Nuclear fusion on a truck ?

formatting link

An American defence company claims it is on the verge of launching a new atomic age with a truck-sized fusion reactor that could be tested in less than a year. Lockheed Martin expects to unveil a prototype of its compact fusion reactor (CFR) by 2020.

A decade from now it could be powering warships and in 20 years providing a source of virtually limitless clean energy around the world. Unlike conventional nuclear fission that relies on splitting atoms, fusion harnesses the same forces that drive the sun.

Super-hot atomic nuclei are fused together to release huge amounts of energy, while avoiding harmful radioactive waste. Although the dream of fusion power has been pursued for decades, it has so far failed to live up to its promise. The Lockheed team, which has been quietly working on the project for about four years, says the secret of its success was to stay small.

Team leader Dr Tom McGuire said: "Instead of something the size of a building, we have something the size of a large truck. "Small is the reason we can do this quickly. If something's small, you can build up momentum; you can develop it fast. It doesn't take five years to design it, it takes three months. We can design it, build it, test it, under a year."

The CFR is being developed at Lockheed Martin's secretive Skunk Works facility in California, which created the U2 and Blackbird spy planes. A decision to "go public" about the project was taken because of pending patents and the need to find industry and government partners to take the technology forward.

The initial design is for a 100 megawatt reactor measuring 10 feet by seven feet that could be loaded on to the back of a large truck. As well as providing clean energy, compact fusion reactors have the potential to revolutionise sea, air and even space travel, it is claimed.

Speaking in a Lockheed Martin video, Dr McGuire said: "Fifty years ago when people were super-excited about nuclear power, we tried to put it in everything, including aeroplanes. There were some big operational issues; it wasn't safe. Fusion is a much safer option - a next generation of aeroplanes that doesn't rely on fuel, that can just stay aloft. Unlimited range, unlimited endurance. That's what nuclear fusion can do for an aeroplane.

"He envisaged compact fusion reactors taking the place of gas turbines in power stations to provide a readily available source of emission-free energy. Dr McGuire added: "The true atomic age can start. Ten years, we have great military vehicles. Twenty years, we have clean power for the world."

Production of the prototype will follow a round of design-build-test cycles, the first of which could be completed in less than a year. Last week the European Commission announced an 850 million euro (£677 million) initiative to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source by 2020.

Key to any form of nuclear fusion is the ability to handle temperatures as high as 100 million centigrade - hotter than the sun's core. Generally this is done using a "magnetic bottle" to confine the hot electrically- charged gas, or plasma. "Our compact fusion concept combines several alternative magnetic confinement approaches, taking the best parts of each, and offers a 90% size reduction over previous concepts," said Dr McGuire.

Using a deuterium-tritium fuel source, the reactor would generate nearly

10 million times more energy than the same quantity of fossil fuels, according to Lockheed Martin. Deuterium is a heavy isotope, or atomic strain, of hydrogen found in the Earth's oceans, while tritium is a radioactive hydrogen isotope derived from lithium.

The company said it hoped future reactors would use a different source of fuel to eliminate radioactive waste completely. Professor Roger Dargaville, head of the MEI Energy Futures Group at the University of Melbourne, Australia, said: "In moving towards a low carbon energy system, necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, it is important to consider all options.

Nuclear energy is low carbon, and will be an important part of the electricity generation fleet in various countries around the world where other low carbon alternatives are not viable. "The potential for the use of fusion reactors over fission is exciting news as the dangerous by- products of fission reactors are a major disadvantage of the technology."

Professor Steve Cowley, head of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, said: "We're aware of claims of a 'technological breakthrough' in nuclear fusion by the Skunk Works group at Lockheed Martin. We cannot make any informed comment until further details of the performance of this device are revealed.

"We will continue to advance fusion on large scale tokamak devices (such as the European JET project based at Culham, which has achieved 16 megawatts of fusion power) and await further information on the Lockheed Martin project with interest."

Reply to
Jethro_uk
Loading thread data ...

snip

The mind boggles:

formatting link

with Fusion Power!

Reply to
Davey

So, fusion power is twenty years away. I wonder how many times I have heard that over the past few decades.

Reply to
Nightjar

There was a similar report linked to in a side-panel of the Grauniad article on fart-power highlighted by Harry.

formatting link

But there are some serious reservations about Lockheed's claims, which seem to be based on theoretical arguments and calculations, rather than having constructed anything practical. Don't hold your breath!

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Hogg

That would be nice

That is what makes me suspicious. Lockheed Martin is a *big* company. If they want outside investors, either:

  1. They need a *lot* of money

- and / or -

  1. They aren't very convinced it is going to work.

Sounds sensible.

It is worth investing in fusion research not because it is sure to work, but because the payoff is so huge if it does. In other words, it is rational to place a bet on a 1 in 100 chance, if someone will give you "thousand to one" odds.

Reply to
Martin Bonner

So they are on the fourth generation one now?

Or is it still in the pencil behind the draughtmans ear?

Coincidence of course...

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

I think maybe it was a fusion reactor on a truck.

Even if they harness the energy via gas turbines that's going to need at least the area of a tennis court, and via steam turbines something like half a football pitch if it is in a ship or at the sea-side, probably double that with cooling towers for inland use.

Reply to
newshound

The problem apart from the temperatures and what that does to materials, is that in small fusion reactors, the energy input is more than the output. The more energetic the reaction, the harder it is to contain, so getting efficient energy out is almost impossible for longer than a few milliseconds after which the fuel injection and containment fails.

I've not heard of any other technology that has changed this, despite using lasers and magnets together etc. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

Yes Fusion has been ten years away most of my lifetime so far. I can remember as quite a young and impressionable person having a Russian Scientist tell me this in the early 1960s. So here we are, all those years later.... Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

It's nice to see their priorities.

If we had clean power for the world first, perhaps we wouldn't need so many military vehicles, particularly the ones invading oil-producing countries.

Owain

Reply to
spuorgelgoog

Yup I remember reading their announcement of entry into the space some years ago, and was wondering when (if) there would be further updates. Sounds like stuff is happening.

Reply to
John Rumm

Quite.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

You can put that one in the same file as "Cold Fusion".

Reply to
harryagain

Not to mention the high speed neutrons that are not contained by magnetics or electric fields, being neutrons...

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

I was wondering why the priority was for military vehicles. Would it be just because they've got the budget for it? What military vehicles would actually use such a thing? Ships is the only thing I can think of, and aren't fission reactors doing well enough for them?

Reply to
Clive George

You're probably correct, although apparently there are still some die-hards researching it, see

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Hogg

In Devon?

Reply to
Clive George

Almost certainly, especially given who are developing it.

In the 1950s, there were trials of nuclear powered bombers. There was also Project Pluto, which was intended to create a multi-warhead cruise missile that could stay aloft almost indefinitely. Although, using a nuclear ram jet engine and flying at low level at supersonic speeds, it would have left a trail of radioactive destruction behind it.

Perhaps the proposed reactor would fit into a wider range of ships.

Reply to
Nightjar

LOL! Sorry about that! It was another link I'd used just before. Try

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Hogg

That would depend on what you wanted to power. You need more power to go faster or bigger. You need more to power rail guns and stuff like that. That's before you get into the secret stuff.

Reply to
dennis

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.