Some good news amongst the bad?

[TermiMonster]

Or just another teaser....
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy

I'm never too sure about stuff I read on the Guardian.
(I hope that link works, it's an article about fusion reaction)
TM



Environment (http://www.theguardian.com/environment)
Nuclear power (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/nuclearpower)


Lockheed announces breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

[BobL]

It's a theoretical break through, they still have to build and test it.
Meanwhile they will use it to attract investors - cashed up oil companies perhaps - why do my cynical sensors suddenly go into overdrive at this point?

[rob streeper]

[QUOTE=BobL;1814545]It's a theoretical break through, they still have to build and test it.
Meanwhile they will use it to attract investors - cashed up oil companies perhaps - why do my cynical sensors suddenly go into overdrive at this point?[/QUOTE

One of the articles mentioned that the proposed reactor would be fueled with deuterium and tritium, the authors stated that the tritium was to be derived from 'natural lithium' without mentioning that inconveniently messy fission reactor processing step.

[BobL]

[QUOTE=BobL;1814545]It's a theoretical break through, they still have to build and test it.
Meanwhile they will use it to attract investors - cashed up oil companies perhaps - why do my cynical sensors suddenly go into overdrive at this point?[/QUOTE

One of the articles mentioned that the proposed reactor would be fueled with deuterium and tritium, the authors stated that the tritium was to be derived from 'natural lithium' without mentioning that inconveniently messy fission reactor processing step.

Fission reactions are not necessary as slow neutrons on Lithium also make Tritium.
There is more than sufficient tritium available from existing fission reactions to get started, and after that Li lining of large fusion rectors should breed ongoing Tritium needs.
Still not the best system since handling tritium is not all that easy - some tech breakthroughs still needed.

[rob streeper]

[QUOTE=rob streeper;1814551]

Fission reactions are not necessary as slow neutrons on Lithium also make Tritium.
There is more than sufficient tritium available from existing fission reactions to get started, and after that Li lining of large fusion rectors should breed ongoing Tritium needs.
Still not the best system since handling tritium is not all that easy - some tech breakthroughs still needed.

Relatively recently the US govt was whining about the need to re-start the fission reactors at Savannah River to replace the decaying tritium in the aging nuke stockpile.

http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/tritium.htm

Tritium as used in weapons and other devices comes from fission reactors, with all of the associated burdens. Should, yes, but as we (mankind) don't yet have a fusion reactor lined with anything, much less lithium, we get our tritium from fission reactors such as those formerly operating at Savannah.

[BobL]

[QUOTE=BobL;1814553]

Relatively recently the US govt was whining about the need to re-start the fission reactors at Savannah River to replace the decaying tritium in the aging nuke stockpile.

http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/tritium.htm

Tritium as used in weapons and other devices comes from fission reactors, with all of the associated burdens. Should, yes, but as we (mankind) don't yet have a fusion reactor lined with anything, much less lithium, we get our tritium from fission reactors such as those formerly operating at Savannah.

There is no need to restart anything. There's plenty of tritium made in the current batch of fission reactors around the world but can you imaging the US gov asking the French or Chinese to get their weapons grade materials.

[markkr]

I seem to have a vague recollection, as a 20-year old uni student, of reading somewhere that usable fusion energy was about 10 years away at the time.

Now, some 40 years later, it seems we've progressed to the point where usable fusion energy is only about 10 years away.

Of course, my recollection could be wrong.

Mark

[FenceFurniture]

I seem to have a vague recollection, as a 20-year old uni student, of reading somewhere that usable fusion energy was about 10 years away at the time.

Now, some 40 years later, it seems we've progressed to the point where usable fusion energy is only about 10 years away.

Of course, my recollection could be wrong.

MarkWell, in the absence of usable fusion energy, it's fantastic to see that at least a time travel machine has been invented. it may be going in the wrong direction at present, but that'll be just a matter of tinkering.

[rob streeper]

I seem to have a vague recollection, as a 20-year old uni student, of reading somewhere that usable fusion energy was about 10 years away at the time.

Now, some 40 years later, it seems we've progressed to the point where usable fusion energy is only about 10 years away.

Of course, my recollection could be wrong.

Mark
Fusion has always been on the threshold of realization, except that is in the bomb form.

[BobL]

Lets not forget that 99.9% of terrestrial biology has relied on fusion for the last few billion years and provided it doesn't foul its own nest will continue to rely on it for another few billion.