• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Lockheed-Martin announces Nuclear Fusion project breakthrough

14,092
Posts
14
Years
Source

Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready for use in a decade.

Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work.

Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.

In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.

In recent years, Lockheed has become increasingly involved in a variety of alternate energy projects, including several ocean energy projects, as it looks to offset a decline in US and European military spending.

Lockheed's work on fusion energy could help in developing new power sources amid increasing global conflicts over energy, and as projections show there will be a 40% to 50% increase in energy use over the next generation, McGuire said.

If it proves feasible, Lockheed's work would mark a key breakthrough in a field that scientists have long eyed as promising, but which has not yet yielded viable power systems. The effort seeks to harness the energy released during nuclear fusion, when atoms combine into more stable forms.

"We can make a big difference on the energy front," McGuire said, noting Lockheed's 60 years of research on nuclear fusion as a potential energy source that is safer and more efficient than current reactors based on nuclear fission. Lockheed sees the project as part of a comprehensive approach to solving global energy and climate change problems.

Compact nuclear fusion would produce far less waste than coal-powered plants since it would use deuterium-tritium fuel, which can generate nearly 10 million times more energy than the same amount of fossil fuels, the company said.

Ultra-dense deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, is found in the earth's oceans, and tritium is made from natural lithium deposits. It said future reactors could use a different fuel and eliminate radioactive waste completely.

McGuire said the company had several patents pending for the work and was looking for partners in academia, industry and among government laboratories to advance the work.

Lockheed said it had shown it could complete a design, build and test it in as little as a year, which should produce an operational reactor in 10 years, McGuire said. A small reactor could power a US navy warship, and eliminate the need for other fuel sources that pose logistical challenges.

US submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fission reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle.

"What makes our project really interesting and feasible is that timeline as a potential solution," McGuire said.

Lockheed shares fell 0.6% to $175.02 amid a broad market selloff.

10 years away from reactors that produce 10 million times the energy of a fossil fuel plant and with no nuclear waste is a game-changer, no doubt. The question is, how feasible will be it be to build and make accessible for civilian life? How would ubiquitous clean energy change the game, so to speak?
 

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
1,250
Posts
10
Years
Depends on how bad the other energy corporations want to make this disappear. Mark my words, there will be a gaggle of lobbyists for oil, nuclear, water, etc. that will all plead that this new technology is untested and is not a viable option to replace oil or natural gas.

On the other hand, this new tech might be able to break through the red tape, simply because it's Lockheed and a major military contractor. I keep thinking of that question an old general would ask: "Oh, well clean energy is fine and all, but can you fit it on a submarine?"
 

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon
3,416
Posts
15
Years
The issue with fusion is that it, in almost all applications, uses more energy due to the extreme conditions required than it outputs. The article fails to explain this point.

If it does, its application would be extremely beneficial to society. Unlike almost all forms of power, it is extremely safe - if for whatever reason some problem occurred, they could stop fusion almost immediately by stopping the required environment. It produces helium, which would provide helium for that industry, lowering the need for mining for it. It would be a positive takeover, really. It's just so difficult to harness.

The thing that bothers me about the lobbyists that you're bringing up is that they are defending a fuel that will inevitably run out. Jobs will eventually go non-existent in those sectors, it makes far more sense to educate these workers into working into new industries that are far better at conserving its resources than the likes of fossil fuels. It also prevents an "energy catastrophe" between the extremely high rates for energy at the point in which fuel is almost used up and the expenses needed to develop more stable fuels. But they sure are shortsighted...
 
458
Posts
9
Years
I found reading the quoted artic very interesting and very exciting! However, it would be incredibly depressing to see it shelved because of lobbyists as mentioned above. That being said, I can't really understand why they would be against it unless it would be far more expensive to run (and hence non competitive).

The energy barrier issue is definitely interesting however (reading a little online) deuternium tritium liberates more energy than is required to initiate fusion.
 
14
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 34
  • Seen Jan 10, 2015
Does this mean the bad guys playing a major part in USA's military industrial complex, are going to be the ones to save the world?
 
Back
Top