The basic idea behind the breakthrough is this. Current fusion reactors use too much energy creating a magnetic field to contain the reaction. the new system varies the field to constrict the reaction and only where needs to be constrained. Thus theoretically using far less energy.

Yes, but, that's an approach that lost favor in the '70s. Magnetic bottles of the day leaked like sieves. Most current research also suggests that the bigger the reactor, the more efficient it is at producing energy. I'm skeptical that Lockheed can deliver the goods, but I guess we'll all have to wait and see.

[Mobile PC]

Kaboom!!!!!!

[ilovetheusers]

Kaboom!!!!!!

Fusion reactors don't explode, they just shut off. That's their glory.

IMO this will turn out to be bullsnot. Fusion is the way top go if we can figure it out and wow do I hope they have.

That said, nothing wrong with using thorium reactors for now. If that LFTR in 5 minutes video isn't a bunch of bullshit (and since the chinese are building one now, it's probably not), it's the way to go to get us off of coal for the time being and would revitalize the mining industry when coal got hit. Uranim reactors are the dumbest way to go ever, unless you're looking to make a bomb. For the life of me I don't understand how a totally safe fission reactor like LFTR hasn
t gained more traction in the science mags, unless I've missed something huge.

[slgrieb]

Fusion reactors don't explode, they just shut off. That's their glory.

IMO this will turn out to be bullsnot. Fusion is the way top go if we can figure it out and wow do I hope they have.

That said, nothing wrong with using thorium reactors for now. If that LFTR in 5 minutes video isn't a bunch of bullshit (and since the chinese are building one now, it's probably not), it's the way to go to get us off of coal for the time being and would revitalize the mining industry when coal got hit. Uranim reactors are the dumbest way to go ever, unless you're looking to make a bomb. For the life of me I don't understand how a totally safe fission reactor like LFTR hasn
t gained more traction in the science mags, unless I've missed something huge.

The question of why thorium reactors aren't in widespread use is a really good question. Frankly, this is one case where I lean toward conspiracy theory. If I remember right, the Japanese just shut down an experimental thorium reactor they ran for 20 or 25 years. And now, we have the Fukashima Fiasco as a comparison. Tell me that's not messed up.

[CeeBee]

The question of why thorium reactors aren't in widespread use is a really good question.

Probably cheaper to use straight uranium and they produce useful by-products [for making bombs that is].