Tom McGuire, compact fusion lead for the Skunk Works' Revolutionary Technology Programs: "The smaller size will allow us to design, build and test the CFR in less than a year."OK, I'm officially skeptical. The devil is in the details and there are a shitload of those that the Skunk Works isn't discussing,
But just imagine the implications if it works. We could decommission every coal-fired power plant in the world. With more development, petroleum-powered surface transportation's days may be measured in decades. Carbon emissions alone could fall to 19th Century levels.
If the small fusion plants work and are safe, the need for large regional power grids may go away. In the event of a catastrophe, you'd just fly in a complete new plant. One or two in spacecraft would make large ion engines practicable.
A post-fossil fuel era would break the grip on the world's economy held by OPEC. Saudi Arabia and Texas could go back to fucking camels and cattle, respectively, as their main industries. That alone is a reason to pursue this idea.
6 comments:
Note that "small" is relative. This would still be the same size as a typical gas-fired steam turbine power plant, it'd just be smaller than gigantic coal powered plants or tokamaks (the current fusion technology that Lockheed decided to find an alternative for). Believe me, you aren't going to put this thing in your furnace room, it still requires all the regular steam turbine equipment to turn heat into electricity and you of course are quite familiar with how bulky steam turbines are, having crewed ships driven by the things...
They don't run on hydrogen. They need Deuterium and Tritium, isotopes which need to separated out first. It's not seawater in, energy out :-(
They need deuterium, but can breed their own tritium via irradiation of lithium. That's how we produce tritium for nuclear weapons. It appears that the amount of tritium needed to jump-start the initial reaction is relatively small.
To produce deuterium and tritium you need a conventional nuclear reactor and the cost is quite high. Tritium is priced at $30,000 per gram (28 grams per ounce) and since tritium is what converts an A-bomb to an H-bomb it is very tightly controlled. The CANDU heavy water reactor produces tritium as it operates but the total is small, less than 6lbs per year from 20 reactors.
I wouldn't dump my stock in ESSO just yet.
Al_in_Ottawa
Al, yes, tritium is pretty pricey, but as I mentioned, the reactor only needs to be fueled with a small amount of tritium at initial startup. After that it breeds its own tritium from lithium. As for deuterium, no, you do *not* need a nuclear reactor to produce deuterium. Deuterium is the hydrogen isotope in the heavy water used by CANDU reactors. CANDU produces a small amount via heat decomposition of heavy water as it operates, but this is not the primary method used for producing deuterium for nuclear fusion experiments, the primary method of separating deuterium from heavy water is electrolysis, same as is used to do separation of normal hydrogen from oxygen.
The core issue is not availability of deuterium and tritium, it is one of, "can you get more energy out of it than you put into it?" Sadly, the answer for all current fusion reactors is, "No." The Lockheed team thinks they've figured out why that is so (the donut shape of a tokamak, they believe, is the problem), but we'll see.
Hey!
We got camels in Texas!
I seen 'em in zoos, safari parks and certain exotic game hunting ranches.
If you're not going to have your way with them in the biblical sense they're otherwise mighty tasty if properly prepared, though not a kosher meal if it matters (Leviticus 11:4).
Great BLOG Miss Fit.
Post a Comment