Fusion Reactors starting to look more feasable?

Lockheed skunk works has indicated they have a much smaller design for a 100 MW fusion reactor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

-- Bob G

BobG wrote:Lockheed skunk works has indicated they have a much smaller design for a 100 MW fusion reactor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

-- Bob G

I spent a bit of time digging on this earlier today, and came up with a link from Aviation Week that had a bit more detail than most of the articles I'd seen:

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skun ... or-details

Interesting. That's a new design concept. It sounds like it has potential.

I'm not sure we can say that fusion is around the corner, though. It's just a design on paper (or pixels)--they haven't even built the first test model to see if it can work in reality, let alone a prototype. They expect it to take at least five test models before they can build a prototype (which sounds optimistic).

But it sounds like the design does avoid a few of the problems tokomaks have run into. And the smaller size opens a number of possibilities, if it works. We'll see how the test models go. I'm not raising my hopes yet, but it's something to keep an eye on.

SWM wrote:But it sounds like the design does avoid a few of the problems tokomaks have run into. And the smaller size opens a number of possibilities, if it works. We'll see how the test models go. I'm not raising my hopes yet, but it's something to keep an eye on.

There are about 3 somewhat promising concepts out there. Polywell is one, I can't think of the others offhand. But the tokamak is not one, it has been 30 years from production for the last 40 years.

Well, at least this is a fair bit more plausible then that italian dude promising cold fusion at the mo. That, and the fact that its lockheeds skunkworks means that they might actually have a fair starting point. Fusion in 10 years? Probably not. 20? maybe.

SWM wrote:They expect it to take at least five test models before they can build a prototype (which sounds optimistic).

Not quite SWM - based off the articles I've been looking at, they have a test model and want to build a real prototype.

They're looking at five generations of prototype before they have a real production model, not five test models before they have a prototype.

(... I get the impression the line between test model and prototype is blurry in this case, but one quote I saw was for five generations of tests/prototypes before production, not prototyping)

[edited for typoid mary]

Spacekiwi wrote:Well, at least this is a fair bit more plausible then that italian dude promising cold fusion at the mo. That, and the fact that its lockheeds skunkworks means that they might actually have a fair starting point. Fusion in 10 years? Probably not. 20? maybe.

There's another cold fusion article as well... The claim is that researchers from Sweden and Italy verified it does something, but they don't know how or what.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

-- Bob G

GlynnStewart wrote:

SWM wrote:They expect it to take at least five test models before they can build a prototype (which sounds optimistic).

Not quite SWM - based off the articles I've been looking at, they have a test model and want to build a real prototype.

They're looking at five generations of prototype before they have a real production model, not five test models before they have a prototype.

(... I get the impression the line between test model and prototype is blurry in this case, but one quote I saw was for five generations of tests/prototypes before production, not prototyping)

[edited for typoid mary]

Nope. Quoting from that Aviation Week article:

“We would like to get to a prototype in five generations. If we can meet our plan of doing a design-build-test generation every year, that will put us at about five years, and we’ve already shown we can do that in the lab.” The prototype would demonstrate ignition conditions and the ability to run for upward of 10 sec. in a steady state after the injectors, which will be used to ignite the plasma, are turned off. “So it wouldn’t be at full power, like a working concept reactor, but basically just showing that all the physics works,” McGuire says.

An initial production version could follow five years after that. “That will be a much bigger effort,”

They have not built a test model. They expect to take five test models before building a prototype, at one year per test model. Then the prototype will demonstrate actual ignition. Then 5 more years with prototypes before making a production model. From what I know of such projects and the description they give, the production model would be the first time they can get more power out than they put in.

I have a five stage model I use for evaluating thinks like this.

1. Looks good on paper.

2. Works on the lab bench (or equivalent)

3. Prototype.

4. Pilot plant

5. Full commercial scale production.

As a rule of thumb, only a third of proposals make it from one stage to the next, and it takes three years. Right now it looks like they're at stage 1. So this has got less than a 2% chance of making it.

In stage 2, they're going to have to demonstrate that their fusion reaction actually works and is sustainable. In Phase 3, they're going to have to actually harness it to get real electrical power out of it.

If their five year estimate for stage 1 to stage 2 is accurate, that gives an approximate 20 years to a viable commercial installation.

Yeah, mis-read the quote - my bad.

I could have sworn the Aviation Week article mentioned a testbed they already had running.

Either way, this is sadly early stages yet.

SWM wrote:Nope. Quoting from that Aviation Week article:

“We would like to get to a prototype in five generations. If we can meet our plan of doing a design-build-test generation every year, that will put us at about five years, and we’ve already shown we can do that in the lab.” The prototype would demonstrate ignition conditions and the ability to run for upward of 10 sec. in a steady state after the injectors, which will be used to ignite the plasma, are turned off. “So it wouldn’t be at full power, like a working concept reactor, but basically just showing that all the physics works,” McGuire says.

An initial production version could follow five years after that. “That will be a much bigger effort,”

They have not built a test model. They expect to take five test models before building a prototype, at one year per test model. Then the prototype will demonstrate actual ignition. Then 5 more years with prototypes before making a production model. From what I know of such projects and the description they give, the production model would be the first time they can get more power out than they put in.