Sign in / up

back to article Scientists skeptical of Lockheed Martin's truck-sized fusion reactor breakthrough boast

Lockheed Martin has caused quite a stir with its announcement that it will ship fusion reactors the size of a truck within the next decade. Lockheed Martin's compact fusion reactor "Our compact fusion concept combines several alternative magnetic confinement approaches, taking the best parts of each, and offers a 90 percent …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

  1. Detective Emil
    Mushroom

    Breeding dissent

    Hazily recalling Leonard de Vries' Book of the Atom (1960), I find it difficult to reconcile these two statements:

    "the tech could be exported around the world without fears over nuclear proliferation"

    "blanket absorbs neutrons to breed fuel and transfer heat to turbines"

    They probably mean breeding tritium from heavy water, but the neutron flux could also breed plutonium from uranium (although "only" plutonium 238, unless there are sufficiently fast deuterons around).

    5 0 Reply
  2. Christoph

    Have they got it working?

    If they have not got it actually working and producing excess power (or something very close to that) then they cannot know whether it will ever work. So all their fancy predictions of when it will be available are nonsense.

    4 0 Reply
    1. Nick L
      Reply Icon

      Re: Have they got it working?

      I think they're 5 generations away from a working prototype that'll run for a few seconds. They're aimng for a prototype every year... So that's "no".

      1 0 Reply
  3. naive

    Game changer

    Not being an expert, it seems too good to be true. The Lawrence Livermore facility needs a football field full of equipment to get fusion started, see https://lasers.llnl.gov/ , if it can also be done with reactors the size of a jet engine, then it would be a game changer for the world. With every new energy cycle, from wood to coals, from coals to oil, the world saw a long period of prosperity and progress.

    For over 150 years all the life changing major innovations came from America, it is magic how this nation keeps improving the world and makes the rest of the world look incapable and backwards.

    3 35 Reply
    1. annodomini2
      Reply Icon

      Re: Game changer

      Creating fusion with a small reactor has been performed since the '50s, creating a net reaction has been the problem.

      Again they make no claims to this, so they've either done it and are keeping very quiet (why would Lockheed want investment (shared liability) in something they know works) or it's a money grabbing scam.

      2 0 Reply
    2. CADmonkey
      Reply Icon

      Re: Game changer

      It wasn't magic when Churchill gave them everything the Brits had in terms of tech research into computers, jets, etc. just so that the Yanks would get their asses/arses over the pond in the name of freedom.

      26 0 Reply
    3. MacroRodent
      Reply Icon

      Re: Game changer

      "For over 150 years all the life changing major innovations came from America"

      So wrong I suspect you are trolling. But one thing U.S. did exceedingly well is putting ideas from elsewhere into practice. E.g. the first automobiles with an internal combustion engine were made in Germany, but Ford in the U.S. turned them into an affordable product.

      13 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Game changer

        You might find some of the main modern car innovations came from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard

        0 0 Reply
    4. Ted 3
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Naive is certainly an appropriate name for you

      "For over 150 years all the life changing major innovations came from America, it is magic how this nation keeps improving the world and makes the rest of the world look incapable and backwards."

      You *can't* be serious.

      I mean from dynamite to electrocardiograms to relativity to penicillin to quantum mechanics to insulin to x-rays to helicobacter to the discovery of DNA...all major life changing innovations of the 150 years NOT from America.

      I could come up with many other examples but I have real work to do.

      20 0 Reply
      1. tom dial Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Joke

        Re: Naive is certainly an appropriate name for you

        But we developed the iPhone!

        Surely that should make up for all the rest.

        1 0 Reply
    5. Gobuchul
      Reply Icon

      Re: Game changer

      Seriously! Incapable and backwards? Your name is rather apt sir.

      America have their fair share of inventions but no more than many others. Not that it really matters. They are probably the best at inventing new ways to kill people however. The internet is the best thing America has ever done for the world. Although of international conception they certainly made it a reality.

      Hardly social trail-blazers either. There are third world countries with better social polices, paid maternity leave is a prime example.

      Now the Scots, they pretty much invented the world.

      8 0 Reply
    6. Rich 11
      Reply Icon

      Re: Game changer

      For over 150 years all the life changing major innovations came from America,

      Like the method by which you are publishing your inane comment?

      3 0 Reply
    7. Adam 1
      Reply Icon

      Re: Game changer

      Never before has a comment been posted that so perfectly matches the handle of its poster.

      3 0 Reply
    8. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Game changer

      For over 150 years all the life changing major innovations came from America

      Ahahaha

      hahahaha

      hahah

      ha...

      ...Nurse! My pills...

      1 1 Reply
  4. Hans 1
    Boffin

    Clean ?????

    > The process creates helium-4, freeing neutrons that carry the released energy kinetically through the confining magnetic fields.

    > Compact fusion reactors of this type would solve the world's energy needs at a stroke, slash carbon emissions, and ensure reliable, clean power anywhere in the world with some easy-to-obtain fuel: hydrogen.

    You need a process that creates helium-6 for it to be clean, just saying. El'Reg, ask the professor, he will confirm.

    So they'll have a prototype in 10 years ? ITER claims they will have one next year ... not that it will be energy-positive, mind, nor operate longer than 10 seconds, with days of "planned downtime" before they turn it on again for 10 seconds. At ITER they built a fission reactor in the building next door so they need not care about "energy-positivity".

    Oh, and the self-appointed fusion experts on here know where the downvote button is, don't they.

    4 3 Reply
    1. Chemist
      Reply Icon

      Re: Clean ?????

      "You need a process that creates helium-6 for it to be clean,"

      Would you care to elaborate on this ?

      AFAIK He-6 has a 1/2 life of <1 sec and decays by both beta and alpha emission.

      He-4 is stable and the extra neutron released to form it is the one required to make more Tritium

      5 0 Reply
      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Clean ?????

        "AFAIK He-6 has a 1/2 life of <1 sec and decays by both beta and alpha emission."

        In fairness, for both decay modes the products are nbon-radioactive and because the half-life is so short you could safely spew Helium-6 into the atmosphere and it would be safe by the time it left your chimney. On the other hand, I'm not sure you could fairly (as in, completely) describe any process as "producing" Helium-6. It *produces* Deuterium, Helium-4 and Lithium-6.

        0 0 Reply
    2. lampbus
      Reply Icon

      Re: Clean ?????

      Hmm...ITER will not be next year....(there is a schedule on the ITER website.)

      ITER will run pulses for a lot longer than 10 seconds : http://www.iter.org/newsline/122/182

      ITER has no fission reactor in it's plan. (power to site arrives over the French grid...so will have come from a fission plant somewhere, and from renewables. it is not intending to export any power. the site will not have any turbines or generators on it. (except as emergency site backup power).

      I don't need to downvote...I just google for accurate information.

      1 0 Reply
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Investment is key to fusion research

    It's sobering to think that the *entire* US budget for fusion research over the last 60 years is equivalent to the cost of fighting just 72 days of the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/reframe/wasteful/

    18 3 Reply
  6. Xamol
    WTF?

    Size

    Did I read it wrong because 7x13 meters doesn't sound business-jet engine size. More like business-jet size.

    One day, one of these announcements will prove true despite the negative, sceptical reaction it gets. Whether it's this time or not, if it's business-jet or business-jet engine size; it will still be an amazing acheivement.

    3 0 Reply
    1. Candy
      Reply Icon
      Headmaster

      Re: Size

      "Did I read it wrong?" Yes, I think so. They are talking about "fusion reactors the size of a truck" where the reaction is "contained in a vessel the size of a business-jet engine". The one within the other.

      2 0 Reply
      1. Xamol
        Reply Icon

        Re: Size

        @Candy - Thanks.

        7x13 is a big truck but it's still small enough to have as many mobile or fixed installations as you need placed around a town/city so long as you have the required water source available.

        Should help reduce electicity generation and transmission costs.

        1 0 Reply
        1. Dave 42
          Reply Icon

          Re: Size

          Well, 7x13 meters is pretty big - but it's the third dimension that they don't mention - it could be huge

          0 0 Reply
    2. harmjschoonhoven
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: Size

      The substantial problems with the stabiltity of a magnetised plasma decrease with increasing scale. There is a reason why ITER is the largest experiment for controlled nuclear fusion up to this day.

      A mass of 2*10^30 kg hydrogen by itself is sufficient to initiate a stable fusion reaction and solve all our energy requirements.

      7 0 Reply
      1. ToddR
        Reply Icon

        Re: Size

        Its big but doesn't work for long and still massively energy negative. Mind you it employs more people in France.

        Maybe the problem is the Tokamak as stated by LM

        1 0 Reply
      2. Omgwtfbbqtime
        Reply Icon
        Happy

        A mass of 2*10^30 kg hydrogen by itself is sufficient to initiate a stable fusion reaction

        Where would we find something like that?

        /me looks up.

        Oh....

        7 0 Reply
        1. Terje
          Reply Icon
          Happy

          Re: A mass of 2*10^30 kg hydrogen by itself is sufficient to initiate a stable fusion reaction

          Now we just needs to build a smallish water tank to put it in to generate steam for our turbines!

          3 0 Reply
      3. Rich 11
        Reply Icon

        Re: Size

        A mass of 2*10^30 kg hydrogen by itself

        To be pedantic, about a quarter of that mass was helium at the time; now about half of it is.

        0 0 Reply
    3. Jonski
      Reply Icon

      Re: Size

      Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 as seen on B787's:

      Length: 4.738 m; Diameter: 2.85 m; Dry weight: 5,765 kg

      This is less than a quarter of the volume of a 7x13 m reactor, and I'd hate to think what the mass of the reactor would be- I'm guessing 200+ tonnes?

      So it may have roughly equivalent power output to today's engines (which are only getting more efficient), but I can't see its power:weight or thrust:weight ratios allowing for it to be used in aviation any time ever.

      0 0 Reply
  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Plentiful cheap energy? Never going to happen

    Because if this system becomes available and it is as clean as fusion potentially promises (ie low grade radioactive casing at end of life to dispose of) then this is not going to be cheap.

    It will end up being sold at the same price, or just slightly less, (perhaps after government subsidy like wind) as whatever other options are out there.

    The benefit is that it breaks our dependency on fossil fuels, ignore the carbon discussion and everything similar, the simple fact is we are burning dead dinosaurs and their contemporary plant life. There are no more dinosaurs so we are not getting additional supplies any time soon.

    6 4 Reply
    1. A Twig
      Reply Icon

      Re: Plentiful cheap energy? Never going to happen

      But, it opens up the possibility for local community generation.

      With this, when the Energy Company price hikes become to much to bear, it is no longer inconceivable that towns/villages could decide to fund their own community energy supplier - in the way we are starting to see with fibre optic broadband?

      Not suggesting this is necessarily the way forward or that it will happen, but the consequences of it are an interesting thought experiment.

      1 0 Reply
    2. ToddR
      Reply Icon

      Re: Plentiful cheap energy? Never going to happen

      No the benefit is its also cheap. NB cheap is not free, but compared to Fission reactors it should be virtually free.

      0 0 Reply
  8. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Unhappy

    Rats!

    Pushes DeLorean back into the garage.

    10 0 Reply
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    Given the state of the US economy

    Is Barack Obama asking the prof for a loan that unlikely?

    2 2 Reply
  10. herman

    Well, if anyone could make it work, it would be the likes of Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics and the first use will likely be in a military ship or a submarine, not an aircraft or any commercial system.

    1 1 Reply
    1. ToddR
      Reply Icon

      No the first use is as a district wide energy plant, i.e small - medium sized town.

      The spin on jet engines is at the moment you have to use an oil based fuel and the current order books for both Boeing and Airbus are gangbusters, so looks interesting to Mr Wallstreet

      0 0 Reply
    2. Hurn
      Reply Icon

      If the 1950s are any guide, the first use will actually take the form of a prototype land-based plant which is a mock-up of the proposed sea going ones.

      In addition to testing the new tech, said location would be key to writing the "Reactor Plant Manuals" which would contain Operating Instructions (startup / shutdown) and Casualty Procedures (what to do if <insert_problem_here> happens). No doubt said facilities would be built to be run for 50 years or more, serving to train generations of engineering personnel who will run and maintain the plants.

      0 0 Reply
  11. SoaG

    Heh

    "That's like Barack Obama asking me for a loan."

    With US federal debt an unfunded liabilities closing in on $125T I found that quote amusing.

    Still, while I'm skeptical overall, there is some merit to the argument that LHM may want investors because they're looking at a spinoff as it would be very much non-core business. They'll just hold onto the patents for any custom materials developed.

    1 1 Reply
  12. DropBear
    Boffin

    ...test out the Z-pinch theory of fusion generation, which eventually proved fruitless.

    I wouldn't quite give up on pinch fusion that fast (whether or not it's properly "Z"...) - the guys over at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics seem to be onto something with their aneutronic approach...

    0 0 Reply
  13. harmjschoonhoven
    Holmes

    Tool use at Lockheed-Martin

    At 41 seconds in the video you can see that the open end of a combination wrench is used to tighten a nut, how unprofessional.

    3 0 Reply
    1. swarfega
      Reply Icon

      Re: Tool use at Lockheed-Martin

      It's ok as long as they don't intend to turn it really tight more than once and retain the outer shape of the nut ;) Were you hoping they would bang it with the handle end not the open end? :P

      0 0 Reply
  14. hi_robb

    I've said it once and I'll say it again...

    Sounds like con fusion to me.

    2 0 Reply
  15. A Twig

    Just saying - the video is more a hype video to get research funding, that an announcement of a break through. It's basically a fluff piece to tell the world that they are starting an R & D program - with the usual LockMart bullish confidence about delivering the earth.

    Based on their more recent track record for OTD - I'd say we'll get something that sort of works in 50 years, and it will be 8 times the size, and cost at least 70x as much as originally projected...

    3 0 Reply
  16. Nigel 11

    I really hope this works, but ...

    McGuire claimed such a fusion system could give aircraft unlimited range and endurance

    ... this triggered my BS detectors. Even if it does work as clained, it's not going to be powering any plane with human passengers or biological cargo. That's because it'll be spitting out vast numbers of neutrons, and any plane carrying enough mass to provide sufficient shielding is never going to get off the ground. (That's never: you just couldn't build a strong enough wing with any known or theoretically postulated material).

    If it sits on the ground and works and makes cheap enough energy, you could make jet fuel out of CO2 from the atmosphere. That's how to do carbon-neutral aeroplanes.

    2 0 Reply
    1. Hurn
      Reply Icon

      Re: I really hope this works, but ...

      An airship, on the other hand, would work quite well.

      Place the reactor in the middle of a huge bag of Helium and very few neutrons will escape the outer envelope. And, hey, what's the waste product of the reactor? Helium. (1)

      As far as reducing weight, it'd be nice if there was a way to get electricity directly from the plasma itself (perhaps via MHD (2) ?) rather than have all the weight of a heat exchanger / turbine / condenser / feed pump cycle.

      (1) Yes, the reactor output volume of Helium will be orders of magnitude smaller than the volume of gas required for lift.

      (2) Magneto Hydro Dynamics - electricity can be generated based off the magnetic field generated by moving ions within the plasma. It'd be difficult to get the MHD generator to not interfere with the containment magnetic field, however.

      0 0 Reply
  17. hi_robb

    Now the serious comment.

    the last comment was obviously a joke, before anyone takes offence.

    Being that it came from Lockheed's Skunk works who are one of the most respected engineering design and problem solving teams in the world, this announcement should be treated with a bit less scepticism as the cold fusion one made by one man some time ago.

    Anyone interested in this should have a look at the wiki page which has a little bit more info (not much) on it and it's designer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor

    0 0 Reply
  18. Steve Graham

    1950s technology

    The lovingly-rendered image looks a lot like the magnetic mirror designs which originated in the Soviet Union in the fifties, and were taken up by the USA, where decades of work and hundreds of millions of dollars were spent in trying to get them to work.

    The last big project, the Mirror Fusion Test Facility, was cancelled when almost complete in 1986.

    Plasma confinement is really, really hard. I don't see anything in this new story that suggests they have a solution.

    4 0 Reply
  19. Yugguy

    Daft article

    You can't say "they didn't manage it in the 50s so it can't be done."

    1 0 Reply
    1. Alien8n
      Reply Icon
      Alien

      Re: Daft article

      You can if you believe in conspiracy theories.

      "Well they didn't get a man on the moon in the 50's so it can't be done, so that proves the moon landings were faked"

      1 0 Reply
    2. David Pollard
      Reply Icon

      Re: Daft article

      In one of the comments just a short way back there's a chap who's putting his DeLorean into the garage. Maybe that's the way to have done it.

      0 0 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like