|
There are thorium reactors, I guess. Not technically scifi, since we could build one if we really wanted to, we just haven't yet. We did build a U-233 molten salt reactor in the late 60s, which ran really well; U-233 is the fissile material that you get from bombarding thorium with neutrons, so it's sort of a proof of concept for how a thorium reactor would work. The benefits of thorium fission have been outlined many times in this thread before, but in summary A) Thorium reactors have zero risk of meltdown B) Thorium reactors product much less nuclear waste C) Thorium is almost 600x more abundant than U-235 and is a byproduct of many other industrial production efforts, so we have a lot of it but don't yet have a use for it. Using it for nuclear power would actually be ridding us of industrial waste D) It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. Several attempts have been made at producing U-233 nuclear bombs (U-233 being produced from Thorium), but this has proven to be very problematic, primarily because of the presence of U-232. U-232 has a short half-life and produces high energy gamma rays, damaging to nearby electronics (such as a bomb's triggering mechanism, or a rocket's navigational systems). This isn't as much of an issue in a reactor; you just need more shielding to protect operators. Unfortunately, you could still technically build a nuclear bomb, even if that bomb would suck and probably wouldn't work and could possibly even accidentally pre-detonate, so thorium reactors don't get the "stops nuclear weapons proliferation" bumper sticker. There are downsides to thorium reactors, too. U-232 is a short-lived gamma ray emitter, so shielding would be of greater importance than ever before. This could potentially make thorium power plants way more expensive to build than other nuclear power plants. The thorium fuel cycle is also way less efficient than a uranium fuel cycle, so you get less electricity per dollar invested. In other words, the waste products are more dangerous (even if there are fewer of them), the fuel cycle is less efficient, and you can still make nuclear weapons from the fuel source (the US detonated a U-233 bomb once in the 50s with lower-than-expected yields, so we have a proof of concept). The scifi aspect here is that some people think that we can do away with all of these disadvantages, somehow, and then we'd have a safer form of nuclear power that uses an industrial waste product as fuel. While that does sound super cool, there are a lot of challenges to overcome. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Oct 11, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:There are downsides to thorium reactors, too. U-232 is a short-lived gamma ray emitter, so shielding would be of greater importance than ever before. This could potentially make thorium power plants way more expensive to build than other nuclear power plants. The thorium fuel cycle is also way less efficient than a uranium fuel cycle, so you get less electricity per dollar invested. The uranium fuel cycle is more efficient? Maybe if you don't throw away >95% of the fuel. Lurking Haro fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
We pretty much have all the scifi technology we need, we really just need scifi policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:The uranium fuel cycle is more efficient? Maybe if you don't throw away >95% of the unburnt fuel. I'm talking about economic efficiency. You need a bunch of U-233 just to get the reaction started, and then the reaction produces neutron absorbers that reduce the rate at which you can produce fissionable products, thereby reducing the overall power output of your reactor. This is great for preventing meltdowns, but not great for power production. And that's not even getting into all of the additional capital investment required for better shielding and the development of new types of waste management In general, a hypothetical thorium power plant is going to be more expensive per kWh than its uranium equivalent QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
70% if steel production relies on using coal - is there any realistic way to replace that? I can't see steel production declining anytime soon, given there are 5 billion people pretty keen to get with our standard of living. e: 1.6 billion tonnes of steel in 2013, lmao.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:70% if steel production relies on using coal - is there any realistic way to replace that? I can't see steel production declining anytime soon, given there are 5 billion people pretty keen to get with our standard of living. There is a lower carbon and lower emissions alternative. However, some people won't like it because its not zero carbon emissions and thus not ideologically pure: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4190319-u-s-steel-natural-gas-process-will-soon-replace-coke/ quote:Coke will become all but obsolete in most steelmaking in about a decade, say some industry experts. Unfortunately, like coal plants, we don't get the opportunity to replace steel plants that often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Ah, so you can use methane instead. I guess you could get real fancy and make it fully carbon neutral then if you manufactured the methane 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Hello thread, I've followed fusion power developments over the years, and eagerly await the ever-delayed ITER project. But then I read this, and it caught me by surprise: quote:(Reuters) - 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 in a decade. Is there anything at all to this? There are no technical details of any kind, and it feels like a PR stunt or something. Also the author sucks: quote:U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle. Still, Lockheed is an enormous company, is there anything to this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
If nothing else, Lockheed wants to make money. They wouldn't be spending money on this if they didn't think there was a profit in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
It's exciting, but at the same time their press release says they aren't going to be in the prototype phase for 5 years. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/october/141015ae_lockheed-martin-pursuing-compact-nucelar-fusion.html Still, if they were willing to go public about this, they must be on to something promising (I hope anyways.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
I'll add my voice to those inquiring whether Lockheed's project looks actually feasible. It's hard not to read anything about nuclear fusion without a healthy dose of skepticism, but given that Lockheed's going public with this... This Aviation Week article has much better coverage of the thing. Could we really see abundant,clean, and safe energy worldwide in 20 years?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Very interesting Aviation Week article. I wish it were five years from now and the physics and prototype were actually proven to work, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Very interesting, I hope it pans out. I don't think it'll play a major role in the electrical grid in the medium-term, though. It still has to work, then costs have to go down, then manufacturing has to scale up... it'd be to late for it to be a big part of fighting climate change on the grid side of things, at least on a large enough scale. Wind power still seems the best prospect, what with it being one the cheapest power sources without subsidies or carbon taxes, even. Where I think it'd be loving huge is in powering ocean cargo ships. To be best of my knowledge, we don't have any other prospects for powering them without emissions except nuclear. And fusion should be less of a safety/proliferation concern, right? That's why we're interested in it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Actually, they announced this a year and a half ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY It didn't get much traction back then because their pitch was literally "we have a way to make small, working fusion reactors but we can't tell you anything about how we can do it. Fusion in ten years!" One of their main thrusts though was that the size was a big deal as merely because of that they could iterate much faster than something like ITER which is the size of a power station, which seemed pretty reasonable. The fact that the project is still going and wasn't quietly dropped is a good sign though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
crazypenguin posted:Very interesting, I hope it pans out. Eh, if you've got 'free energy' you can just pump it into electrolyzing water then doing syngas processing to produce basically whatever drat liquid fuel/plastic/hydrocarbon output you want from air and water.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:Very interesting Aviation Week article. I wish it were five years from now and the physics and prototype were actually proven to work, though. Yes, the history of fusion power is littered with promises. I'll wait for a prototype before I get my hopes up, but I wish them luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:I'll add my voice to those inquiring whether Lockheed's project looks actually feasible. It's hard not to read anything about nuclear fusion without a healthy dose of skepticism, but given that Lockheed's going public with this... This Aviation Week article has much better coverage of the thing. Seems like the reactor breeds it own Deuterium and Tritium. They at least promise results in 5 years instead of 20.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There is a lower carbon and lower emissions alternative. However, some people won't like it because its not zero carbon emissions and thus not ideologically pure: Looks like a new front on the war on coal!  Seriously though that looks like a pretty neat and good improvement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:If nothing else, Lockheed wants to make money. They wouldn't be spending money on this if they didn't think there was a profit in it. Defense contractors are cut-throat as all hell, and things have only gotten worse as belts in Washington have tightened considerably. If they're announcing something and seeking aid, then it means 1) they think that they really have some good ideas to work from and 2) they have some problems that they don't think are surmountable on their own. I don't think that the timeline is meaningful at all, but it's good that they're investing time and effort on the nuclear fusion problem. Even if the 10-year estimate is based on real data and not just pulled from someone's rear end, Lockheed is notorious for cost overruns and scheduling delays, so announcing that they'll have a reactor in 10 years is really no different than announcing that they'll have a reactor in 20 years, following the old "fusion is just 20 years away" trope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Guys, this is modern LockMart. They will probably run with a concurrency development model. Selling it while they build it and develop it all at the same time. Parts will be manufactured in 48 states. How about that F-35? Seriously though, I would not believe a single word today's LockMart has to say about any new product. Would love to be wrong on this one, but not going to hold my breath.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
It's worth noting that this is SkunkWorks, not LM generally, and SW has a very good history of doing cery difficult things on a reasonable timeframe (u2 spyplane, stealth technology, blackbird).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:It's worth noting that this is SkunkWorks, not LM generally, and SW has a very good history of doing cery difficult things on a reasonable timeframe (u2 spyplane, stealth technology, blackbird). All of those successes are 30+ years old. SW's more recent projects have included the F-22 (an infamous cost and schedule overrun nightmare) and the F-35 (a slightly less infamous cost and schedule overrun nightmare)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
The Avweek article says:quote:This crucial difference means that for the same size, the CFR generates more power than a tokamak by a factor of 10. That also means that it's generating 10 times the neutron flux, so the same materials issues that are a potential showstopper for tokamak commercial fusion are even worse here. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:All of those successes are 30+ years old. SW's more recent projects have included the F-22 (an infamous cost and schedule overrun nightmare) and the F-35 (a slightly less infamous cost and schedule overrun nightmare) Not to make this about the F-35, but probably the F-35 has eclipsed the F-22 easily in infamy and cost. It doesn't mean Lockheed-Martin is incapable of producing anything but I would need to see some solid proof up to a working prototype before I would give it much consideration. As with most fusion projects, if they worked in a commercial capacity they could very well change the world, but until something actually comes of it, it is best not to get too excited. Unfortunately, I think we will be using less sexy current generation technology for quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Seems like a followup on their announcement last year expecting a working reactor in 2017. http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-promises-fusion-power-four-years
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:I'll add my voice to those inquiring whether Lockheed's project looks actually feasible. It's hard not to read anything about nuclear fusion without a healthy dose of skepticism, but given that Lockheed's going public with this... This Aviation Week article has much better coverage of the thing. I love how this is not ten years away, it's 5 year for a prototype and another 5 years to build one that has a possible positive energy return. Pinky swear guys! It's good that tokamak reactors are shown to, again, be an unworkable waste of money, but that's not any evidence this one will work either. Lockmart is also a really, really rich company, and if they thought they had this in the bag they'd wrap it up so tight you'd owe them millions of dollars if you so much as farted near it. They know it has problems, and by going public, hope someone else can come a long and solve it for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Well, it seems it's more one year for a working proof of concept, five for a full-scale prototype, and five more for mass production. http://aviationweek.com/technology/meet-leader-skunk-works-compact-fusion-reactor-team http://aviationweek.com/blog/high-hopes-can-compact-fusion-unlock-new-power-space-and-air-transport
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Well, it seems it's more one year for a working proof of concept, five for a full-scale prototype, and five more for mass production. Oh man, those articles are classics. Besides Lockheed's CEO unironically saying he's on a "quest for the holy grail" there's: quote:McGuire’s compact fusion reactor (CFR) team of 10 is comprised primarily of “fresh-outs”—engineers and scientists hired straight from university campuses—with an average age under 35. quote:Fusion has created numerous false starts over the past three decades, resulting in skepticism that McGuire admits is justified. “We’re not promising that we have made the jump across the divide. We are being honest about where we are,” he says. “We have made some steps forward, and there is still a lot of work to do, step by step in measured progress.” Interesting enough, in neither of those articles is "one year for a working proof of concept, five for a full-scale prototype, and five more for mass production" ever mentioned. I did find another aviation week article, maybe the one you meant: http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details quote:“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. 'Could' and 'can' being key words here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Ah, missed a link. http://newsdaily.com/2014/10/lockheed-says-makes-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy-project/ quote:
The real takeaway is the main designer looks like he stepped out of Doctor Horrible. Tunicate fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
So what exactly do they have at present? A vague pen and paper outline? A bunch of simulations suggesting that their new design might work and probably won't blow up/summon the Old Ones/end the world as we know it? An actual working model system that doesn't yet qualify as a prototype for some reason?
LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:So what exactly do they have at present? A place in the F-35A and C where a lift engine goes in the B and nothing that costs hundreds of billions to put in it. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:A place in the F-35A and C where a lift engine goes in the C and nothing that costs hundreds of billions to put in it. Haven't you heard about their exciting directed energy prototype! Only 5-10 years from deployment! LemonDrizzle posted:So what exactly do they have at present? A vague pen and paper outline? A bunch of simulations suggesting that their new design might work and probably won't blow up/summon the Old Ones/end the world as we know it? An actual working model system that doesn't yet qualify as a prototype for some reason? This is what they have: quote:Led by Thomas McGuire, an aeronautical engineer in the Skunk Work’s aptly named Revolutionary Technology Programs unit, the current experiments are focused on a containment vessel roughly the size of a business-jet engine. Connected to sensors, injectors, a turbopump to generate an internal vacuum and a huge array of batteries, the stainless steel container seems an unlikely first step toward solving a conundrum that has defeated generations of nuclear physicists—namely finding an effective way to control the fusion reaction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
People really need to start understanding that since fighter jets are practically useless in the modern world, it doesn't particularly matter that ones being created for no reason other than MUST BE NEW!! are poo poo. The fact that Lockheed Martin's fighter jet division is a de facto manufacturing welfare operation for the entire country has no bearing on whether their fusion research division is full of poo poo or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Not to make this about the F-35, but probably the F-35 has eclipsed the F-22 easily in infamy and cost. I dont want to either, but the F-35 is making the F-22 look like a STEAL. The 22 only has one job to do. I have heard 1-1.5 Trillion for a turkey that can't do a single job well (35). ------ Anyhow, has the idea of a planetary DC grid based on solar been beaten to death in this thread yet? Is it even remotely feasible in theory (politics aside)? Or just another pipe dream as we kill ourselves off on coal, gas and transportation? There is a lot of desert, and from what I remember transmission inefficiencies are pretty acceptable as they are? No? Go ahead, call me an idiot in advance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Herv posted:I dont want to either, but the F-35 is making the F-22 look like a STEAL. The 22 only has one job to do. I have heard 1-1.5 Trillion for a turkey that can't do a single job well (35). You're an idiot that doesn't read threads
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Herv posted:Anyhow, has the idea of a planetary DC grid based on solar been beaten to death in this thread yet? Same problems with anything. Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to build it? Who's going to operate it? Who's going to maintain it? Where does the power go? Where does it come from? Who pays for that? How are political boundaries managed in an age when Russia giddily shuts off natural gas to any nation it has a grudge against? That isn't to say there aren't ideas or plans. Europe/North Africa is an ideal situation where long distance DC can transmit power from solar collectors in the deserts of North Africa through an underwater cable to Southern Europe. DeserTec was a consortium effort to realize this, but it's largely petered out. I like what I saw in the recent Nobel Prize for Physics more with regards to solar: micro-scale solar/LED units replacing kerosene lamps as a source of light in poor regions of the world. Solar works best on a small scale that grows, not a top-down baseline replacement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Herv posted:Anyhow, has the idea of a planetary DC grid based on solar been beaten to death in this thread yet? Yes, it has been beaten to death. No, it is not even remotely feasible due to technical reasons that are unrelated to politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Pander posted:That isn't to say there aren't ideas or plans. Europe/North Africa is an ideal situation where long distance DC can transmit power from solar collectors in the deserts of North Africa through an underwater cable to Southern Europe. Please tell me that you meant to write "through many underwater cables". 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Please tell me that you meant to write "through many underwater cables". It's a royal "An". the collected "An." It's also only slightly less feasible than existing plans!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
Pander posted:Same problems with anything. Speaking of DeserTec, this showed up on BBC News today http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29551063 The Article posted:The TuNur project aims to bring two gigawatts of solar power to the UK from Tunisia if the company wins a contract for difference (CFD) from the British government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 21:41
|
|