Lockheed Martin claim to have made a breakthrough in nuclear fusion which should see the 1st reactors ready inside 10 years. :eek:
http://www.businessinsider.com/andre...hrough-2014-10
Printable View
Lockheed Martin claim to have made a breakthrough in nuclear fusion which should see the 1st reactors ready inside 10 years. :eek:
http://www.businessinsider.com/andre...hrough-2014-10
wow, if it's real then WOW, big time...
Ive been a long time fan of Culham Labs work and the JET, ITER and MAST Projects.
Science fiction come true at last ?
This is another project which keeps popping up, about which it's still easy to have doubts: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...ty-of-gasoline
Coming from a company like Lockheed Martin though, it has my attention for sure...
Hmmm, however, nothing here :
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/uk/n...-releases.html
But more here :
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/lockheed-m...e-h-1646578094
Have to say, having now seen three or four news releases this is looking amazing !!
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/new...ar-fusion.html
On the US website
Isn't it always 10 years away? Or is it always 15 years? I forget!
If only we put as much in research into fission in general as we did into our weapon friendly fast breaders.
Its weaponisation potential is probably the only reason why fission got government funding in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Yes, if true a VERY BIG WOW!!
I'd like to know, however, how they will have skinned the plasma containment cat and solved the 'how to keep it going' problem after pumping in giga-watts of start up juice.
A working and small enough reactor to be transportable and, implied, cheap, may be the solution we're looking for in terms of carbon free energy availability across the entire globe.
There's also the problem that its in the US and Lockheed Martin say 'looking for partners in academia, industry and among government laboratories to advance the work.' In other words, this could be swallowed by the military and government and either kept for strategic benefit purposes or sold at a very high price (political and financial).
But perhaps I'm being too cynical...
Oh, and the picture used of the sun having a major flare eruption burp on the LM site is my very own avatar picture elsewhere (and here too if I get to enough posts!)
Indeed. The weaponisation also meant that plenty of military type mindsets were running the show so any failings were quickly covered up which long term has made nuclear very unpopular.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
But can you imagine the discussion when Thorium was first considered:
"I've found a new reaction cycle, very stable, almost totally clean, self-contained, can use waste as part of its fuel cycle, no possibility of containment break!"
"Sounds great! When can you start?"
"Very soon, it's a much smaller reactor so very cheap"
[Industrialists and CEO of mega corporation at first doesn't look to happy, but thinks well maybe better to sell a few million cheap reactors is better than selling a few hundred expensive ones]
[Military guy steps up]
"What about weapons grade materials?"
"That's the beauty of this cycle; there is none so no proliferation problems"
"Ah. Oh, in that case I veto this research"
Amusing, but I think a tad unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
The story goes that in the UK nuclear weapons program the lead engineer for creating the weapons grade plutonium said there was no way he was going to let all that heat go to waste so the plant wouldn't get built unless it generated electricity, and so our first nuclear power plant was created. So it wasn't weaponisation of a consumer technology, it was the consumer benefit of a weapons programme. The military didn't have to do that.
I get the impression that we have plenty of weapons grade material around. Now we just want power, there seems to be no shortage of modern safe reactor designs, but people get wierd when you mention nuclear anything.
The perception of the whole proliferation issue seems too closely tied to fission in general. Reactor cores can be designed to produce more or less, or even consume fissile materials. Magnox is an example of a core designed to produce, but the same isn't necessarily true of more modern designs. On the flip side, the USA consumed huge amounts of Russian weapons-grade fuel through the magatons-to-megawatts program.
An extremely naive assumption made by the anti-nuclear crowd is that no commercial power reactors = no more nuclear weapons. As I said, modern cores aren't necessarily very efficient at producing fissile material as they're designed primarily to extract energy as heat, but either way having this production source is understandably a convenience and might even lower costs to an extent, but I can't see the presence or lack of commercial power reactors being a major barrier to weapons production.
I agree thorium probably deserves more attention than it is given at the moment, and also that the reason for the lack of development in favour of uranium is strongly related to weapons.
Modern breeder reactor attention isn't just focussed on producing fissile material; the same sort of reactor design is useful for burning up waste fuel leaving you with less high-level waste to deal with. And again, any power you can produce in the meantime is a bonus. The PRISM is one such reactor.
Even aside from power and weapons, reactors have lots of important uses for producing things like medical isotopes, and the US are also looking at potential future supply issues for Pu-238, which isn't weapons-grade but used in RTG's for powering things like satellites/probes/rovers/etc.
Good news with regards to fusion.
In spite of this good news, it was sad to the see the usual suspects given their usual pro fission nuclear power stance on this thread. These days, to build nuclear fission power stations, the Government is locked into 60 year contracts with energy companies. Each power station costing the tax payer anywhere between £24 to £34bn, making our energy even more expensive, with the energy companies getting generous subsidies.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ation-somerset
Where did you pull those figures from? They're not even mentioned in the article you linked.
The strike price is an agreement for 35 years, and it works both ways; if the market price is less, the difference is made up; if the market price is greater, they have to pay back the difference.
And how exactly do you figure the taxpayer is paying 24-34 billion? The funding is provided by investors, not the government and hence taxpayers.
I can understand concerns around the strike price set given the current market price, but just pulling figures out of thin air and completely mangling the facts boils down to scaremongering.
Come back with some real figures and there might be grounds for a proper discussion.
EDF believes the project will cost £16bn but the EC claimed construction costs alone by the time the plant is built in 2023 will be more than £24bn with a further possible £10bn of contingency payments.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
It seems you're bad at maths, Watercooled, and the figures came from the EU.
Hardly scaremongering, concerns and figures came from Nick Butler, a former No 10 energy adviser; Austrian chancellor, Werner Faymann; Guy Newey of independent energy supplier, OVO Energy; Mark Todd, director of independent price comparison site energyhelpline.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Sounds as though you didn't read the article properly.
You love making that ad hominem attack that I'm 'bad at maths' every time I call out one of your nonsense claims don't you? :P
You claimed the money was from taxpayers; it's not, which was my point.
Lets take a look at the claims you made:
False.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
False.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
And your 'source' for these claims says nothing of the sort. As a rule of thumb, you should at least attempt to link to articles that support your point rather than directly disproving them.
OK guys knock it off with the personal attacks !
Sheesh :(
I didn\'t think I was doing personal attacks - just pointing out where Watercooled had gone wrong. Anyway, I shall move on as there is no doubt the consumer / taxpayer have got a raw deal on the nuclear power station deal. It\'s not as if EDF is doing this for charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by g8ina
Moving on and on topic, nuclear fusion could mean lower electricity charges for the consumers since the generators could be mass produced and shipped over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
Sounds as if you are too willing to accept a political paper without question, which might lead someone to think you are gullible, or at least not a scientifically trained mind which allows a perception and consideration of an opposing point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
But then if I did that, I might be accused of bringing in personalities, and I'd have to give myself a suspension.
So I won't, but I expect watercooled will graciously accept you apology.
TBH I wasn't even arguing the part about their being general concerns over the cost consumers will see; I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the facts when it comes to this, and when compared to other energy sources available around the same time considering the closure of conventional coal plants etc, and the strike price for the first set of EPRs did surprise me when first announced.
My point was that the figures given were simply incorrect - we don't get anywhere by mangling facts.
I think a discussion over the financial implications of the new build would be interesting, and I'd like to find out more about it myself. However even given the high strike price, it's important to remember some of the following points:
This is compared to past builds which were government funded and hence we don't see this reflected in the market price.
EDF are funding the build themselves, with a loan from IIRC the UK which will be repaid at market rates.
The subsidies for renewables, which are often claimed to be cheap, are exceptionally high. And of course variability and storage *must* be taken into account, especially at higher grid percentages.
The costs are fuel management, transport, storage, disposal, etc are considered upfront and are included in the stated price.
The potential for cost and time overruns are also a concern given EDF's track record of late, however recent new builds in China have been largely on-time and to budget. The Chinese are said to be investing in the build and hence their recent experience with builds could prove valuable.
Another potential concern is the message the strike price, if it is indeed high all things considered, sets for future builds; would negotiating lower prices prove more difficult for other builds? Or as the gov't seem to be claiming, is the high price for the first plant considered acceptable because of the relatively high financial risk of a first build?
What you are actually saying that all of us are idiots and the only people who are sensible enough to make a comment are people like yourself, Watercooled and DanceswithUnix. Quite an arrogant statement if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Here's a link to an opposing political paper such as the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...n-EU-says.html
Basically, they're saying the same thing as the Guardian but with adding the £10bn contingency figure to the lower £24bn estimated cost of building a power station thus bringing the upper range of the building cost to £34bn. Hopefully this will it easier for Watercooled to understand where I got the £34bn figure from without having to get the calculator out.
You're 'arguing' with something I never said. Anyone can see that. I even bolded it to remove any ambiguity, deliberate or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
Grow up.
Charming, you accused me of making up figures and clearly I have not.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
I shall move with some great quotes from the Telegraph article:
But on Wednesday Mr Almunia said it has concluded the aid was necessary because “no investor will carry out this project without public support”.
Paul Massara, head of rival energy supplier RWE npower, warned the state aid decision "could force the next three generations of British consumers to pay unnecessarily high energy bills".
Oy, leave me out of it. I was busy building Ikea furniture when all this kicked off. That's bad enough without getting dragged into an argument I had nothing to do with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
I don't even understand the argument, as I have no idea how much any sort of large scale power plant costs to build. I mean, average house price in this country is now quarter of a million, and houses are pretty easy and risk free to build. Any kind of power plant is going to cost bonkers money isn't it? But compared to the cost of rolling blackouts, I just wish they would get on and build something. Giant hamster wheel, don't care, just something that generates power. If they just muck about, the cost will go up.
If thats how yiou choose to interpret it, and the cap fits - carry on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
I wasn't and I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
The price of a house has little to do with building costs. Location and supply & demand are the two main drivers for house prices. I very much doubt land used for nuclear usage is attractive enough to build houses on so in effect the land is pretty cheap. I suspect a lot of the nuclear building costs would be siphoned off to bankers, consultancies, marketing and investors.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
I must say that the debate has travelled really quite a long way from the story highlighted by the original poster. That is most interesting in itself, notwithstanding the socio-economic and geo-political implications of the potential rise of cheap fusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
Could help but think:Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/researcher_translation.png
The potential rise of cheap fusion would mean very little to the poor suffering UK consumer. We would still be paying for expensive nuclear produced electricity for the next 60 years. Gas is still cheaper to heat your home than electricity. Even if we received all of our electricity through fusion our bills will only be about 45 per cent cheapest at best. The most effective way to reduce your electricity bill is choosing energy efficient appliances.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobbieRoy
In terms of the geo-political implications, well there's the global warming issue, preserving fossil fuel resources, and at least Putin has a less potent weapon in holding Europe to ransom over gas reserves.
http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/images/c...lec_art-01.jpg
No, the best way to reduce your overall energy consumption is to insulate your house. All the energy that enters your house ends up as heat, so by reducing heat loss, your reliance on burning gas purely for heating is reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_gun
In terms of saving cost, it makes sense to rely on appliances that use less energy transported by electrical means, but as yet, I have not seen any directly operated gas power supplies for computers,
But the other aspect of locally produced power from fusion (local as distinct from solar, which is our primary energy source) is that it reduces consumption of hydrocarbon based fuels and the associated release of carbon dioxide.
Hmm, technically he did say reduce electricity bill and nothing about else, and you are assuming that everyone wants to keep the heat in, which is most certainly not true for about half the year. Here in Japan I have aircon in my room, and a big chunk of my electricity bill goes toward cooling things down.
I would however argue that the best way to reduce your electricity bill would be to do with fewer, or better yet, no electric appliances. Failing that, then it's either cutting down on use, getting more efficiency appliances or both. And if the concern is money, then as already mentioned in the other thread, you need to work out if any cost premium for energy efficiency products is likely going to pay itself off during the life of the product.
Back to the original topic, I will believe it when it is here, but this would be a huge step forward. And if it does happen within 10 years, the people involved would have beaten Sim City 2000 prediction (2050).. though it seems that I have skipped/missed the "Microwave" source of power from the game ;)
Hating to be pedantic (who am I trying to kid? I love being pedantic ;) ) the most effective way to reduce your electricity bill is to stop using electrical appliances completely. No more TV, computers, laptops, washing machines, tumble dryers, irons (if you do ironing; I don't!), mobile phones, fridges, freezers etc. Of course, it would mean you'd have to completely change your lifestyle, but the energy saving from not using those appliances at all is an order of magnititude greater than just switching to more efficient versions of them.
The only reason people are getting excited about the possibility of slightly less environmentally damaging electricity generation - indeed the only reason we're seriously researching the possibility of having controlled, man-made stars on the surface of the earth - is because we have become electricity gluttons.
That said, IF we get operable fusion power stations within ten years it'll be an impressive feat of engineering and a very welcome source of energy (although I do wonder what safety and environmental issues will become apparent as the technology gets closer to economic viability), but for now I'll be interpreting their "ten years" according to Randall Munroe's table as linked above... ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
What happens to heat pumped out by the air on. Ideally that should go towards heating up domestic hot water, although a lot of aircon units just use air cooling to the atmosphere so the heat is 'lost'.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/pro...ct-fusion.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
If Lockheed Martin was just a normal company then most people would agree with you on this but the fact is they're not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6L5J7WcUpo
I do wonder about safety myself, though. However, it seems there are social and environmental impact if the technology becomes reality.