OT: This could make a few windmills redundant

[John Rumm]

Bit of a game changer if they can actually do it:

[Matty F]

A fusion reactor in 10 years. Well that should get rid of carbon taxes and windmills and greenies too.

[Ericp]

Seeing who it is and how quiet they usually are about their research, it is probably reality and on the way.

What a lovely warm glow it gave me to think of all the PVs and windmills that will be just so much junk.

[DaverN]

It might not be the answer to the maiden's prayer, however. The scant details in the article state that the fusion reactor uses "D-T fuel", which I take to mean that it uses Deuterium and Tritium as fuel for the fusion reaction. If my assumption is correct, it presents a whole new raft of fuel availability problems.

Firstly, Tritium which is mildly radioactive and has a half-life of about 12 years, is produced in nuclear fission reactors but is barely detectable in natural resources.

Secondly, Deuterium (c.f. heavy water) seems to occur only naturally and cannot yet be manufactured, AIUI. It is also found only in very small quantities and the total available amount in the universe is thought to have been produced during the "Big Bang". When present in a fusion reaction, e.g the sun, Deuterium is destroyed which adds a whole new perspective to the term "fossil fuel".

Whilst my comment is highly speculative, it is food for thought perhaps?

[Andy Burns]

Apparently instead of having to pay to dispose of Thorium compounds dug up when mining rare earth metals, the miners are now able to sell the Thorium, so somebody is buying ...

From uk.d-i-y's favourite energy news source, of course!

[Nightjar]

Now that would be useful; a nuclear reactor we could feed them all into.

Colin Bignell

[Matty F]

One atom of deuterium per 6,420 atoms of hydrogen. I think there is a lot of hydrogen, therefore plenty of deuterium.

[harryagain]

Usual bollix from the USA. They have only recently been made to work at all in spite of the billions expended worldwide for the last fifty years. And not as radio-active waste free as hoped.

You might see one in fifty years.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Good grief. They will find a way to block it.

[Nightjar]

There are two atoms in one molecule of heavy water, so the ratio in water is 1 in 3,210, although the Bruce heavy water plant, in Canada, was only about 1% efficient at extraction when running, so needed

340,000 tonnes of water to produce one tonne of heavy water. It was shut down in 1997 as it had produced far more heavy water than anybody could see a use for. Tritium for America's nuclear weapons was specially produced in heavy water moderated reactors. So, all we really need is a lot of water and some fission reactors.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

The technique is AFAIUI to wrap the thing in lithium and then neutrons from the deuterium process turn that into tritium and the whole thing breeds its own tritium

I think again that deuterium is nade in a fusion reaction. Butr ebven if not, thers a lot of deuteram about. I am sure it will outlast the Sun.

[Dave Liquorice]

And "The system has a beta of about 1" What's that? Ratio of energy input (to make it work) to energy output?

Still if they do have a 100 MW prototype working by 2017...

[Nightjar]

That was 50 years ago Harry. Today, the best guess is 20 years although, TBH, had it been anybody else making the announcement, I would not have been surprised to see it standing at 20 years away in 20 years from now. However, given the Skunk Works' track record, there might well be a commercially viable fusion reactor within a decade.

Colin Bignell

[Brian Gaff]

Hmm, yes read this already somewhere else. One is forced to ask where is the funding coming from though. I'm also wondering about the Neutron leakage of such a design. Normally Fusion devices have issues of runaway, and a problem with energy input to achieve stable long term output greater than the input. the problem as has been stated many times is retaining the compact nature for fusion to keep on going without on the one hand the whole thing melting down and stopping or the energy input being greater than its output. To stop all those Neutrons you would need a lot of lead and lead would melt long before it got hot enough to work. I'm suspicious as ever since the 1950s Fusion has been just around the corner, whether it be by laser stimulation or the magnetic confinement system, there always seems to be a major issue with containment stopping it from keeping going for more than a fraction of a second at a time.

Brian

[Adrian]

Probably invoke a bit of reality, healthily laced with a couple of fundamental laws of physics.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well Brian, exactly BUT....what the chap says in the video is that they are playing with a radically different pattern of magnetic confinement, working on a very different principle.

Fusions is easy to achieve, the one insuperable engineering problem has been keeping it in its place.

If they have arrived at a different way by lateral thinking it is entirely conceivable that they could do what they claimed.

It occurs to me that the fusion problem is not a science one but a pure engineering one, and therefore the solution is likely to come from teams of really shit hot engineers rather than scientists.

It is not the first time that a globally important solution has been held back years, or even centuries, simply by lack of a practical way to achieve what was recognised as possible years before. Until some person from a completely different field says 'oh, I see how we might do that'

Powered heavier than air flight became possible once a high power to weight engine - developed for cars - was strapped on a box kite.

Looking into the history we would probably say that(Wiki) "1884: British engineer Edward Butler constructed the first petrol (gasoline) internal combustion engine. Butler invented the spark plug, ignition magneto, coil ignition and spray jet carburettor, and was the first to use the word petrol." represents the earliest point at which the possibility of a suitable aircraft power plant became a possibility, and

20 years later it was achieved - by a couple of bicycle engineers fiddling!

Frank Whittle patented the jet in IIRC 1925, and that took 20 years of experimenting before he could actually build a compressor that didn't fly to pieces.

The problem of fusions is simple: how to keep a very high pressure very hot plasma contained, and heated. RF heating certainly works, so that presumably is not a huge problem. What is is the containment. What is being said is they they have a different approach to magnetic confinement and it rings true - these guys deal on a daily basis with turbulent 3D flows,heat and containment in and around aircraft and rocket structures.

I'd back them against a bunch of physicists any day for this sort of problem.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I THINK that has something to do with the magnetic field curvature. To get stable plasma the magnetic containment has to increase faster towards the edges of te container than the (turbulence) of the plasma does.

Its sort of like making sure the sauclen of boiling water has the sides high enough not to slop out.. :-)

IF...

The proilem is its a piece of puff from the company hinting at great things, without supplying enough inforamtion to actaully discernwhether its real research in sight of a goal, a cope of bushy tailed nerds with a 'clever idea' or indeed pure bullshit designed to excite sharegolders or attract funding.

Nevertheless, the comany has credibility when it comes to solving unique engineering problems.

Expect a massive response from the Greemns detailing the horrors of tritium exposure, and the risks of global meltdown if any were ever to escape.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Id be moreconservative.

A working prototype in 10 years that actually generates power and a viable commercial unit in 20..

BUT teh small size means that it could be mass produced.

Thats somnething being touted by small modular reactor boys with fissions: get a design approved, then stack em up to make powerstations 'any size you want'

It wont be the first time government regulatins have driven designs in a particular direction.

The old hosepower rating for car tax favoured long stroke sloe revving engines. They turned out to be quite fuel efficient, which was something we utterly failed to caipitalise on in the 60s when the car industry fell to pieces.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Since when have the greens had more than a passing aquaintance with either of those?

[spuorgelgoog]

I always knew my box of old Trimphones would turn out to be worth something one day.

Owain