Lockheed Martin puts out a Fusion Related Press Release

Xarpolis

Xarpolis

Life's a Dream
14,146
15,638
Well, not yet it isn't. But the idea of real life Gundams is getting a lot closer to reality.

Compact Fusion

American defense contractor Lockheed Martin has issued a statement declaring it has made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion. It's hoping to have a prototype ready in five years - and a small, functional unit ready by 2024.

It's a big claim, but if they're being honest it could be a huge development. The company is basically saying that it's figured out a way to harness the same kind of nuclear reaction that heats the sun and that this process can be replicated in compact form to power cities and vehicles on Earth.

Quickly, nuclear fusion is the process of making a single heavy nucleus from two lighter nuclei. The change in mass produces a considerable amount of energy. Harnessing fusion has been the Holy Grail of physics, a game-changing solution that could provide a virtually unlimited source of cheap energy.

Lockheed Martin says it can be done on a very compact scale, and that it can build a reactor small enough to fit on the back of a truck and ship around the globe. The reactor could also be used to power a U.S. Navy warship, and eliminate the need for other fuel sources that present logistical and cost challenges.

LqK9Dp6.jpg
 
Haast

Haast

Lord Nagafen Raider
3,281
1,636
Viable fusion reactors have been the holy grail of energy production since forever. Huge scientific organizations spend megabucks researching it with mediocre results. Sandia's Z Machine, Berkley's NIF laser, and numerous American and European groups have tried different versions of toroidal reactors, among many other endeavors. Most have not even achieved neutral energy production (produce more than they consume). Beyond that, there is repetition rate difficulty, parts wearing out fast and becoming highly radioactive, and numerous other challenges. They are always "10-20 years" away from being viable. Like since the 50s.

So I hope there is a breakthrough, but I'm highly skeptical. If they are successful, Lockheed could easily become the biggest energy company on the planet overnight. Perhaps the most powerful company, period. In fact, Lockheed developing this tech is more than a little terrifying since they produce so much military hardware.
 
Tripamang

Tripamang

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
5,223
31,845
The primary driver for the technology is specifically for laser weapons on ships and planes (That's where lockheed got the funding for it). What really pisses me/disappoints me is that if Lockheed is really this close, why isn't this the next Manhattan project? If 10 billion turns five years into six months, it'll be worth every penny in climate change damage it prevents. The time to act is now and the cognitive dissonance and tunnel vision that fusion energy investment currently has is holding back us as a species. If you have cheap energy fresh water becomes limitless, food becomes limitless, recycling all materials becomes viable and I'm sure thousands of other ideas no one fathomed/thought possible will become a reality. We need this tech yesterday :/
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Tripamang_sl said:
If 10 billion turns five years into six months, it'll be worth every penny in climate change damage it prevents.
Click to expand...
The past 60 years of fusion research pretty clearly demonstrates that it won't. It doesn't really seem to matter how much money you throw at fusion, it's always just 10 or 20 years away. That's not to say that we won't figure it out eventually, I'm sure we will. But it's probably going to take some fairly big leaps in various science and engineering disciplines before we do, and it's not really possible to somehow figure out exactly where to target the research dollars to speed it up. ITER is turning in to a massive, massive sink hole of money, and it might not advance things to any significant degree. 50 billion dollars and counting, when it was supposed to be 5 billion. And actual fusion is still 10+ years out.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,480
73,561
source for the article claiming they have a breakthrough:
Lockheed Martin Pursuing Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Concept Lockheed Martin

Usually miniaturization starts after the fundamental problem has been solved. Trying to jump ahead to a powerful fusion reactor on a truck is pretty ambitious when this has been such an elusive technology for 6 decades. That they spend so much effort talking about how much easier the problem is to solve at a small scale rather than describing how cool it is that they solved the problem period is troubling.

I couldn't find the patents they've filed, but it seems like the only info we have is their word that they've made a breakthrough. It's probably bullshit but here's to hoping!
 
Cad

Cad

I'm With HER ♀
<Bronze Donator>
24,496
45,437
Eomer_sl said:
The past 60 years of fusion research pretty clearly demonstrates that it won't. It doesn't really seem to matter how much money you throw at fusion, it's always just 10 or 20 years away. That's not to say that we won't figure it out eventually, I'm sure we will. But it's probably going to take some fairly big leaps in various science and engineering disciplines before we do, and it's not really possible to somehow figure out exactly where to target the research dollars to speed it up. ITER is turning in to a massive, massive sink hole of money, and it might not advance things to any significant degree. 50 billion dollars and counting, when it was supposed to be 5 billion. And actual fusion is still 10+ years out.
Click to expand...
$50B is how many days worth of oil production?
 
Cad

Cad

I'm With HER ♀
<Bronze Donator>
24,496
45,437
Haast_sl said:
You got me curious. According toWikipedia, worldwide production is 84 million bbl/day. The current price of oil is around$85/bbl. So about $7.14B/day is produced. $50B is about 7 days of oil production.
Click to expand...
Well holy shit I'd hate to waste 7 days worth of oil production on the future energy and climate needs of the human race. Carry on, oil companies!
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,480
73,561
$50B a day is how many vaccinations for babies? 4 years? I certainly wouldn't want to have millions of babies die just to pay for welfare for PhD students!
 
Chanur

Chanur

Shit Posting Professional
<Gold Donor>
26,744
39,090
Use the dead to power the reactor. Solves the fuel and recycling problem!
 
Haast

Haast

Lord Nagafen Raider
3,281
1,636
Rather than discussing how to fund it, how about we agree fusion energy would be nice until Lockheed makes space laser robots and kills us all.

rrr_img_79212.jpg
 
I

Itzena_sl

shitlord
4,609
6
Tuco_sl said:
source for the article claiming they have a breakthrough:
Lockheed Martin Pursuing Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Concept Lockheed Martin

Usually miniaturization starts after the fundamental problem has been solved. Trying to jump ahead to a powerful fusion reactor on a truck is pretty ambitious when this has been such an elusive technology for 6 decades. That they spend so much effort talking about how much easier the problem is to solve at a small scale rather than describing how cool it is that they solved the problem period is troubling.

I couldn't find the patents they've filed, but it seems like the only info we have is their word that they've made a breakthrough. It's probably bullshit but here's to hoping!
Click to expand...
On the other hand the Skunk Works designed a mach 3 scramjet-engined titanium-bodied plane using slide rules and paper in the late 50s. If they say they think they can get small fusion reactors working within a decade, I'm willing to cut them a little more slack than I would some random physics lab.
 
C

Creslin

Trakanon Raider
2,375
1,077
Tuco_sl said:
source for the article claiming they have a breakthrough:
Lockheed Martin Pursuing Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Concept Lockheed Martin

Usually miniaturization starts after the fundamental problem has been solved. Trying to jump ahead to a powerful fusion reactor on a truck is pretty ambitious when this has been such an elusive technology for 6 decades. That they spend so much effort talking about how much easier the problem is to solve at a small scale rather than describing how cool it is that they solved the problem period is troubling.

I couldn't find the patents they've filed, but it seems like the only info we have is their word that they've made a breakthrough. It's probably bullshit but here's to hoping!
Click to expand...
The fundamental problem with powering our cities with fusion is that the net energy is negative. The primary problem with powering a tank or ship or plane mounted energy weapon is the size of the reactor itself.

I could see major military uses for a miniaturized fusion tech that is still not yielding positive net energy if they spend a massive amount of coal fired energy to synthesize the fuel for the reactor but then are able to mount that reactor into drones or planes that can kill any enemy aircraft with a light speed weapon that is still amazing. Power density issues is the major thing standing in the way of air mounted energy weapons so maybe they just solved power density and not the other issue since really it is two separate issues.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,480
73,561
Yeah they definitely have credibility that most other groups don't, but not knowing anything about LM's internal politics that press release could mean just mean some VP of marketing wanting to drum up some interest in LM and getting some random shots of one of their labs and abuse some statements by some Director. It's not like there's any evidence that one of the principle researchers ran into a board room of executives with papers showing that his zany idea is ground breaking and would work and now he can go home to watch his son's big game just in time to see him make the touchdown pass to win and resolve his coming of age troubles.
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,782
213,120
so would a fusion reactor be dangerous like a nuclear reactor? would we be storing fusion rods under the desert too?
 
Haast

Haast

Lord Nagafen Raider
3,281
1,636
Maester Chuk_sl said:
so would a fusion reactor be dangerous like a nuclear reactor? would we be storing fusion rods under the desert too?
Click to expand...
I'm no nuclear engineer, but containing any nuclear reaction is inherently dangerous in my understanding. It's probably less dangerous than fission, though.

While the actual fuel may not be rods you have to store for 100K years, the parts of the machine exposed to the reaction tend to become very radioactive from neutron flux. And then you have to deal with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.