Fusion Power Could Happen Sooner Than You Think

Gee I remember in the 70s , 80s and 90s reading the same type headline. Its all BS. They are no closer than before.
Just hype to get more funding.
I'm reading that the US effort is starting over basically. Giving up on the currant approaches.
http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-put-on-slow-burn-1.12016

I hope that someday we figure out how to generate electricity from fusion. It would open up a lot of possibilities not only for cleaner power here but would be a viable power source for longer range spacecraft and even setting up bases on other planets since its fuel is easier to transport and has a much higher fuel to electricity ratio.

@Lumpydude

its cuz of whining asses like yours that it didnt moved sins then...
i love how you like being -realistic- pesimistic complaining about it not progressing fast enough and DO NOTHING...

even if fusion isnt my domain i support those scientists with new ideas all the way ^^

---
No facts, No response...

neither is english :)

It's doubtful fusion will ever be commercially viable. Just a giant ponzi scheme by scientists for job security nothing more. They are as far from a commercial reactor today as they were 75 years ago. Energy break even does nothing to produce power and even 10 times more energy does nothing as they can't KEEP up the power input long enough to sustain the reaction. No one has done it yet. Not even close.

"Can" it really be true this time a Cylinder? Funny how that works, fusion in a can is about how I read this. One thing I have been preaching about for a long time is the amount of pressure needed to fuse something together is almost the same amount of pressure you would feel close to a black hole, are the two realated?

Another thought is collapsing Bose-Einstein condensate cooled close to absolute zero does the same thing, the clue here in a cheap sustainable fusion reaction may be in the Higgs bosonic field and how it reacts with matter...

Ron Bennett

Maybe if we all run in giant hamster wheels, we'll be able to generate enough power for sustainable long lasting fusion.

@Gizmowiz, The JET, Joint European Torus (the largest fusion experiment in the world since 1983) has done a wonderful job at advancing Fusion research. The ITER fusion facility now also under construction in Europe will achieve full fusion many times more then the energy put in and will be able to sustain that Fusion reaction for more then 6 minutes at a time. That is a massive breakthrough and getting really close to full grid delivering fusion plants. The DEMO reactor that will follow on the design of ITER should provide constant grid energy and become the complete model for full working grid powered Fusion plants. So we are really looking at 30 to 40 years (50 year max) when the world could start building dozens of Fusion facilities. Not 75 years. So there is hope.

Although i would like to see the money mostly go to solar, wind, bio energy and methods to store that energy like giant lakes for later use (like the fjords already used in Norway or the giant island Belgium is now building). This way you don`t even need fusion reactors even when there is no wind and no sun. And these technologies could start to be installed on a massive scale right now (already done in many countries in Europe except for large energy storage methods).

The only thing worse than a Lemming is a Luddite. And the only things worse than those are proud Luddites like Gizmowiz who pride themselves on the ability to remain blissfully ignorant and content in the knowledge that everything is a conspiracy and nothing good ever comes from research. The point of research is that, whether it succeeds or fails, knowledge is gained from the endeavor; therefore, there is rarely a such thing as bad research.
I feel it is worth mentioning that the same close-minded people who have for decades doubted the feasibility of the electric car are now eating crow since Tesla's Model S has won car of the year and uses completely renewable energy thanks to solar charging facilities. And within a few years the vehicles themselves will be affordable for typical, middle class consumers. It's time to end pessimism and stop living in the past, because you will be left behind.

VToo7; What? English please. I'm not whining. Statement of FACT. Fusion(sustained)in the near future is not going to happen.
Wish it would.

vt007; Did You miss this..FACT.

http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-put-on-slow-burn-1.12016

There is the thing... fusion has been achieved. The issue is sustaining it and sustaining it at a rate that provides more power than is put into. The tech that ITER Fusion system is based off of is the closest we have been able to achieve, but again the issue is being able to sustain it at levels needed for it to become a reliable power source.

And if you don't think fusion is achieve able by humans... look no further than the particle accelerators.

Lockheed is saying they will be ready in 4 years.
I choose to take them seriously.
Why lie if you cant back it up for only four years?

I hope Lockheed succeeds. I really do.
However claims like this have been made for years.
Yet we are no where near sustained fusion power plants. Not even close. Maybe in 50 years, with an entirely different approach something may work.
Good luck Lockheed. Prove Me wrong.

It's only been ~100 years since heavier than air flight was "impossible" because so many had tried it for so long and failed. Imagine if we'd just given up because da Vinci couldn't figure it out.

@Gizzmowiz
I share at least some of your scepticism. I have read about fusion for at least 50 years and it was always 25 years away. But after so many billions spent nobody really has been able to produce a Watt off the technology so far. Even the multi billion ITER facility is really only a test in 20 or 30 years or maybe, with all the delays, only in 50 years time. There is no guarantee that anything like a prototype reactor can be built from the results. Even insiders are cautious about its success.
And now Lockheed, who seems to be stumped building a new fighter plane (that actually works), wants to make us believe they can do it in 5 years. As far as I am concerned, I wish them the best of luck, but if it sounds too good to be true it usually is.
The other thing about fusion: in principle it is a limitless source of power, but it will still cause radioactive pollution because until now tritium was required to "light up" and the whole apparatus became radioactive.
In the mean time we have fission. It is proven, its waste can be managed, there a several technologies that could easily provide the whole world with clean power for a couple of 100 years, and by then we will find a better way to supply our power requirements anyway.
@derosanik 82
I don't know where you get the lemming analogy from, but you sound like one of those rats with rose tinted glasses that followed the pied piper to their demise.
As for the electric car, I hope it becomes better and more affordable every year. Because I,like most of the rest of the world, would prefer not to have to rely on the tempers of some middle eastern potentates of fanatics.

So, let's say they succeed in designing and building a 100 to 300 megawatt fusion reactor that fits on the back of a truck. Decentralized power brought to the entire planet - yes, very good. What happens when a bad guy gets his hands on one of those trucks with a 100 to 300 megawatt fusion reactor riding behind it? What can a bad guy do with 100 - 300 megawatts of continuous fusion power? Just sayin'.

I agree this is going to be difficult. That's obvious. But I'm really concerned about the responses, which echo a significant threat to the future -- extreme scientific pessimism and a deep distrust of technologists and scientists and academia.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130131095316.htm

With all of the great new info about containing fusion, I doubt they are far off in their predictions.

A 300 megawatt power plant on the back of a truck will turn anyone driving that truck into a mad scientist. Think Alfred Nobel. He thought dynamite would save the world. How'd that work out?

No point in making another glorified version of a steam engine. Waste of time and money, all nuclear technology is archaic, dirty and quite possibly the stupidest way of generating power ever conceived by man. (burning whale oil was smarter)

I really hope they accomplish their goal here, but based off of all the past proclamations, I'm not holding my breath. Just seems like it's too much promised in too short a time frame.

What I would like to see is more funding and development of thorium reactors. I believe right now the biggest investor in them is China. Many of the benefits of fusion reactors apply to thorium based fission reactors, but they can be implemented in existing light water reactors right now.

Let's take a look at who is making this pronouncement: Lockheed Skunkworks. In spite of some snarky comments about the latest jet fighters, they do have a pretty good record of developing things that no one officially knows about for a very long time (think SR-71). Also, have you thought about what a defense contractor might want to do with a 100MW, COMPACT, power source? Like maybe put it on a ship to power the next generation of energy weaponry? I think there is much truth here, although the timeline might be aggressive.

I do think we should put more effort into those thorium reactors that they mentioned a long time ago. Its very similar. Abundant fuel supply, safe, cleaner. It might not be as clean or high tech, but its still better than what were using today.

Baby steps.

I didn't know the Aurora was fusion powered. I wonder how long it's been sitting in the hanger before they dusted it off and put the parts to some other use.

I think that Locheed Martin is going to get this working and the scale that they are producing increases the feasibility by probable a factor of 10. Look at the difference in scale. The experimental reactor that they are using has a 1 meter diameter and 2 meters in length 1.5 cubic meters in volume they are talking about the full size one being only twice as big 3 cubic meters. Just look at the facts sheet that the ITER has posted http://www.iter.org/factsfigures Their reactor has a volume of 840 cubic meters that is 280 times larger!!!! That is why they have had to sink 13 billion euros.

I love how a single company will out position a 13 billion euro experiment and bring fusion to the masses. Locheed martins development cycle for a reactor with a volume of 3 cubic meters will be months rather than decades. Shorter development cycle means more time to fine tune at a lower cost. This is how fusion will come to the masses not by governments sinks billions into a big physics experiment.

A couple of rebuttals:

SimpleMind- This is the biggest strawman argument I have heard in a long time! These are not going to be for sale to anyone and everyone and what would they do with a reactor not much but power a bunch of infrastructure. no big deal. If you think that Nobel was a failure because of dynamite try again. Yes dynamite has been adapted into bombs and has been used to kill a lot of people, however the good effects of dynamite are nearly immeasurable. Modern technology would not be possible without high explosives. Millions of people would have to labor mining in awful conditions in order to do the same work that dynamite does in modern mining. No raw materials no finished goods. No ores mean no metals mean no modern infrastructure. Nobel was a good man that made an amazing development in dynamite. End of Story!

dkella, what are you smoking? the only sustainable answer to our future energy needs is nuclear fission can do a lot for us in its current state but this type of fusion is the answer. What is your plan, Solar? not enough solar radiation penetrates the atmosphere unless we cover a huge portion of the earth with solar cells. Solar cell efficiency is far from where it needs to be and there is a hard limit to the amount anyway like I said earlier. So what is your answer?

Lumpydude, I can understand the pessimism but. you said "Maybe in 50 years, with an entirely different approach something may work." This is the completely different approach! Don't think that the change in form factor is a small change it is a huge change that hopefully is the breakthrough that we as a planet need!

To all those that say fusion is not going to work. Did you watch the video. One shift in approach solves three major problems that have plagued fusion reactors and have driven the fusion projects to the ITER scale. Decentralized electricity production is the answer, it eliminates a large portion of the problems with our current power infrastructure because you eliminate transmission losses. Yes a distribution network will still play a role but only as a backup and to balance load.

Scale is the answer!!! Small high density power production is the answer! I for one am casting my vote with the Skunkworks I think there approach is the right one!

The only sustainable fuel is manpower. Fusion is a farce and always will be. Fission is to dirty. Oil will run out. Gas is risking to much Methane release. Lets do away with 6.8 billion people and afterwards limit families to two babies punishable by death if exceeded.

Even if all they said in the video turns out to be 100% correct, there is no way an actual 100 MW power plant fits on the back of that semi. The reactor might be quite small but by the time you have fuel storage, delivery, a steam turbine, piping, cooling, condenser, electric generator, power conditioning equipment, and all the other needed auxiliaries, it will be a small building or even a big building. Steam plants are just not that small. However it could still be small enough for a ship for sure. I think it could also still be a revolutionary device. However it would never fit on a semi trailer.

To the scientists and engineers that are advancing this concept…Great Job!

However, I can appreciate the scepticism that is displayed in the comments. In my opinion it should not be directed at the scientists and engineers but rather the government and the energy cartel. The question is, will they allow such an energy source to be developed?

Yes, yes we all know that our beloved politicians are “Strongly Committed” to clean and affordable energy. We know this to be true because they keep saying it…right?...right!

However lets just review what happens when someone solves a problem that has been holding back advancements in clean energy.

Lets start with the “Bloom Box”…a fuel cell that can run directly on city gas and is not the high temperature version. Here is the company that developed out of this concept…Bloom Energy:
//www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/

This concept was made practical in 2001…12 years ago. In fact, when I heard that they had delivered working units to businesses a couple of years ago I stopped thinking about doing research into high temperature fuel cells…the problem is solved and running at low temperatures with inexpensive materials for the components.

O.K….so why has this not taken off big time? Here is your distributed power and it can also run on Biogas. Farm waste to methane gas to electricity. Where are these “Strongly Committed” politicians that should have jumped this and helped get this produced not only on a mass scale for industry but also on a level for the home owner?

Inconsistency in word and deed

Lithium Ion Batteries
Then there is Dr. Yi Cui who started the company Amprius with his improvements of the Lithium Ion battery.

//gigaom.com/2010/09/15/amprius-building-a-better-battery-from-the-anode-up/

isn´t a battery breakthrough something that the world has been waiting for to make something like the electric car practicle? I mean,that is the argument that the auto companies keep repeating to the public…”Unsurmountable technical hurdles” are mostly grounded in battery technology.

Look how much support this guy gets to solve an “Unsurmountable technical hurdle” that has been holding up the industry…a whole 25 million dollars.

//www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/amprius-raises-25-million-does-a-battery-component-market-exist

Thorium Energy
Enough has been said about that already

I really, really hope that this fusion concept does not go the way of the previously mentioned advances in energy technology. However, given the past record of the politicians and the behavior of the energy cartel, I would not get my hopes up.

@SimpleMind,
I cannot tell if you are serious or not. Do you really live in constant fear of "bad guys"? Like, no, we better not make that fancy horseless carriage in case a bad guy gets his hands on it and does some damage.

Regardless, your lack of understand with respect to how fusion works is astonishing.
It would not matter if the plant was 100GW, it would not explode.
With a conventional fission reactor, control rods are used to prevent a continuous runaway reaction. With fusion, continuous input of power is needed to keep a reaction going. It is not a bomb and cannot be used as a bomb. Please, stop living your life in fear of any sharp edged object being used by bad guys. It truly is folks like you who prevent us from moving forward.

As much as people make the valid point that fusion power always seems to be some random distance in the future, the odds highly favor us eventually getting it down. The main reason? It exists. Fusion isn't a theory or a pseudoscience (LENR anyone?) - it's a discipline we simply haven't worked out yet. If you ever doubt the existence of fusion, walk outside during the day. I'm not so optimistic as to say that this time we've got it in our grasp, but I consider it an eventuality that we will have commercial fusion.

I will also say that when it comes to an organization announcing an imminent technological breakthrough, Skunkworks is one tier below DARPA in my book.

On a related note: xkcd.com/808

I definitely echo caughlans point about the size of this device. Perhaps the actual fusion unit could fit in a semi, but a 100-300 MW steam turbine is, well, the size of a 100-300 MW steam turbine. Which is large, relative to the size of a truck, and doesn't even include everything else you need to build a steam plant.

Also, while I'm sure that this tech would work its way on to ships, I don't suspect that's what Skunkworks has in mind. The Navy already has fission plants that works just fine, so they can get away without having fusion. No, when a major aerospace think-tank tells me they're aiming for a 100-300MW power source that will fit in a semi, I expect they are looking for a fusion-powered heavy-lift (or long-endurance, ie surveillance/C4) airplane. Or, if they can miniaturize, a drone powers source. Alternatively, if they actually were to somehow fit it in a truck, it's going to the Army. I don't even want to imagine what it would mean to be able to provide the Army with a power supply fit for a ship. Land-based railgun artillery comes to mind though.
____________________________________
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis.

I would just like to say that lockheed has came up with several designs in the past that surprised everyone, and lets not forget that the have been working near Groom Lake.... ;)

While all claims concerning economically feasible fusion power should be taken with more than a pinch of salt, seasoned with a hefty amount of scepticism, I think this Skunkworks plan makes some kind of sense.

Lockheed Skunkworks has made some pretty insane and out-of-this-world stuff work before, and I wouldn't be that surprised if they did it yet again.

ITER is scientifically (very) important, but I don't think that it will yield any usable engineering insights into how to design a financially viable fusion-reactor. Skunkworks might just do that.

@dexterm2003

Nuclear power is as dead as the dinosaurs. Its dirty, risky, stupid and unethical. Sitting here criticizing others for their smoking habits shows your ignorance. I have worked where uranium is mined, it belongs underground. There are no safe ways to contain the tailings, much less the spent fuel rods.

There are currently less then 100 reactors operating. (see the link)
http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-nuclear-industry-beginning-collapse
And there are less every year.

Making a nuclear reactor (fusion/fission, doesnt matter, still dirty energy) small enough to fit on a truckbed is not only irresponsible, it means that a plane will have one, and eventually crash. Not a lot of brains at skunkworks. Lots of book smarts but no insight into how it will eventually be used.

Solar is catching up with other technologies by the way, and i would rather natural gas power my house, my neighbours, and my neighbours in the US . Besides who really needs solar? Hydrogen technology (including the biobatteries) generate generous amounts for a small scale consumer. Shale gas is causing an economic boom, there is a shale gas field so large that was discovered in British Columbia that developing it would collapse the price of natural gas to an unheard of low.

As for it being the only sustainable way? What are you smoking, yellowcake? Oil and gas are far cleaner, if you factor in the long term storage cost, risk over 100,000 years of earthquake in a secure geological zone. (there are no safe geological areas, earthquakes happen in surprising areas) Hydrogen is the best potential currently, geothermal, solar, and tidal generation are all viable, and far cleaner then nuclear.

When i can say that oil and gas are cleaner then your energy technology of your choice, perhaps you should give your head a shake, oil and gas are nearly as dirty as it gets.

@matsci1, nice comment, i like all of your points, the economic factor drives any change in technology.

This is very big news and could be what saves the world from pollution and high energy costs.

@deka you don't know what your talking about.

Thorium fission is far safer then uranium 235 fission and it's radioactive waste has a shorter life span then many plastic compounds.

Fusion is clean it's by products are not bone seeking elements like Cesium.

The world need cheap an clean energy and a practical fusion reactor would be the holy grail of clean energy.

dexterm2003 and pablo_max:

Allow me straighten out your addled minds:

These units are genies stuck inside the lamp, so to speak. Put them on a truck (you know, something the MOVES) and they'll be unlike any other 100 to 300 megawatt power plant on the planet. Whoever drives that truck isn't just driving a truck. He/She is driving a massive power plant. And, oh yeah, our government will do a great job of keeping tabs on these 100 to 300 megawatt power plants just like they've been able to stop North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India and God knows who else from joining the nuclear weapons club. In other words, don't bet on it. Other commentators have noted that these units could be put on naval vessels to power the next generation of WEAPONS. The fuel? Tritium and deuterium. How hard is it to get that fuel? The presentation answered that question - not very. As easily as this mobile rig can light up a city of 100,000 it could just as easily be modified with a directed energy weapon to burn it up. Just drive that baby next to the big "HOLLYWOOD" sign above LA and you can imagine what happens next.

So, was Nobel a failure? Of course not, he became very wealthy; wealthy enough to fund a bunch of prizes. No doubt driven by an overwhelming guilt knowing that his invention was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. So, yeah, you're right; he was really, really successful.

pablo_max, I've got no fear that the power plant will explode; never even alluded to that. What I do fear is Osama Bin Laden, Jr. getting behind the wheel of the truck on which that power plant is sitting, driving it up a hill over a large city and vaporizing a bunch of buildings. Savvy? Objects don't have to sharp edged to be dangerous, sonny.

I happen to think fusion power could be a great thing. The mobility factor is the wild card here. What are the consequences of being able to move a 300 megawatt generator along I-95 from Boston to New York to Philly to Baltimore to D.D., etc., etc.? Could be great - even better for the undeveloped regions of the world lacking a power grid. No longer a need for thousands of miles of energy sapping transmission cables. Set the power plant up in the middle of a small city and everyone's happy. I get all that. That power, however, can destroy things just as easily as it helps us build things and now the power source can be moved wherever it's needed for EITHER of those two purposes.

As they say in the comic books, "With great power comes great responsibility."

@SimpleMind, you do understand this is not the movies right?
Do you understand that because something can fit on a truck, does not mean it can operate while driving down the road right? You know, a windmill can fit on a truck.
My TV can fit on a truck. My toilet can also fit on a truck.
Hell, most things can fit on a truck.

And what if it could? So what? Let's say our terrorist had a super long extension cord to power the reactor. (I trust you understand it requires a massive amount of power input to function?)
Do you really think that because the word nuclear is in it that it will explode? Once the plasma loses containment, the reaction stops. There is no explosion.
There is no need to panic.
Bruce Willis won't need to jump out of a helicopter to catch the terrorist you live your life in fear of whilst he is driving a nucular(spelled like Bush says it) bomb.

The points you mention have nothing AT ALL to do with nuclear fission. I suggest you at least look on wikipedia or something to understand the difference between the two types of reactions. Hell, I would not be surprised to learn the US had a working fusion reactor 50 years ago, but scrapped it since it cannot be weaponized. There is no high yield radio active byproduct.

@ ruri, i fully know what i am talking about. It doesnt matter what type of fuel is burned, and whether it is fusion or fission. It's long term storage , cleanup, disposal, dismantling of outdated reactors, initial mining, and the potential for misuse make it the most dirty and dangerous way to generate electricity.

224 billion to store the longterm nuclear waste. (america only)
http://www.greens.org/s-r/11/11-08.html

see the above link.
That not only makes nuclear ridiculously cost inefficient, the current longterm disposal site might have a volcano in the next 10,000 years. It takes 100,000 years for it to become safe to humans again.

The production of electricity in 2009 was 20,053TWh, which was 11% of the solar energy the earth receives in one hour. 5.7% of global power is generated by nuclear. 19.2% of american power is generated by nuclear. The US uses about a quarter of the worlds energy, so estimating that the total storage cost for spent fuel globally is around a trillion dollars is a safe estimate. (it could potentially be much lower then the actual cost, factoring in accidents and natural disasters)

The yearly dollar value of global nuclear energy is projected to be 85 billion. The US alone produces 3,000 tons a year. So for the next 100,000 years our descendants will be cleaning up the messes we made, or allowed to be made.

Nuclear power is not cost effective. It is not safe, it is not clean, it's not even efficient. Only an utter moron would laud an idiots pipe dream of strapping a nuclear reactor (fission or fusion) on the back of a truck. Much less a plane. Which , BTW is skunkworks plan. While i can say there are less risks to a spaceplane carrying a nuclear engine, especially for unmanned deep space exploration (mainly because its too slow to have its fuel pose a risk to a neighbouring solar system) even that risk is too great, because of the risk of equipment failure in the atmosphere. We all have a piece of plutonium from a 700g power supply that burned up after a satellite re-entered the atmosphere.

There are better technologies being researched, literally hundreds of them that have a far better cost to output ratio then nuclear. Plus the legal ramifications, NIMBY is more and more common, and so what , it can supply 100,000 homes with short term power, and it can also kill a city that size just as easily.

If you want to calculate cost effectiveness alone, oil and gas beat every other one hands down. Solar power is catching up, all our oil was initially generated by the sun, and it is the best power source we have. For anyone who wants to denigrate solar power consider the research that was done on the chlorophyll molecule, it was supercooled to near absolute zero and observed to absorb light in a quantum fashion, with near perfect efficiency. Algae is already used to make diesel fuel, and once the fabrication of a synthetic chlorophyll is used in solar cells, that technology alone will supply all the energy we will ever need on earth.

Mark my words, nuclear will be extinct within 15 years, supplanted by efficient and cheap clean technology.(perhaps not solar, its hard to say what will gain the first foothold) People are not responsible enough for nuclear power, they are foolish, easily led and manipulated by false information and think only of the short term. With that mindset we would be extinct as a species in a few generations. Japan is not the only country with precariously situated reactors, sadly most of our species is too dumb to learn except through tragedy.

One final point on fusion killing a city, it might not be as dangerous as fission, but there are still associated risks. Besides, its just a cheap PR stunt, nuclear fusion is more of a break even then a profitable reactor. They don't even know how they are going to absorb the waste neutrons, helium wont be much of a problem, its price is though the roof lately. Cities die from pollution, unemployment, overspending, overconsumption of resources and poor management. We really don't need nuclear plants everywhere. Or at all.

pablo_max:

One more time: the power plant won't explode; never mentioned such a thing. The power plant provides power to other things. It has already been theorized (not by me, by others here in this blog and elsewhere) that this very mobile power plant could be placed into a warship and used to power the next generation of directed energy weapons. So, why leave it to a warship? Don't have to. Why? Because it fits on a TRUCK. So, the bad guy, having gotten his hands on this mobile fusion reactor, gets a second truck and places said weapon on it and can go about doing very bad things. And if you think this stuff won't get out into the open, just ask the completely paranoid people in the United States government who are tasked with tracking down all that missing Russian fissionable material. Does anyone doubt that a dirty bomb in the hands of the bad guys is just around the corner? Didn't think so. What makes you think that a mobile fusion power plant won't fall into a bad guy's hands? Just a matter of time and, frankly, a mobile fusion power plant coupled with weapons designed to exploit that mobile power will cause even more havoc than a dirty bomb. Geez, man, you've got to wake up.

There is no enduring energy problem like what's his face would suggest. It is quite possible that skunkworks has been given the go ahead on declassifying technology they have been supplying to the US government. It sounds more like a neutron bomb then a viable power source. ( i know a neutron bomb is fission ) As for it being a zero emission energy source, that is one of the biggest lies i have ever heard . It emits neutrons, period. In the event of a magnetic field failure, there will be a huge emission of neutrons, even if it is shut off. Correct me if i'm wrong but large exposure to neutrons kills all organic life, and pass through walls, buildings, the ground and pretty much anything else. Plus they are extremely difficult to block. Thus the military use of the neutron bomb.

As far as climate change is concerned, volcanoes could produce far more in a day then we can in a year. We have had plenty of ice ages, and human caused global warming could quite easily prevent another one. Air quality is the only concern with fossil fuels, and ocean acidification.

simplemind is really onto something, railguns, HAARP, and other high energy prototype research is the real danger from small reactors. American civilians are more capable then many countries at launching orbital craft. Most terrorists are american civilians. (sorry guys, the gun nuts give you a bad name , 99.9% of americans are great)

Picture a large scale EMP generated by a portable nuclear reactor. In a shielded truck , with shielded support troops it would be easy to cripple an entire countries infrastructure and negate all high tech advantages. It wouldn't matter how good your tech was if it was fried, the spanish took south america with smallpox and a skeleton force. Something to consider, hopefully america has a contingency plan for emp events, both homegrown and foreign.

It's always 10 years away ain't it...

@Dkella

"In the event of a magnetic field failure, there will be a huge emission of neutrons, even if it is shut off. Correct me if i'm wrong but large exposure to neutrons kills all organic life, and pass through walls, buildings, the ground and pretty much anything else. Plus they are extremely difficult to block."

As someone so familiar with nuclear energy, you have a shockingly poor understanding of simple neutron interactions.

I would like to think that it would have occurred to you that neutrons are charge neutral particles, and that the magnetic fields containing the plasma would not contain the neutron flux produced during the fusion events. For this reason, both neutron and traditional radiological shielding would be necessary at all times. The collapsing magnetic field would be immaterial. (Neutrons are actually weakly influenced by magnetic fields due to their magnetic moment, but not so much so as to alter my point here)

This apparent over sight certainly calls into question your expertise on nuclear energy (your about conspiracy theories do not help much either), but I digress... Lets move on to the rest of your statement.

You are correct that neutron radiation is indeed hazardous to living tissue, and that most materials that buildings are constructed of are transparent to neutrons, which would pass through them with minimal interaction other than activating them to some extent.

That is about where your statement breaks down.

Neutrons are not a magical subatomic bullet for which there is no protection, as you imply. Neutrons react very differently to matter than alpha, beta, and gamma radiation; the ability of a material to absorb a free neutron does not increase with atomic weight, meaning traditional radiation shields are minimally effective. This requires some extra thought as to the materials you would use, but is neither 'extremely difficult' or expensive.

One of the most effective neutron shields is something I'm sure you use every day -- water. Actually, any hydrogen-rich material makes for a fairly effective neutron shield. This is one reason why storage pools are used for irradiated nuclear fuel, as it provides significant shielding. Materials such as polyethylene, paraffin, and treated concretes are also effective, common, and inexpensive shields against neutron radiation.

Slightly more exotic, though still relatively inexpensive, boron is an exceptional neutron absorber and can be integrated into numerous materials such as borated polyethylene, boric acid as an additive to water (also used in some power reactors as a chemical shim), high boron steels, and many others.

I've personally constructed neutron barriers that completely contain direct exposure from a neutron radiography beam output by moderately sized research reactors (1-10 MW) with nothing more than a few inches of borated polyethylene, a light weight plastic. I've also worked with borated concrete and water shielding, both highly effective.

For full disclosure, one additional consideration:

Most neutron shield materials absorb the neutrons through a series of elastic scattering until the neutron has lost sufficient energy to be captured by one of the material's nuclei (neutron capture). The scattering of the neutrons can create incident gamma rays that must also be absorbed. This is why neutron absorbers are often paired with materials that provide inherent gamma shielding as well, such as concrete or steel. Secondary shields can also be employed with little effort.

It is certainly a complex effort, but not a difficult one by any means. Any fusion reactor, should one be viable in the future, would (should) include shielding for the inevitability that the magnetic field will collapse and eject free neutrons.

Correction: Ignore references to neutron release due to magnetic field collapse in the final sentence of my comments, as they are incorrect per an explanation earlier in the comment.

If this happens I will sh*t bricks. 'Nuff said.

@DKELLA,
please....just take a look at even the most basic information on fusion plants before you make such ridiculous comments.

http://www.generalfusion.com/safety.html

It is astonishing how much fear you and simplemind live it.

If people like you were in charge we would still be riding horses and using oil lamps for fear a terrorist could possible use a gas tanker as a bomb.

pablo_max:

Worthless link. I dare you to e-mail "General Fusion" and ask them what they think of a truck mobile 300 megawatt fusion power plant. Go ahead, make their day. I took a look at their depiction of their demonstrator reactor. Looks to be several stories high. Won't go ANYWHERE. Ergo, not a terrorist target. They'll tell you in far more elegant terms than me just how unsettling a mobile fusion power plant can be to the world's geopolitics.

Who knows? Maybe ubiquitous electrical power dispersed throughout the planet will render all of us into peace loving, content creatures. Not craving pure water, food, heat, etc. All of our basic needs would be satisfied.

Do you honestly think that everyone thinks that way?

Fusion power can happen sooner than we think because there are newer concepts in constant evolution. youtu.be/VUrt186pWoA

"No one has done it yet. Not even close."

In 1780, the same thing was said about humans flying in a balloon. In 1895, heavier-than-air flight was widely "known" to be impossible. In the year 84, all possible science and engineering works had "already been invented." Around 1500, it was "well-known" that the Earth did not move, and that Sun revolved around it. In 1486, the official committee to study Columbus' plan presented "evidence" that crossing the Atlantic ocean would take 3 years, and was also impossible.

In the late 1960s I was told by a computer expert that it would never be possible to store all the data in the Dungeon Manual (the basic text for running Dungeons and Dragons games) in a computer. Today, I play World of Warcraft every day. It's vastly more complicated than D&D and fully animated in realtime with millions of players.

I am willing to believe that a new approach to almost anything makes the impossible, possible. For example: Invisibility cloaks, "warp drive," human space flight, skydiving faster than the speed of sound and surviving to tell about it... So many things!

But the people who say, "That's impossible!" will never do it. Of course, two years after someone else does it, they'll swear they "always knew" it could be done.

we should prioritize the total phase out of fossil fuels because climate change gets worse the more CO2 we emit

hydro, geothermal and thorium as baseload power plants supplemented by wind and solar and biofuel where the conditions are right. this will at least delay the climate change apocalypse. then use the time gained to perfect fusion, solar and wind

Really hope the fusion thing happens but why don't we use liquid thorium reactors know. Its proven technology clean safe abundant no chance for meltdown. Before any dumb retorts really at least look at the wiki of LFTR reactors. or watch the 5 min Thorium on YouTube. This is 1970's proven tech.They had a reactor run for 5 years. Wish popular science would talk more about it. If people just knew about it, it would change the world for the better. Specially parred with desalination and automated verticle farming like omega farms. Oh and it can make cheap replacement liquid fuels for gas diesel and jet fuel.

Gizmowiz, EVERYTHING was impossible until someone figured out how to make it possible.

Honestly this power would be perfect for the Navy. The primary fuel source for Fusion is Deuterium, which can be found in seawater. And as an afterthought to all those people who said, "what if it blows up?" or, "it will never work." Then, these are the reactions I get from my Chemistry class when I tell them it is legal to build a simple Fusion reactor in your basement, and that I am trying to do it just for fun. Although, being 15, I am having some issues finding parts, particularly the vacuum chamber and the vacuum pump. One more thing, if you have enough time to complain about how someone else is doing it, do some serious research, then get off your butt and think up a more "plausible," in your mind, solution: build it, run some tests, and then present it and watch as people completely ignore everything you said about it as they complain.

until I saw the bank draft which said $8121, I be certain that my sister woz like truley taking home money in their spare time on their apple laptop.. there neighbor had bean doing this 4 only about thirteen months and by now took care of the morgage on their villa and bourt Lotus Esprit. this is where I went, ●❤● ℬuzz80.ℂOℳ ●❤●

I love the "it didn't work the first time so give it up" mentality. Good grief. It would only change the way we power everything, so it should be easy right?

Wyatt. true that Ethel`s st0ry is astonishing, I just bought a new Jaguar XJ after having made $9344 this - four weeks past and-just over, ten-grand last-munth. without a question it is the coolest job Ive ever done. I began this 6 months ago and practically straight away was bringin in minimum $74.. per-hr. I use this here great link, -- Buzz80.ℂOℳ

First off. This is great, and I agree with the general sentiment that they wouldn't be proposing to have a working half-sized reactor in 5 years. 10 or 20 years means they have issues to work out; 5 years means the issues are engineering and construction over design and feasibility.

Secondly, for anyone worried about someone being able to steal a 100Megawatt generator and run off with it and blow something up (say by attaching two ACME-sized alligator clips to a building and watching it erupt in flames), some simple math will put your mind at ease (or make you far more concerned about the current state of things).

TNT's energy density is 1kcal per gram, which is also 4184 joules/gram. This is actually only 1/4 the energy density of sugar and protein, and 1/9th that of fat. But it is what it is.

1 kg (a two pound stick of dynamite commonly used for Redneck fishing) contains 4,184,000 J, or roughly 4 MegaJoules. 400lbs/200kg/100 sticks of dynamite, detonated at once, would release the same amount of energy this powerplant does every second.

Now, exploding 100 sticks of dynamite every second isn't exactly small change. But that explosion would be enough to destroy the powerplant on the back of the truck. So if taken and "detonated" the powerplant would produce the 100MW of energy it does for one glorious second, and then stop immediately as the fusion physically can no longer continue. Since you only get the massive power for 1 second... the end result is pretty much equivalent to detonating those sticks of dynamite.

So they can steal this heavily guarded, expensive machine, and detonate it, and the largest property damage they would inflict would likely be to the powerplant itself.

Or they can load their minivan with 15 bags of fertilizer from Home Depot, detonate that, and get the same result for a lot less effort. Or they can load in 100 bags for a much bigger result... for a rather small additional cost.

End result: No terrorist or criminal would commit the effort to steal this powerplant, except perhaps to destroy the plant itself. It's potential for destruction is dwarfed by gardening products.

For comparison, recall that the very first nuclear bombs were on the order of 10 Kilotons of TNT. Or 10 Mega-Kilograms of TNT (vs 100-200kg). This explosion would be roughly 100,000 times weaker. And the lethal blast radius of the Hiroshima bomb was less than the size of LA airport. Again. Detonating one of these babies is chump change.

Hmm, by 2017, this technology will be at least 40+ years old. It's old tech folks.

The biggest problem with ALL new green technology is money.
If I built a machine that gave free energy to everyone tomorrow what chance do you think I would have of getting it anywhere near production?
do you think the fossil fuel industry is going to let the golden goose meet with an accident?
I know of many good ideas that could be fantastic if funded but I only see jokey amounts of money put into them.
come up with a new golden green goose and you will be amazed how fast your invention goes to market.untill then I won't hold my breath.

Your fusion Vidio is interesting the technology may even work.