Lockheed Martin bets big on...nuclear fusion?

[wtmusic]

Does Lockheed have new ideas for what's proved to be one of the toughest energy nuts to crack? If so, it could guarantee a revenue stream for the next century.



"A few weeks ago, I noted that there is a growing stable of companies, many small and some venture-backed, that is tackling the elusive challenge of nuclear fusion. Driven by entrepreneurial spirit and not by the colossal state budgets that define the large international governmental fusion projects such as Europe’s ITER and the U.S.’s NIF, one or more of these entities is likely to crack the fusion nut first, I said.

Almost on queue, another company has trotted into the fusion corral: U.S. aerospace stalwart Lockheed Martin. Speaking last week at a Google “Solve for X” event (it’s a bit like a TED gathering, but organized by the ubiquitous search engine/media company), Charles Chase from Lockheed’s “Skunk Works” group described a transportable, 100-megawatt fusion machine that he said will be grid ready in 10 years and that – here’s a bold claim – could provide all the world’s baseload power by 2050.

<>

Lockheed will build a sub-100MW prototype version by 2017 that will measure about 1-meter in diameter by 2-meters long. The 100MW grid-ready unit will be about twice that size, he says."

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/02/15/latest-entrant-in-the-fusion-sweepstakes-lockheed-martin/

[formercia]

1. Sounds great if they can make it work

That much power 100MW in that small volume would be an interesting design from a Thermodynamics standpoint.

Tritium has some serious Nuclear Proliferation issues. I guess the have never heard of Gas Boosting.

Gas boosting in modern nuclear weapons

In a fission bomb, the fissile fuel is "assembled" quickly by a uniform spherical implosion created with conventional explosives, producing a supercritical mass. In this state, many of the neutrons released by the fissioning of a nucleus will induce fission of other nuclei in the fuel mass, also releasing additional neutrons, leading to a chain reaction. This reaction consumes at most 20% of the fuel before the bomb blows itself apart, or possibly much less if conditions are not ideal: the Little Boy (gun type mechanism) and Fat Man (implosion type mechanism) bombs had efficiencies of 1.38% and 13%, respectively.

Fusion boosting is achieved by introducing tritium and deuterium gas (solid lithium deuteride-tritide has also been used in some cases, but gas allows more flexibility and can be stored externally) into a hollow cavity at the center of the sphere of fission fuel, or into a gap between an outer layer and a "levitated" inner core, sometime before implosion. By the time about 1% of the fission fuel has fissioned, the temperature rises high enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, which produces relatively large numbers of neutrons speeding up the late stages of the chain reaction and approximately doubling its efficiency.

Deuterium-tritium fusion neutrons are extremely energetic, seven times more energetic than an average fission neutron, which makes them much more likely to be captured in the fissile material and lead to fission. This is due to several reasons:

Their high velocity creates the opposite of time absorption: time magnification.
When these energetic neutrons strike a fissile nucleus, a much larger number of secondary neutrons are released by the fission (e.g. 4.6 vs 2.9 for Pu-239).
The fission cross section is larger both in absolute terms, and in proportion to the scattering and capture cross sections.

Taking these factors into account, the maximum alpha value for D-T fusion neutrons in plutonium (density 19.8 g/cm³) is some 8 times higher than for an average fission neutron (2.5×109 vs 3×108).

A sense of the potential contribution of fusion boosting can be gained by observing that the complete fusion of one mole of tritium (3 grams) and one mole of deuterium (2 grams) would produce one mole of neutrons (1 gram), which, neglecting escape losses and scattering for the moment, could fission one mole (239 grams) of plutonium directly, producing 4.6 moles of secondary neutrons, which can in turn fission another 4.6 moles of plutonium (1099 g). The fission of this 1338 g of plutonium in the first two generations would release 23[4] kilotons of TNT equivalent (97 TJ) of energy, and would by itself result in a 29.7% efficiency for a bomb containing 4.5 kg of plutonium (a typical small fission trigger). The energy released by the fusion of the 5 g of fusion fuel itself is only 1.73% of the energy released by the fission of 1.338 kg of plutonium. Larger total yields and higher efficiency are possible, since the chain reaction can continue beyond the second generation after fusion boosting.[5]

Fusion-boosted fission bombs can also be made immune to neutron radiation from nearby nuclear explosions, which can cause other designs to predetonate, blowing themselves apart without achieving a high yield. The combination of reduced weight in relation to yield and immunity to radiation has ensured that most modern nuclear weapons are fusion-boosted.

The fusion reaction rate typically becomes significant at 20 to 30 megakelvins. This temperature is reached at very low efficiencies, when less than 1% of the fissile material has fissioned (corresponding to a yield in the range of hundreds of tons of TNT). Since implosion weapons can be designed that will achieve yields in this range even if neutrons are present at the moment of criticality, fusion boosting allows the manufacture of efficient weapons that are immune to predetonation. Elimination of this hazard is a very important advantage in using boosting. It appears that every weapon now in the U.S. arsenal is a boosted design.[5]

According to one weapons designer, boosting is mainly responsible for the remarkable 100-fold increase in the efficiency of fission weapons since 1945.[6]

More at the Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon

[wtmusic]

2. I was thinking the same thing.

100MW in that small of a package would be a lot of thermal energy to get rid of in a hurry.

[formercia]

3. They're talking continuous operation at 100MW

That would be one hell of a Heat Sink. I think this is where the Steam production for the Turbines comes-in. The whole package would be a lot bigger.

[think]

4. K&R for the future of nuclear fusion

Clean efficient energy from plentiful sources and no long term hazardous waste products.

It could be a game changer for both clean & cost efficient energy production.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Well there is always this:

And of course there’s no guarantee that Lockheed will manage to do what all fusion projects have failed at so far: harnessing more continuous energy than what goes into the reaction in the first place.

Ibid.

[CRH]

6. I like the optimism, ...

behind the potential of fusion and thorium reactors, but optimism is not results. Will either of these technologies be ready for massive grid requirements before the methane in permafrost and oceans, fuel the heat cycle beyond 4*C.

Warming that is already in the pipeline and cannot be reversed with existing technologies, inhibits the possible effects of even an abundance of future clean energy, if there is not an environment and industrial infrastructure to work with. The race is on, not just for an abundant clean energy source, but as well some technology that can diminish the green house gas blanket and start reversing the heating that is already running away.

'Tool monkeys' might be clever and inventive, but are they clever and inventive, fast enough?

I personally think the next twenty years will define the odds of survival. Will the above two future technologies be functioning, or will they be fading dreams obscured by a daily struggle to maintain order within the escalating chaos?

[bananas]

7. Neither of those technologies is necessary

"Restricting nuclear power has little effect on the cost of climate policies"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/pifc-rnp092812.php

"The full global warming solution: How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm"
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/10/207320/the-full-global-warming-solution-how-the-world-can-stabilize-at-350-to-450-ppm/

"We have more than enough solutions for three or four climate crises."
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/12/lkl.01.html

[CRH]

8. No there are other routes, but, ...

I don't believe yours is one of them.

~~ The first link no arguments, I would only add I am not a nuclear proponent in regards to finding a solution to the heating of the planet, which I view to be the most critical crisis we are facing. In fact, I do not regard an 'abundant' clean energy solution, as a solution at all, if it permits the concept of continued expansion of economy or population, and therefore an over use of the ecosystems the biosphere depends upon.

~~ The second link, - I don't regard the 350 - 450 ppm CO2e as a solution for anything more than stabilization from the current situation, ... and a struggle to maintain social and economic order near the 450 ppm CO2e level.

I believe if a 'reduced' and stable population is to find sustainable climate we must return to near the 270 ppm CO2e, a level that allowed for the polar ice and continental glaciers to remain close to constant, within the normal fluctuations of natural environmental cycles and terrestrial CO2 events. I believe passing 350 ppm and even lower levels, allows for feedback cycles to begin the heating cycle we are facing today. At the 394 ppm level we are experiencing today, our land based glaciers and polar ice have been melting for decades, our permafrost and oceans are beginning to release methane, a condition that is, irreversible.

Thoughts of maintaining 450 ppm CO2e is history, just as thoughts of 2*C is history. A doubling of pre industrial levels of CO2e will not lead us to 2*C rise in global mean temperatures, that level and more, is already in the pipeline.

For proof of this concept, simply count the stored and now releasing methane in the permafrost and oceans. Only a fraction of this will over run the 450 ppm level. With the collapse of the arctic sea ice, soon, the feed back will gain momentum, and the 400 - 450 ppm CO2e will result in a 3*C - 4*C global mean rise; and nothing other than total cessation of fossil fuel use will make a difference. The only caveat interrupting this reality, is a yet to be discovered geo engineering solution, or a near total collapse of the global economy, soon.

Please don't waste either of our time with discussion of IEA or IPCC projections, even the World Bank, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, the UNEP, and contributors at the WEF, bean counters all; acknowledge the reality of a 4*C global mean temperature is in our future, the scenarios ranging from 2060 - 2100. The watered down government edited IPCC scenarios, conclusions, and pathways continue to find irrelevance in their over conservative economic friendly and obsolete outlook. Nearly all of the 2007 IPCC report was useless before it was printed, and the 2013 - 2014 edition, promises more of the same.

I could go on with the projected use of fossil fuels by the US, EU, China, and India for the next few decades, but why beat a dead horse, no one is meeting their emissions commitments, anyway.

~~ The third link - Larry King and Al Gore interview? ``` Please. ``` A nice palatable interview for the nice ignorant CNN viewer.

If you want to trade links, that is fine. These links do not reduce the climate problem to a linear equation, projection, or pathway; but rather, addresses the exponential influences of altering a multidimensional interdependent and interrelated, earth system. The heat engine is now engaged, can we stop it?

I would recommend you try David Wasdell - Planet Earth We Have a Problem - a youtube presentation broken down into several short presentations, or a complete presentation that takes a bit over an hour, can be found here, - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=29755

Or perhaps - Kevin Anderson - at http://transitionculture.orwww.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL221F5B5F054A8F58 g/2012/11/27/kevin-anderson-real-clothes-for-the-emperor-facing-the-challenges-of-climate-change/

Or perhaps - google the Dan Miller (Berkeley), extreme climate change presentation at youtube

Peace

[wtmusic]

9. True, optimism doesn't count for much without dedication.

Whatever funds Lockheed is throwing in this direction (or able to throw) it's probably one-tenth of what needs to be appropriated to see results "in time".

A source of energy that is virtually unlimited, and one that wouldn't involve mining or significant amounts of waste, opens a realistic discussion about CCS and turning the clock back. But both fusion and MSRs are going nowhere without a big financial commitment.

Your post sums it up nicely...CRH for Sec of Energy

[Vogon_Glory]

10. I Also Like The Optimism, BUT

I also like like the optimism concerning nuclear fusion, but I've been reading cheerfully optimistic reports about the imminent arrival of practical nuclear fusion for over 40 years now, and the only working fusion reactor in this solar system is 93 million miles out.

[CRH]

11. Yep, as stated optimism is not results, ...

Thorium was researched in the 50's and just now the first prototypes are appearing, the talk of the fusion savior seems to die each time without proof of a sustainable reaction that generates more energy than is inputed. Time of development and deployment is a deal breaker if breakthroughs are not soon realized.

I would also be concerned that if a new form of sustainable abundant clean energy were developed, it would promoted the status quo paradigms of constant economic and population growth. It might give slightly more time in the climate crisis, but do nothing to put humans on a sustainable path within a finite planet.

[wtmusic]

12. A succcessful MSR prototype ran for four years at Oak Ridge in the 60s

generating 8MW of power with a vessel about the size of 5 bathtubs. The concept was a casualty of politics, not physics:

&quot Oak Ridge Director Alvin) Weinberg was fired by the Nixon Administration from ORNL in 1973 after 18 years as the lab's director because he continued to advocate increased nuclear safety and Molten Salt Reactors, instead of the Administration's chosen Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) that the AEC's Director of Reactor Division, Milton Shaw, was appointed to develop."

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

The high neutron flux chewed up graphite moderator tubes, it involved some chemical separation challenges, and its high temperature was hard on pumps. None is regarded as a deal-breaker with today's tech.

[CRH]

13. I hadn't heard about MSR at Oak Ridge, ...

I wonder how much of the politics was about the lack of bomb material produced, the sixties was the height of the arms race. It would be ironic to someday find out the direction the technology of reactors progressed was determined by the amount of bomb grade waste they could produce. Sad to think that is even a possibility, but morality was not embedded in our industry, military or politics during this period. It was all about destroying the concept of communism by insuring the rubble would bounce, after the first shot was fired.

[wtmusic]

14. I believe you hit the nail on the head

It was all about making bomb material, U-235, P-239.



The MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment) story is a great read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

A 1969 document describing the project in detail:

http://moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/NAT_MSRintro.pdf

[CRH]

15. It helps to put some historic pieces together, ...

I will read the links tomorrow after some time for reflection. Thanks, hrh

[PamW]

17. NOPE!!

It wasn't for bombs.

First; you don't get U-235 from a reactor. U-235 is a fuel for a reactor; not a product.

You get U-235 from enrichment plants. The USA eventually built 3 enrichment plants to get U-235; K-25 plant at Oak Ridge, and the the Paducah, KY, and Portsmouth Ohio plants.

Presently, the Portsmouth Ohio plant is the only one operating to provide fuel for commercial power plants.

The nuclear weapons industry stockpiled all the highly enriched uranium that they could ever use; long ago.

ALL the Pu-239 that is in US nuclear weapons came from the production reactors at Hanford, WA and Savannah River, SC. NONE of it came from commercial power plants, or experiments at Oak Ridge.

DOE has all the national labs; but they are in two groups. Most of the national labs are operated under the DOE Office of Science.

There are only 3 national labs that are part of the nuclear weapons program; Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia. They are operated by NNSA - the National Nuclear Security Agency which is part of DOE.

PamW

[PamW]

16. Nuclear weapons had NOTHING to do with it.

CRH,

Do you know how much fissile material is in US weapons that came from commercial power plants?

The answer is ZERO.

The US nuclear weapons program had reactors at Hanford and Savannah River that were specially designed "production" reactors. They were specifically designed to make nuclear bomb fuel with no other constraints.

The US nuclear weapons industry had all the bomb-grade material it could use when those reactors were operating. The nuclear weapons industry didn't need anything from the commercial sector AT ALL!!

That's a convenient myth that the anti-nukes like to pander.

In fact, those production reactors worked so well and the nuclear weapons program had so much material that those reactors were eventually shut down.

The nuclear weapons design labs learned how to better design weapons so they needed less bomb fuel, and as new nuclear weapons were made, the out-dated ones had their bomb fuel recycled to the new weapons.

So decades ago; the nuclear weapons program had all the bomb fuel it needed for the foreseeable future and then some. In fact, the nuclear weapons program has enough material to keep bombs operating well into the NEXT century.

PamW

[CRH]

18. Do you know why thorium reactor technology, ...

received so little attention after the first prototype? Were once through Light Water Reactors considered more dependable or safer?

What were the problems with thorium that prevented the technology from progressing? Thorium reactors produce much less waste while utilizing a broad range of fuel sources, including high level waste. It would seem to me if the technology was sound, thorium would be a natural fit if weapons and commercial waste from LWRs was accumulating. However, it appears other than later projects like the IFR reactor you discussed last week, little thought was given to accumulating waste until later in the eighties and nineties.

Was MSR technology ever revived in the US after the initial prototype or did fast reactor technology dominate the funding and R&D.?

[PamW]

19. If memory serves..

Light water reactors were a more mature technology courtesy of the US Navy.

I don't think there was anything particularly "wrong" with MSR; it just didn't get funded by the politicians. Who knows what their reasons were.

As far as waste, the projected answer to that was reprocessing / recycling. It was only later, at the end of the '70s and into the '80s that Congress outlawed reprocessing / recycling in the US, and passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in the early '80s which said the USA would not reprocess / recycle but would use a "once through" fuel cycle with geologic repository storage.

Fast reactor technology dominated in the '70s and early '80s as the DOE was pushing the Clinch River demonstration plant. That got cancelled in the early '80s.

Argonne then did the IFR work until 1994 when President Clinton cancelled that too.

Again a lot of the research really doesn't have to do with what was promising or not. The research that gets done is the research the politicians fund, and I'm still attempting to figure out how they chose what and why.

PamW

[SkatmanRoth]

20. Ten years and $30,000,000,000 will do the trick

Unfortunately, the first people there won't be Lockheed; it will be the Chinese.

Fusion in this case refers to merging two atoms into a single, heavier atom. In bonding, excess energy from the atoms is released, and if the amount released is higher than the amount that hit the two particles to merge them, the result is fusion energy. This is what researcher Omar Hurricane and his colleagues successfully demonstrated, via laser, at the lab’s National Ignition Facility, or NIF, last August. On Wednesday, the team published their findings in the journal Nature, making it official.

First, there are actually two types of fusion: inertial and magnetic. Hurricane’s paper demonstrating fusion with lasers involves the inertial type. The other type of fusion, also called magnetic confinement fusion, uses hot gas encased in a giant ring to squish atoms together to produce energy. While the U.S. has several ongoing magnetic fusion projects, so do many other countries. And China hosts one of the most significant magnetic fusion centers in the world, the HT-7 Tokamak facility in the city if Hefei.

“They’re investing. They’ve really been very diligent in pursuing next generation energy technologies with consistent support, as opposed to what you’re seeing in the U.S., which is difficulty maintaining consistent effort moving forward because of budget variability,” said Paul Roege, program manager at Idaho National Laboratory and a retired Army colonel. China has contributed $2.1 billion to a $21 billion international project called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor and is also spending more internally.

“The Chinese are training 2,000 scientists to take advantage of the gains in international research [into fusion],” Andrew Holland of the American Security Project said. “Similar things are happening in Russia and South Korea. The U.S. is very much in danger of being left behind.”

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/02/americas-fusion-race-china-heating-so-why-washington-going-cold/78848/?oref=d-channelriver