Working Fusion Reactor by 2017?

[bartekkru99]

I've just read on Forbes site, that Lockheed Martin, pomised to build a working fusion reactor by 2017, whet do you think about it? Is it really going to be that fast? Even if not we will propably see them during our lifespans...

[Tarrow]

I've just read on Forbes site, that Lockheed Martin, pomised to build a working fusion reactor by 2017, whet do you think about it? Is it really going to be that fast?.

Quick answer? No. There's no evidence whatsoever that Lockheed Martin are any nearer achieving fusion than any of the research groups that've been attempting it for decades.

[Nibb31]

Fusion power has been 10 years away for at least 40 years.

[Stargate525]

Well, in 2013 we had the first reaction that created more energy than we put into it. So we're a lot closer than we were. Depending on how much they want to spend, I can sort of see it. I won't bet money on it, but we'll see.

[xenomorph555]

Fusion power has been 10 years away for at least 40 years.

No it's been 20 years for the past 60 years up until 2010 where it's now at least 10 years. However we are very close now, we will have fusion power stations by 2025.

[Albert VDS]

Quick answer? No. There's no evidence whatsoever that Lockheed Martin are any nearer achieving fusion than any of the research groups that've been attempting it for decades.

From a business standpoint it's a very good idea not to show any evidence of your highly sought out device.

[Frozen_Heart]

Until they actually have more than empty claims to show then I don't believe a word of it. If they actually provided some evidence that they were that close then maybe I'd believe them.

[Nibb31]

However we are very close now, we will have fusion power stations by 2025.

Given that it takes more than 20 years to plan, design, and build a nuclear plant with proven technology, I don't see how that would be possible.

[SargeRho]

Well, in 2013 we had the first reaction that created more energy than we put into it.

That's not quite correct. Enough energy was released to ignite another fuel pellet, if there was a way to replenish it. It did not produce more energy than was used by the ultra-high energy lasers.

[Nuke]

the reason fusion reserch has taken so long is the tokamak. those things are beasts, huge, hungry for time and money, of which they consume vast amounts. that is why fusion is always 10 years away, because the evil tokamak always wants more. you always need a bigger one. lasers will never be breakeven, they are just to inefficient. i hear you can do the same job with particle accelerators more efficiently, but thats another huge expensive machine.

its really gonna be between lockheed, dpf, and polywell. these machines are small and are subject to fast iteration of experiments. if your computer models reveal a flaw in the design, they can be corrected quickly without costing a fortune. you can experiment with geometry (images of lockheeds machines show coils on rails, so they can be swapped out and adjusted pretty much at will), and cheaply. you also dont need any exotic custom built research facilities, just your typical lab space. then you start looking at the science behind them and realize they are on to something.

[Tarrow]

From a business standpoint it's a very good idea not to show any evidence of your highly sought out device.

As someone who spent many years in a lab working on proving or disproving peoples claims my view (shared in general amongst the scientific community) is this - from a scientific standpoint it's laughable to claim that you've achieved something that no-one else has without presenting some evidence.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Tarrow

[Albert VDS]

As someone who spent many years in a lab working on proving or disproving peoples claims my view (shared in general amongst the scientific community) is this - from a scientific standpoint it's laughable to claim that you've achieved something that no-one else has without presenting some evidence.

That's true and some evidence would be needed to prove their claim.

But no evidence from from LHM isn't proof that they wont have a working fusion reactor by 2017.

[Linear]

Given that it takes more than 20 years to plan, design, and build a nuclear plant with proven technology, I don't see how that would be possible.

20 years? The power station near me will be ready in about 8 years (16 years total) and that's with 5+ years of the EU getting in the way and deciding on doing nothing.

5 years, millions of pounds - no changes. Salty.

[NFUN]

I've just read on Forbes site, that Lockheed Martin, pomised to build a working fusion reactor by 2017, whet do you think about it? Is it really going to be that fast? Even if not we will propably see them during our lifespans...

We've had working fusion reactors for years. They just aren't very good for much besides research.

Edited February 16, 2015 by NFUN

[UmbralRaptor]

Fusion is the power system of the future. And the past 50 years suggest that it always will be. Polywell seems to have died, NIF "succeeded" if you interpret the numbers one way (another way would be that they failed on multiple levels), and ITER is still ages away from maybe working. Lockheed-Martin's announcement is so lacking in details, that it's hard to say anything useful about it. So for the time being, the safest approach is to assume that it's mostly or entirely marketing.

We've had working fusion reactors for years. They just aren't very good for anything besides research.

Fusors as neutron sources notably?

[Laie]

Fusion power has been 10 years away for at least 40 years.

IIRC, the fusion constant was more like 40-50 years. Given that it took like 25 years until they had decided on who will contribute how much to ITER, I'm inclined to belive that the main holdup isn't technical difficulties.

Well, in 2013 we had the first reaction that created more energy than we put into it.

Wasn't that already back in the nineties?

[Tommygun]

Fusion power has been 10 years away for at least 40 years.

IIRC, the fusion constant was more like 40-50 years. Given that it took like 25 years until they had decided on who will contribute how much to ITER, I'm inclined to belive that the main holdup isn't technical difficulties.

Wasn't that already back in the nineties?

Yes, it used to be that fusion technology was 50 years away for the last 50 years.

Maybe now it's 10 years away for the last 40.

by the time I die, I'm hoping it will be 5 years away for the last 20.

The constant march of technology, We live in exciting times people!

Edited February 16, 2015 by Tommygun

[NFUN]

IIRC, the fusion constant was more like 40-50 years. Given that it took like 25 years until they had decided on who will contribute how much to ITER, I'm inclined to belive that the main holdup isn't technical difficulties.

No, the main holdup is technical issues. There are tons of labs around the world working on fusion research, and none have come even close to fruition in economical fission (with the NIF seeming to be the closest). ITER isn't guaranteed to produce useful energy, in fact, it isn't really expected to. It is more of an LHC* than an APS-1.

*Okay, this isn't really accurate, it's supposed to be a prove of concept, which the LHC isn't really.

Wasn't that already back in the nineties?

No.

[Iskierka]

ITER is likely to produce considerable power - simulation indicates that improvements in JET since its last full-power test runs mean it already could achieve positive power, and the same developments are going into ITER. However, as mentioned, it has no design considerations to recover that power yet, and it'll likely be quite a lot more money, time, and paperwork to get generators installed, if they decide to do so once it's working.

Lockheed, it's very hard to say, but given the total lack of detail, we have to assume "no". JET has achieved unity in power previously, and since improved, and we're making a better version, so we'll certainly have a proof of concept for useful fusion on the way with that device, when it comes, years later. Lockheed, as far as I know, has not demonstrated unity, nevermind potential for actual generation, so you're being strange if you assume they'll have beaten unity by 2017.

[Montana_Missile]

ITER is likely to produce considerable power - simulation indicates that improvements in JET since its last full-power test runs mean it already could achieve positive power, and the same developments are going into ITER. However, as mentioned, it has no design considerations to recover that power yet, and it'll likely be quite a lot more money, time, and paperwork to get generators installed, if they decide to do so once it's working.

Lockheed, it's very hard to say, but given the total lack of detail, we have to assume "no". JET has achieved unity in power previously, and since improved, and we're making a better version, so we'll certainly have a proof of concept for useful fusion on the way with that device, when it comes, years later. Lockheed, as far as I know, has not demonstrated unity, nevermind potential for actual generation, so you're being strange if you assume they'll have beaten unity by 2017.

There are other fusion projects besides ones sponsored by big gov/ big business. For instance General Fusions ITR facility looks to be far more promising than anything else I've seen. ITR doesn't have to involve lasers. In my opinion, lasers are the dumbest way to try and achieve fusion. Lasers emit only around 5% of their energy consumed as light. That is a huge operational impediment. General Fusions device is basically a scaled down and controlled thermonuclear weapon. It is the simplicity of the design that will allow it to succeed where others have failed.

Pulse Detonation ITR is the future gentlemen.

[juanml82]

There are other fusion projects besides ones sponsored by big gov/ big business. For instance General Fusions ITR facility looks to be far more promising than anything else I've seen. ITR doesn't have to involve lasers. In my opinion, lasers are the dumbest way to try and achieve fusion. Lasers emit only around 5% of their energy consumed as light. That is a huge operational impediment. General Fusions device is basically a scaled down and controlled thermonuclear weapon. It is the simplicity of the design that will allow it to succeed where others have failed.

Pulse Detonation ITR is the future gentlemen.

How would that work from a commercial point of view? If knowledge and equipment to build a thermonuclear weapon are required for the power plant to be built, I don't see such technology being allowed to be exported.

[Montana_Missile]

The power output is not even close to the same scale, and it is hardly portable. Exportation and control of the technology shouldn't be a problem. Knowledge of how to build thermonuclear devices is freely available, what prevents your average joe from building one, is the specialized tools and rare resources required to do so.

[magnemoe]

Given that it takes more than 20 years to plan, design, and build a nuclear plant with proven technology, I don't see how that would be possible.

Nuclear powerplants take a long time to build, mostly because of all the bureaucracy but they are also large and complex facilities.

Building an prototype in a lab is an totally different issue and can be done in months.

One major difference regarding fusion today and 15 years ago is that its lots of research projects with various designs ongoing.

[Nuke]

Polywell seems to have died

found a new polywell talk from last month.

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=238715&r=1

sounds like they are looking for money again.

[Nibb31]

20 years? The power station near me will be ready in about 8 years (16 years total) and that's with 5+ years of the EU getting in the way and deciding on doing nothing.

My point. 16 years, plus preliminary studies and design of the plant. 20 years is pretty much at the lower end of the ballpark.

If somebody achieved fusion today in an experimental lab, it would take at least 20 years before the first full-scale fusion power plant would go operational.

Nuclear powerplants take a long time to build, mostly because of all the bureaucracy but they are also large and complex facilities.

Building an prototype in a lab is an totally different issue and can be done in months.

I agree, but people have been failing at both large and small fusion projects for decades. I was replying to a comment saying that we would have fusion power plants by 2025, which simply isn't possible with current planning regulations for large construction projects like this.