An alternative in the clean energy debate: Nuclear Fusion

Yes, it looks like the mainstream media is beginning to take notice of this again:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovat...html?hpt=hp_t2

Unfortunately, it got a bad rap a while ago due to some over zealous scientists.

Who says nuclear energy has to be a bad thing? What happens if we start mining the moon though? :wow

Quote:

---

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Helium-3 is in scarce supply on Earth, much more abundant on the moon

Used as a fuel for nuclear fusion, there would be almost no radioactive waste

University of Wisconsin team has built a small reactor to show 3He might work as fuel

Former Apollo astronaut thinks U.S. needs new space policy, agency and moon return is vital

---

I'd be all for mining the moon - not that its economically feasible for a long time. The fact is that solar will likely take over well before mining the moon would be feasible on a large scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Yes, it looks like the mainstream media is beginning to take notice of this again:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovat...html?hpt=hp_t2

Unfortunately, it got a bad rap a while ago due to some over zealous scientists.

Who says nuclear energy has to be a bad thing? What happens if we start mining the moon though? :wow

---

so, does the lack of the moon's atmosphere have something to do with the comparatively large concentration of He3 on the moon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I'd be all for mining the moon - not that its economically feasible for a long time. The fact is that solar will likely take over well before mining the moon would be feasible on a large scale.

---

Economically feasible is the key.

Things that make it more so than it used to be:
water on the moon (ice from comet strikes in dark craters)
launch technologies


Honestly, getting into space would be massively easier if we took a collective bootstrapping approach, i.e. build a little infrastructure designed to do both lower costs and build still more infrastructure designed to lower costs, and so on.

There is no shortage of ideas, some of them quite good on how to do so, with current technology.

"Helium-3 is in scarce supply on Earth"

I just read an article where the US strategic supply of helium-whatever is being sold off. And there won't be any more. What will birthday parties do without balloons? pure hydrogen? :)

we ain't gonna mine the moon.

"we're broke"

(the banksters took it all)

of course, if the banksters figure out how they can finance AND monopolize the moon, we're good to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Economically feasible is the key.

Things that make it more so than it used to be:
water on the moon (ice from comet strikes in dark craters)
launch technologies


Honestly, getting into space would be massively easier if we took a collective bootstrapping approach, i.e. build a little infrastructure designed to do both lower costs and build still more infrastructure designed to lower costs, and so on.

There is no shortage of ideas, some of them quite good on how to do so, with current technology.

---

Its hard to imagine us being able to visit the moon in anything lower than 5 years. And that's if we started today. The five years is a number I basically just pulled out of my ass but I think it sounds about right.

And thats just a visit. We've yet to establish any type of commercial infrastructure in orbit much less on the moon. In fact, the shear amount of energy needed to just get to the moon is immense and without energy advances in solar itself its hard to see how we would power any operations on the moon outside of a nuclear reactor. We've launched reactors into space before, though.

There are so many hurdles to doing this though. I don't see how you could accomplish it - even with a huge government effort which is not going to happen - in a timescale not measured in decades.

Given the likely hood that solar will be much more efficient in that time frame I just don't see the point. Thats not to say there might not be a niche for this at some point but at this point in time its hard to view it as economically viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

so, does the lack of the moon's atmosphere have something to do with the comparatively large concentration of He3 on the moon?

---

The article is a bit misleading, I should have clarified it in the original post but I was running out of the door.

The ratio of Helium-3 to Helium-4 is a bit lower on earth because of radioactive decay processes. However, there may be as much Helium-3 in the earths mantle as there is on the moon. Of course, we can't access that so the figure of 30 kg is "for all practical purposes".

The difference is that on the moon, we could access it directly.

He-3 fusion is a thing of beauty. You dont get activation products from neutron emissions (that means the things surrounding your reactor dont become radioactive). All you get is an energetic proton, and those are quite easy to handle with electomagnetic (or inertial-electrostatic) containment. You get direct energy as opposed to needing to gather the energy indirectly (thermal).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Its hard to imagine us being able to visit the moon in anything lower than 5 years. And that's if we started today. The five years is a number I basically just pulled out of my ass but I think it sounds about right.

And thats just a visit. We've yet to establish any type of commercial infrastructure in orbit much less on the moon. In fact, the shear amount of energy needed to just get to the moon is immense and without energy advances in solar itself its hard to see how we would power any operations on the moon outside of a nuclear reactor. We've launched reactors into space before, though.

There are so many hurdles to doing this though. I don't see how you could accomplish it - even with a huge government effort which is not going to happen - in a timescale not measured in decades.

Given the likely hood that solar will be much more efficient in that time frame I just don't see the point. Thats not to say there might not be a niche for this at some point but at this point in time its hard to view it as economically viable.

---

There's a intersting report dated 2006 about this sort of undertaking. Seems that this sort of venture could take off qute quickly once the will to do so is in place.

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...006-214122.pdf

The Indians also sent a probe to the moon a while back (2009 perhaps?). Its mission was to map out different minerals. I think H-3 was one of those being looked for.

Fusion would need to be proven feasible first, then you'd see an explosion of activity in this area.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...edium=facebook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...edium=facebook

---

Saw that in the financial news. HOLEE FUCKIN SHIT!!!


Guess I know where my first 401k allotment will go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...edium=facebook

---

Cool :tu

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...works-logo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...edium=facebook

---

now that's real news

nuclear fusion has been "some years away" for the last 50+ years :lol

eg: "mainstream fusion" : http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2...ering-critique

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...edium=facebook

---

Back in the 90's I was involved in rapid research and development. The company I worked for was partnered with Intel. We called it "skunkworks." Nobody knew what we were doing until our choice time of releasing the information. We revolutionized CMP, here in Portland Oregon, to make such small and dense integrated circuits. I didn't know till looking it up, that the term originated with Lockheed Martin. From what I saw, this is how skunkworks, works!

should i dump all my stock into lockheed-martin, tbh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Reckoning

should i dump all my stock into lockheed-martin, tbh?

---

No, but a stock like LMT is a good part of a portfolio.

Lol.....I don't recall making this thread?

Hmmmm. The Lockheed bit is quite interesting tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Lol.....I don't recall making this thread?

Hmmmm. The Lockheed bit is quite interesting tho.

---

i thought i remembered you sharing this account with someone. is that correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Reckoning

should i dump all my stock into lockheed-martin, tbh?

---

sure, taxpayer-welfare-recipient LM sucking in Other People's Money to finance their fusion energy boondoggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

sure, taxpayer-welfare-recipient LM sucking in Other People's Money to finance their fusion energy boondoggle.

---

thanks boutons will do!

Updated: Are old secrets behind Lockheed's new fusion machine?


http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2...fusion-machine

lol butthurt brits that AMERICA once again out-thinks them

take my money AMERICA

Does Lockheed Martin Really Have a Breakthrough Fusion Machine?

Lockheed joins a number of other companies working on smaller and cheaper types of fusion reactors.

These include Tri-Alpha, a company based near Irvine, California, that is testing a linear-shaped reactor;

Helion Energy of Redmond, Washington, which is developing a system that attempts to use a combination of compression and magnetic confinement of plasma;

and Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in Middlesex, New Jersey, which is working on a reactor design that uses what’s known as a “dense plasma focus.”

Another startup, General Fusion, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, tries to control plasma using pistons to compress a swirling mass of molten lead and lithium that also acts as a coolant, absorbing heat from fusion reactions and circulating it through conventional steam generators to spin turbines (see “A New Approach to Fusion”).

http://www.technologyreview.com/news...usion-machine/

More on it from Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/lockheed-...=NEWS-20141021

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

i thought i remembered you sharing this account with someone. is that correct?

---

Yes, I was given this account by an acquaintance some time ago. They do log in occasionally but nuclear science is certainly not their forte :lol

Perhaps I should start an new account? :(

OK, so you are the scientist owner of the account, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

OK, so you are the scientist owner of the account, correct?

---

Yes. My acquaintance wouldn't have such knowledge. Looking at the accounts posting history, I think it's immediately obvious when I (the scientist) am posting.

It is entirely possible that I really did forget that I made this thread given it's age (and mine :lol).

Just change the password.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, but a stock like LMT is a good part of a portfolio.

---

Shockingly true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Yes, it looks like the mainstream media is beginning to take notice of this again:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovat...html?hpt=hp_t2

Unfortunately, it got a bad rap a while ago due to some over zealous scientists.

Who says nuclear energy has to be a bad thing? What happens if we start mining the moon though? :wow

---

Don't forget the most recent link:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/new...ar-fusion.html

Mining the moon would lead to some vast breakthroughs in many many fields of science. All for it.

mining the moon? :lol pie in the sky! :lol

"Who says nuclear energy has to be a bad thing?"

even coal energy doesn't have to be bad thing, but it is.

from the Aviation Week exclusive:

Quote:

---

The team acknowledges that the project is in its earliest stages, and many key challenges remain before a viable prototype can be built. However, McGuire expects swift progress. The Skunk Works mind-set and “the pace that people work at here is ridiculously fast,” he says. “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.


http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a..._2014_3719.jpgRings containing superconducting magnets will confine the plasma inside the reaction chamber. Credit: Eric Schulzinger/Lockheed Martin



An initial production version could follow five years after that. “That will be a much bigger effort,” he says, suggesting that transition to full-scale manufacturing will necessarily involve materials and heat-transfer specialists as well as gas-turbine makers. The early reactors will be designed to generate around 100 MW and fit into transportable units measuring 23 X 43 ft. “That’s the size we are thinking of now. You could put it on a semi-trailer, similar to a small gas turbine, put it on a pad, hook it up and can be running in a few weeks,” McGuire says. The concept makes use of the existing power infrastructures to enable the CFR to be easily adapted into the current grid. The 100-MW unit would provide sufficient power for up to 80,000 homes in a power-hungry U.S. city and is also “enough to run a ship,” he notes.

Lockheed estimates that less than 25 kg (55 lb.) of fuel would be required to run an entire year of operations. The fuel itself is also plentiful. Deuterium is produced from sea water and is therefore considered unlimited, while tritium is “bred” from lithium. “We already mine enough lithium to supply a worldwide fleet of reactors, so with tritium you never have too much built up, and that’s what keeps it safe. Tritium would be a health risk if there were enough released, but it is safe enough in small quantities. You don’t need very much to run a reactor because it is a million times more powerful than a chemical reaction,” McGuire notes.

---

http://aviationweek.com/technology/s...eactor-details

We can always hope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion

http://www.ipp.mpg.de/3984226/12_15