Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Nuclear Energy Still Relevant?

Nuclear Energy Still Relevant?

pollyokeefe - 29-1-2015 at 16:06

I'm not sure if this is the right place, particularly for a beginner post. But through literature and theatre, I have become fascinated by nuclear energy -in particular - Leo Szilard and Marie Curie (in addition to Einstein). Nuclear energy seems like a smart alternative energy to investigate that the world should be looking at, but with Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters it doesn't seem like people would even consider it as a large-scale energy alternative. Wind and solar power don't seem to have any traction to work on a large scale. Are there other alternatives? By the time fossil fuels completely run out, will we have any alternative in place?

I'm sorry if this isn't the most coherent/logical question or if it's posted in the wrong place. I'm new at all of this science-y stuff.

Thank you for your time.

Chemosynthesis - 29-1-2015 at 16:28

Definitely still relevant. Check the energy production statistics for the impressive amount of global and national energy (in different countries) that is provided by nuclear reaction. In my opinion, it is clearly already a large scale energy production method, and an alternative to pure fossil fuels.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World...
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=207&t=3

As far as predictive extrapolations, not only do I shy away from them as a general rule, I am unqualified in the field to do so even if the desire existed.

diddi - 29-1-2015 at 17:02

at the risk of engaging in what could rapidly turn into a political argument, my position is that nuclear fuels would be a very useful stopgap technology in the transition to mankind living within its sustainable energy usage boundaries.

quite simply, in a couple of hundred years we have raped the planet of carbon fuels that took millions of years to form, resulting in the climate issues with which we now live. We need to work a lot smarter to become totally reliant on renewable energies at a global level.

the reason IMHO the nuclear technology and other (wind etc) have lost traction is due to the greedy oil/coal industry that see their days numbered. they recoil against alternative technologies with vehemence and hold huge political clout. if oil/coal companies had to be accountable for the pollution that the use of fossil fuels produces, they would all be broke.

we should have been working toward high efficiency solar/renewable energy resources with much greater vigour than we have, but it is easier to say that it is too expensive than to set in place a long term plan. even if it takes 50-100 years to develop properly, the R&D time lag could be covered very well by nuclear fuels which immediately reduce the use of fossil fuels remaining.

the argument people offer that nuclear is too dangerous, is certainly valid but when one looks at the most recent accident at fukushima daiichi, one has to admit that it was an incident waiting to happen. in 20/20 hindsight, what government in their right mind would allow the construction of a nuclear power plant on a fault zone and then allow it to stand for more than 40 years without substantial upgrades in construction technologies and proper maintenance. this accident was not the fault of nuclear power; it was an example of gross incompetence, which 1000s of people are paying for now.

if a tiny proportion of profits from the oil sector was directed to nuclear reactor research we would have an excellent transition technology whilst we work on renewable energies. ultimately, whatever fuel we dig up and exploit will run out. imagine mankind in a few of hundred years... researchers are developing some incredible materials from a rare resource called oil. the materials dubbed "plastic" prove very useful and researchers lament the scarcity of this resource. flicking through some ancient repositories of knowledge stored on paper, they discover that the resource so valuable was once abundant, but that it had been burnt!

Etaoin Shrdlu - 29-1-2015 at 17:27

Yes, of course it is. Unfortunately people are terrified of it.

j_sum1 - 29-1-2015 at 17:52

Not only is it relevant, it is potentially, if done properly, one of the cleanest and safest options available. There are some ifs though.
As I understand it, modern reactor designs are far superior to what was built years ago.
They are capital intensive and require a certain political will to get them off the ground.
The general public does not understand nuclear power and mostly the political will and hence finance is not there.

plante1999 - 29-1-2015 at 21:14

Quote: Originally posted by diddi

exploit will run out. imagine mankind in a few of hundred years... researchers are developing some incredible materials from a rare resource called oil. the materials dubbed "plastic" prove very useful and researchers lament the scarcity of this resource. flicking through some ancient repositories of knowledge stored on paper, they discover that the resource so valuable was once abundant, but that it had been burnt!

You know you can easily make oil using biomass, although not relevant now, in this dystopia you are talking about, scientist would certainly have started making oil out of biomass.

I find such "apocalyptic" thoughts a bit stupid. Carbon is very damn common on earth surface and there is plenty of solar energy to reduce it to an usable state.

IrC - 30-1-2015 at 00:45

Quote: Originally posted by plante1999

I find such "apocalyptic" thoughts a bit stupid

So true. Too bad students no longer listen to old dead people before paying so much money to be brainwashed with mindless hysteria and fear.

"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out." Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

Fulmen - 30-1-2015 at 10:02

Not only is it relevant, until someone gets fusion working (Lockheed?) it's the only globally viable CO2-neutral energy source. There simply isn't any other technologies available today that can replace oil and coal, none. And modern breeder designs can not only produce far more energy with far less waste than the currently used designs, it can even use todays stockpile of waste and weapons-grade Pu putting that madness into good use.
Accidents? Most were due to poorly designed reactors. Remember that these were based on the very first designs made for naval vessels, many safety features had to be bolted on as the design was inherently unsafe by todays standard and ill suited for the upscaling. Neither the Chernobyl nor Fukushima incidents could have happened in a modern design like the Integral Fast Reactor: "Back in 1986, we actually gave a small [20 MWe] prototype advanced fast reactor a couple of chances to melt down. It politely refused both times".
The fact is that fission has been judged on the merits of the crudest of all designs, a design intended as a small stepping stone to better and safer reactors. And as the consensus of global warming grows I've noticed (wishful thinking perhaps) a slight change in attitudes. Still to early to tell, but we could see a new dawn for nuclear energy in the future.

careysub - 30-1-2015 at 11:11

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1

...
They are capital intensive and require a certain political will to get them off the ground.
The general public does not understand nuclear power and mostly the political will and hence finance is not there.

Bingo!

The capital cost of nuclear plants is what is holding them back.

It is a straight-up bottom line investment decision. When building a new power plant there is always a fossil fuel alternative to nuclear power, coal or natural gas. Nuclear power always loses with either one, since the payback time (and thus risk) is greater. Against natural gas in the U.S., even coal loses, when the cost of a "clean" coal plant is considered.

To overcome this obstacle special favors have to be granted to nuclear power - special subsidized financing, a government mandate, penalties for carbon release, it has to be something.

France, China and South Korea provide these types of support, which is why all of them are building new plants, and have a higher proportion of their national energy mix from nuclear power.

In addition, the most cost effective way of meeting power demands is to lower them. New technology to increase energy efficiency is almost always hugely more cost-effective than building new power plants, so this also competes with building new power plants of whatever type.

Fulmen - 30-1-2015 at 11:28

Quote: Originally posted by careysub

In addition, the most cost effective way of meeting power demands is to lower them.

True, as long as you don't fall for the environmentalists pipe dream of reducing total global energy consumption.
There are very real limits to energy efficiency, and as long as the "net" energy consumption continues to rise the total power consumption will also increase. And since there is a direct link between energy consumption and quality of life I predict no decrease in growth for the foreseeable future.

As for nuclear energy I don't think it needs any special favors. All you have to do is to calculates ALL the costs of energy production, anything from human lives lost during mining to the effect it has on climate.

careysub - 30-1-2015 at 11:44

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

Not only is it relevant, until someone gets fusion working (Lockheed?) it's the only globally viable CO2-neutral energy source. There simply isn't any other technologies available today that can replace oil and coal, none. And modern breeder designs can not only produce far more energy with far less waste than the currently used designs, it can even use todays stockpile of waste and weapons-grade Pu putting that madness into good use.

Commercial fusion power is not coming within the working life of any human now alive.

The Lockheed 'project' has no credibility (this sort of press release fusion technology comes along every few years).

There is only one known fusion technology that we have reasonable confidence can be turned into an actual power plant (the tokamak system used in ITER). The earliest an actual commercial scale plant might begin operating is 2050 or so, but it won't be built because it would be the most expensive form of electricity in the world, unable to compete with any alternative. The capital cost of fusion power dwarfs that of fission power, which already suffers from excessive capital costs.

Existing* breeder reactor technology is far too expensive**, but it is also unnecessary. There is enough uranium in seawater to provide 10,000 years of power with current burner reactor technology, at a much lower cost. Technologies to extract uranium from seawater have been field tested that are already cost-effective enough to support commercial nuclear power.

The waste problem is quite manageable, and the most cost-effective solution is already in widespread, near universal use, if only people would be willing to admit it.

It is simply to leave spent fuel rods in concrete casks after their initial pool cooling period. This is what most everyone is doing right now, and there is no compelling technical reason to change it. The casks could be kept on storage sites for centuries, the dry fuel is stable.

*There are theoretical designs for various complex integrated breeding/burning systems that might be cost effective, if they actually work as hoped, if and when they are developed and built.

**There are several reasons for this. The cost of reprocessing spent fuel is much higher than the cost of enriching natural uranium, and then the fuel produced is far more costly to handle. With plutonium containing fuel everything is much more expensive. Also note, that the amount of energy available in nuclear weapon fissile material is trivial from the commercial power point of view.

careysub - 30-1-2015 at 11:57

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

Quote: Originally posted by careysub

In addition, the most cost effective way of meeting power demands is to lower them.

I agree, total energy usage will go up. But the most efficient wealthy nations are far more efficient than the worst, and so all world energy usage can track the most efficient nations. Austria is in a cold climate and is a wealthy nation, but uses half of the energy of the U.S. per dollar of economic output.

Quote:

As for nuclear energy I don't think it needs any special favors. All you have to do is to calculates ALL the costs of energy production, anything from human lives lost during mining to the effect it has on climate.

Calculating those costs doesn't get a plant built. Those costs are external costs, that a plant owner will ignore, unless forced to take into account by special legislation and regulation. And of course the plant owners, and fossil fuel suppliers, will lobby in public and private that all those external costs are bogus, and will have many legislators and pundits taking their money and agreeing. This is the situation that exists right now. Got any ideas for changing it?

Even if the we leave externalities aside, and look only at the cost of plant operation over its lifetime (this is called the levelized cost of ownership), and we show that a nuclear powerplant competes well - as it does - this is still not enough to get a plant built because no industry exec cares about "the cost of plant operation over its lifetime". They will have retired decades before that lifetime ends, and will likely change jobs in only a few years. Only next year's balance sheet matters. Only governments care about such long term things (if even they do, recent U.S. experience shows that often they don't).

Fulmen - 30-1-2015 at 12:05

I don't disagree on anything in particular, my point was to show that virtually all objections that have been raised can be solved with current or proposed designs. The most important benefit of more modern designs is the increased safety. For a sub with it's limited space it makes perfect sense to fill it with fuel for many years of service, but for a land based power plant it's bordering on insanity. It wasn't chosen because it was an good solution (especially when upscaled) but rather because it was an available solution. Developing new reactor designs takes a lot of work, so to save time they chose to use this design for the first power plants.

Everybody expected it to be a short term solution until breeders came online, and that strategic error has tainted the whole field ever since.

roXefeller - 30-1-2015 at 13:42

I'm thick into a design of a nuclear core at work, to be used here in the US. I'm familiar with the awesomeness. The nuclear energy business is extremely relevant. It is a field full of technological improvements every year. The sky is the limit for us to make bigger improvements beyond the already safe operating history here in the US and Europe. But as mentioned, it needs the continued political will of the government and population. I'd put one in my backyard for sure.

Finance is there, but until permitting bureaucrats stop putting the chains on the door of new facilities ready to go online with a billion already spent ... if you legislate for it, financiers will come.

My $0.02

careysub - 31-1-2015 at 09:37

Quote: Originally posted by roXefeller

...
Finance is there, but until permitting bureaucrats stop putting the chains on the door of new facilities ready to go online with a billion already spent ... if you legislate for it, financiers will come.

When in your estimation have bureaucrats in the U.S. last (or ever) done this? (My answer: see below.)

I hate to lecture someone actually employed in the nuclear power industry on this, but I have followed this issue pretty closely from the hey-day of nuclear power construction in the late 1960s (I was a precocious kid) down to the present day, and am dismayed by the fixed, hoary, inaccurate notions nuclear power proponents tend to have (I count myself a proponent BTW).

A short lesson in nuclear power in the U.S.:

The was a big boom in nuclear power construction in the U.S. in the late 1960s and early 1970s at a time of rapidly rising per capita electricity demand. In this surge of construction the technology was quite young, and so was safety regulation for these plants. During the 1970s safety regulation tightened, causing costs at plants under construction to rise, but this was a transient phenomenon confined to that one decade.

In the mid 1970s, when a couple of hundred nuclear power units were in various phases of development, electricity demand abruptly stopped growing, and remained flat for several years, then in the 1980s resumed on a slower trend line.

These two factors, rising costs, and the disappearance of the anticipated demand, led to the financial collapse of 100+ projects, most spectacularly the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS).

There was one, and only one, power plant that was built, but shuttered without ever going into production - Shoreham on Long Island. The problem with this plant is that it was started in the 60s without much regard to siting issues. Evacuating most of the island required going past the plant. When it came time to develop emergency evacuation plans, this was a fatal problem. The plant should never have been built at that site.

After 1980 administration of the NRC was under extremely pro-nuclear administrations for 12 years, yet not a single plant project was started (until 2013, no new projects has started since 1977). It was strictly economics and finance.

Even after the Reagan-Bush years, the U.S. government has remained basically pro-nuclear even under Democratic administrations, with stable regulatory requirements.

Plant-shuttering anti-nuclear bureaucrats are not holding the nuclear industry in the U.S. back. Shoreham, 30 years ago, was the last occurrence where that characterization could be made, and that was for a unique siting reason.

Financiers will come right now, if power companies actually want to build new nuclear plants. This is proven by the fact that there are currently five units under construction. No new legislation on this count required.

But mostly power companies would rather build natural gas plants which cost less, and turn a profit faster. Financiers don't build plants, they only fund projects that power companies want to build.

(I note a certain cognitive dissonance among many nuclear power supporters who argue that modern advanced plants are much safer than the old ones, and that disasters like Fukushima involved old plant designs, but seem unwilling to admit that the original safety requirements were inadequate and the tightening in the 1970s was genuinely necessary.)

[Edited on 31-1-2015 by careysub]

Molecular Manipulations - 31-1-2015 at 10:57

Quote: Originally posted by pollyokeefe

[...]but with Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters it doesn't seem like people would even consider it as a large-scale energy alternative.

And the most unfortunate thing is, people seem to think that Chernobyl was an unforeseeable accident, that could happen again at any time.
In fact based on how they ran it, it would be a surprise if none of them exploded.
From Wikipedia:

Quote:

The catastrophic accident was caused by gross violations of operating rules and regulations. "During preparation and testing of the turbine generator under run-down conditions using the auxiliary load, personnel disconnected a series of technical protection systems and breached the most important operational safety provisions for conducting a technical exercise."

They were testing the thing while running it, and turned off nearly all of the safety systems.
On the subject of the disconnection of safety systems, Valery Legasov said, in 1987, "It was like airplane pilots experimenting with the engines in flight."
To which I would add, "it's like airplane pilots experimenting with the engines in flight, the autopilot off, the throttle on full-power, flying straight down with the controls locked."
"What a shock it exploded! I guess airplanes aren't safe anymore."

Quote:

The reactor operators disabled safety systems down to the generators, which the test was really about. The main process computer, SKALA, was running in such a way that the main control computer could not shut down the reactor or even reduce power. Normally the reactor would have started to insert all of the control rods. The computer would have also started the "Emergency Core Protection System" that introduces 24 control rods into the active zone within 2.5 seconds, which is still slow by 1986 standards. All control was transferred from the process computer to the human operators.

This view is reflected in numerous publications and also artistic works on the theme of the Chernobyl accident that appeared immediately after the accident, and for a long time remained dominant in the public consciousness and in popular publications.

And this is why we can't have nice things.
Well, and this of course!

[Edited on 1-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

The Volatile Chemist - 31-1-2015 at 11:03

I like the small scale nuclear power devices the USSR used, does anyone know what they were called? They absorbed heat emissions by use of thermocouples, and were used for powering small Siberian bases.

Fulmen - 31-1-2015 at 12:07

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

In fact based on how they ran it, it would be a surprise if none of them exploded.

Exactly. This was not an accident caused by inherent dangers with fission, this was gross negligence with a seriously outdated reactor design. IIRC the plant directors experience was with coal fired plants and regarded this facility as yet another boiler.

Unlike incidents like Windscale caused by limited understanding and experience with the Wigner effect (and a pretty rudimentary reactor design to put it mildly) the xenon poisoning that occurred at the Chernobyl plant was well understood at the time (but obviously not by the operators).

macckone - 31-1-2015 at 19:47

Chernobyl was a much older design.
Specifically it was a 1950s design.
Three mile island was also an older design.
Fukushima was also a 1970s design.
After Three mile island, new designs were developed that are
much safer. One such design is the pebble bed reactor.

As for fusion, there is strong evidence that lockheed is on to
something. For one the oil market has basically collapsed.
This may indicate that people with more insight really think
there has been a significant breakthrough.

Another is that they are part of the defense industry not the
energy industry. Their design is intended to power rail guns
which have huge power requirements.

There are also rumors that the Iran negotiations involve the
US transferring fusion technology in exchange for shutting
down their fission program. If this is true, then the fusion
tech must be further along than lockheed lets on.

Chemosynthesis - 1-2-2015 at 00:42

I doubt international oil markets, predominantly Saudi Arabia as a swing OPEC member are informed of Lockheed's proprietary information. I am under the impression the Saudis are using their oil to undermine Iran and ISIS/ISIL both at their own whim, and as political leverage with the U.S. (additionally impacting the ruble). Could you put some context on the rumors you mention?

Plenty of people with more nuclear experience than Lockheed (my respect to McGuire, though some at his alma mater are equally sceptical) lets on are extremely dubious of what little they have released, and by their own claims, had apparently yet to make functional prototypes or collect data by the time of their ambitious press release. I suspect they are grant/contract fishing. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531836/does-lockheed-ma...

It doesn't always take congruence with data to make a case for Uncle Sugar's beneficence, and there is a lot to go around. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif2/execsum.asp
Compare with ARPA-E/DOE funding deadlines....

Fulmen - 1-2-2015 at 02:01

Fukushima was actually built in the 60's, but the real point is that it and almost every reactor in the world past and current is based on the first generation designs. The Fukushima plant was already past it's 40 years life expectancy when the accident happened.
The real problem the way I see it is that the opposition to nuclear power made it impossible to build new plants, while our energy dependency makes it impossible to phase the old ones out.
As macckone said there are better working designs now, like the pebble bed. While not perfect in any way a Chernobyl or Fukushima-style incident is pretty much impossible.

There is also some debate over the dangers of radiation, specifically the use of the linear no threshold-model (LNT). "Radiation and Reason” by Wade Allison discusses this, and while his view has also been criticized it is well worth reading. I think that his best argument is the fact that radiation therapy does not rely on LNT.

As for Lockheeds fusion I don't know what to think. I haven't seen any real data on their proposed design, and if it were any others I'd call it pure vapor-ware. But when one considers what their Skunk Works department has pulled off in the past I have a hard time calling it BS without more information. Time will tell I guess.

macckone - 1-2-2015 at 10:10

Chemosynthesis> The amount of oil opec is producing has not
changed. Demand has increased but the price is down. The
economics of supply and demand would tend to indicate
something else is pushing down prices. As the major buyers are
now setting the price, they may know something we don't. What
that something is can be open to question. There is an obvious
decrease in predicted future demand driving the fall in prices.
Does it mean economic collapse or alternative technology taking
off?

Given the timing in relationship to the lockheed announcement, I
am going out on a limb and say they may be on to something.

Although toroidal magnetic confinement has been the focus of most
research, mirror confinement showed a lot of promise before the
defunding in the 80s and 90s. lockheed's design is based on mirror
confinement. If they have a theoretical breakthrough in containment
mirror ratios then the problem is solved if their hypothesis holds up
in the real world.

[Edited on 1-2-2015 by macckone]

roXefeller - 1-2-2015 at 12:58

Quote: Originally posted by careysub

Quote: Originally posted by roXefeller

When in your estimation have bureaucrats in the U.S. last (or ever) done this? (My answer: see below.)

[Edited on 31-1-2015 by careysub]

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

The reason for the combined license was to aid financiers from losing their investments. Prior to this regulation (though a while ago), utilities would obtain capital and a construction license and finance the construction of a facility. But during the construction anti-nuke organizations would litigate the company in the court system and prevent issuance of the operating permit after construction was complete. It can be argued that the litigation was to highlight safety deficiencies in the design that weren't apparent until construction was underway. But it also left open the possibility of abuse.

Chemosynthesis - 1-2-2015 at 13:18

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

Chemosynthesis> The amount of oil opec is producing has not
changed.

OPEC can lower prices simply by not reducing production, and Saudi Arabia has considerable sway there. In fact, according to this, OPEC oil production is up and you are mistaken: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102384018
Please feel free to cite where your production numbers are from so I can have the opportunity to criticize my link.

Quote:

Demand has increased but the price is down. The
economics of supply and demand would tend to indicate
something else is pushing down prices. As the major buyers are
now setting the price, they may know something we don't.

Oil demand is actually down, and you are not taking into account how options affect demand. When the expected future demand for oil decreases, as happens when economies slow (China, for example), prices change accordingly.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/ec...
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2014/10/14...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-plays-big-role-in-oil...
I am interested in your rumors as previously noted, but I would like some kind of attribution or source rather than speculation. Not trying to be argumentative, but given the people I've socialized with, I see zero reason to expect proprietary information from Lockheed, with no apparent data, to impact an international energy market. Other things to account for are substitute goods, or alternative sources such as cheap coal, fracking, etc. These actually exist now, and my opinion is that they are far more important to "major buyers" whether they are more fond of technical or fundamental analysts.

And sure, Lockheed could be onto something unbelievable, despite the link I posted earlier where a "professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT and one of the principal investigators at the MIT fusion research reactor" (Ian Hutchinson) criticized the cartoon depiction in Lockheed's press release, and I would expect him to be passingly familiar with reactor designs moreso than the general public, at least more than I with my relatively sparse coursework in nuclear/radiological physics and chemistry. I'm not one to appeal to authority, but Lockheed has government funding and stock prices to cater to, whereas I doubt MIT faculty does in quite the same sense. And yeah, Lockheed did actually release it right during a big .gov funding cycle for applications (I have seen that game many times before), but it is certainly possible I could be overly critical.

'$30 million award “to develop and demonstrate low-cost tools to aid in the development of fusion power.”'
http://defensetech.org/2014/10/16/scientists-skeptical-of-lo...
Defense.org
Given the timing, you say they might be onto something. I say they are cognizant of their funding deadlines, as any good R&D division should be.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious of how you are formulating your position of relative acceptance. I see solid data with a lot of promise every day, and the vast majority of it never ends up worth public consumption.

[Edited on 1-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 1-2-2015 at 16:02

It's important to remember that if Lockheed did have something, they wouldn't be giving it away, so an MIT professor pointing out their press release doesn't contain plans for a working fusion reactor doesn't mean much.

But yes, funding deadlines indeed.

Chemosynthesis - 1-2-2015 at 19:58

I'm not expecting full schematics, but this marketing pitch is pretty sketchy: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.htm...

I thought Boeing/LM used more benchmarks in their F35 public pitches. But my point is, if the guy who runs the alma mater's nuclear reactor isn't impressed with the idea, what counsel would an unspecified oil purchaser have? I don't understand the reasoning.

[Edited on 2-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

macckone - 1-2-2015 at 20:42

This link provides more details: http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compa...

From the looks of this, they have actually managed to produce
more energy from their test unit than they have put in. Not
huge, given that tokamaks have been doing that for over a
decade. The significant claim is long term containment. Tokamaks broke one second last year. The fact that they are
using a magnetic mirror design rather a tokamak design is
significant. Notice that when they say that it is 5 years to
develop a prototype, they are talking about a unit that actually
puts out usable energy. This is not the same as a unit that
actually produces fusion. Producing fusion for a sustained time
and using less energy than you put in are the key factors.

One important thing to note is that there is no evidence they
even applied for outside funding. There is speculation by people
working on ITER who will be out of a job before their project
is finished if this works. We will know if they received a grant
in a couple of months, since that information is public record.
If they were doing it for funding then we can be fairly certain
this was a funding deadline publicity stunt. If they didn't apply
for funding then we can be fairly certain they think they are
onto something.

Another thing to note is that there has been some underfunded
efforts for this type of research going on for some time. This is
not the same as cold fusion. Lockheed skunk works is known for
producing miracles. Usually 400% over budget and a couple of
years late. but they have been known for their delivery of things
everyone says is impossible.

As for the energy market.
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/
Demand has been rising but the opec output has been flat for
the last two quarters. The larger market has climbed somewhat
but the fall in prices doesn't have a good explanation except for
a belief that somehow supply will significantly exceed demand
which it isn't currently doing.

Chemosynthesis - 1-2-2015 at 22:28

Thanks for the links. I hope I'm not de-railing the thread too much (OP shut me up if so!)

Energy market first: The way I read your link, it seems to support my statement on energy futures dramatically decreasing, impacting prices and causing a potential surplus.
"The price of oil continued to collapse into January as rising supplies collided with weak demand growth and OPEC maintained its commitment to not cut production." According to your link, world oil supply is in fact up, as I stated. 94.31mb/d.
It also doesn't take into account substitutes, as I said, but seems to support my view.

As for substitute goods, coal and natural gas, in particular, have been much cheaper alternatives among late:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-12/cheap-natu...
http://www.iea.org/publications/insights/insightpublications...

Another issue is the Keystone Pipeline, and various coal export projects proposed frequently by Ambre Energy, subsidiaries, and competitors (Millennium Bulk Terminals, Gateway Pacific, Longview, etc.) Artificially lowering oil prices with a higher OPEC production than expected demand (futures market again) might reduce the incentives for these. Additionally, the Saudis can not only exert pressure on rivals Iran and ISIS/ISIL, but I failed to mention Syria, which is strongly tied to Russia. This has to win political cachet with the U.S. as well.

"The larger market has climbed somewhat
but the fall in prices doesn't have a good explanation except for
a belief that somehow supply will significantly exceed demand
which it isn't currently doing." With respect, this seems to be purely your opinion.

As for fusion, I'm aware of the fact that there are different methods of confinement, and that cold fusion isn't hot fusion... and I'm not sure why you seem to think underfunded efforts on nuclear fusion necessarily apply to Lockheed's success, or how their admirable history, despite the standard government cost overruns and rosy estimates, has bearing on a new project. I've worked for plenty of miracle providers, but they all can fail. Sometimes their success is measured solely by how much money you can throw at them, which translates into who you can hire, resources, writing off failure, etc. Plenty of people complaining about LM lately who would use what they consider recent failures to argue against them. I'm more interested in the solid publications than speculating either way, but I see no reason to believe their PR yet.

This line of thinking about reactors being different (as all are, in their own ways) seems to reduce to the design being different, so it is more likely to succeed... and according to LM, be smaller, cheaper, and have faster production with no contamination, etc. In fact, the link you provided reads to me as though there is little if any substantial data, and confinement is still being tested.

"Preliminary simulations and experimental results “have been very promising and positive,” McGuire says. “The latest is a magnetized ion confinement experiment, and preliminary measurements show the behavior looks like it is working correctly. We are starting with the plasma confinement, and that’s where we are putting most of our effort. One of the reasons we are becoming more vocal with our project is that we are building up our team as we start to tackle the other big problems. We need help and we want other people involved. It’s a global enterprise, and we are happy to be leaders in it.” -- your second link. Where are you finding
"From the looks of this, they have actually managed to produce
more energy from their test unit than they have put in."

I see no reason to expect any actual return as no fusion appears to take place yet.... There is certainly no reporting of a Q value of any kind. Sounds to me like they are putting Kelly's 7th rule over the 10th. If you could point out where you're finding that, I would be appreciative.

macckone - 2-2-2015 at 01:26

I was basing 'looks like' on the actual picture of it in operation.
Not very scientific I admit. But unless it is all for a government
Grant, I don't think it is that hyped. This isn't as revolutionary
As the announcement seems. More evolutionary. No large
Mirror reactors have been built due to funding cuts, but
Small scale experiments have still been progressing.

In any case, they are saying they will have a working prototype
Before iter comes online. If they are right there are going to be
Some very unhappy governments and out of work scientists.

Could it all be a funding ploy? Yes.
But given the information available I don't think they are
Stretching the truth. Them being honest doesn't mean they are
right. To get venture capital they need evidence.
And my bet is on the venture capital front.
ie big money guys have more information and are driving
Oil prices.

Chemosynthesis - 2-2-2015 at 03:28

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

Could it all be a funding ploy? Yes.
But given the information available I don't think they are
Stretching the truth. Them being honest doesn't mean they are
right. To get venture capital they need evidence.
And my bet is on the venture capital front.
ie big money guys have more information and are driving
Oil prices.

Who said anything about lying? They projected very vague, idealistic hypotheticals. I'm sure they want private equity and possible subcontractors, but if anything, they will have some pertinent patent applications on file before somehow colluding with a shadow cabal of oil manipulators while failing to impress people with reactor expertise. Most intelligence, business or otherwise, comes from open source materials. Why some select oil purchasing cabal would have inside scoop is inexplicable. Demand is down globally. Futures are down. Production is up, and not decreasing to meet reduced expectations. You can have another opinion, obviously, but I see no data to back it up.
I know plenty of exceedingly wealthy angel investors, and doubt they drive oil prices that much. Even the moderately wealthy investors I know tend to want some fundamental analysis prior to taking a get rich quick or game changing deal. The ones who don't tend to lose everything pretty quickly.

The top oil importing countries, the U.S., China, Japan, and India have slowing economies. That alone will offset demand and futures projections.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-gdp-growth-slows-to-5-3-1...
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA1F0XF20140217?irpc...
They are not alone. Do the math on their global demand. It is huge. Pick any country in the top half of oil consumption... Brazil (oddly reliant on oil imports despite what was once a very lucrative petrobras stock price), Mexico, Germany. All slow.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mexicos-economy-is-slowing-sh...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-14/german-inv...
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA0M04I20140123?irpc...
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21608643-confidence-a...

Europe is switching to some substitutes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-15/eu-gas-tra...

As an aside, there has been a large magnetic mirror built. Lawrence Livermore National Labs Mirror Fusion Test Facility B. It's just that funding precluded its activation. I don't care who runs the program or how much money they have... I was taught both in school and through work that it's irrelevant. Absent any data on that front, all the insulation and diversion of loose plasma doesn't necessarily impress. Could new divertors and insulation theoretically solve leaks in the precursor TMU-X that purportedly influenced the MFTFB shutdown? Any math equation can be written. Doesn't seem to convince many in the community without published data from trials I don't see listed anywhere per your sources. Some of those same people taught me a small amount of what they knew, and while many of them are no longer around, their lessons still ring true. No need to tell me about the theoretical differences in energy production if you can't cite a Q value. No word on confinement times either. I am aware that there is more than one type of Q value too, so you need to be careful if you do end up citing anything. I've spoken on that kind of conundrum elsewhere. More on TMU-X leaks:
http://inspire.ornl.gov/Document/View/9785458b-33e3-4b8b-aba...

The timing just seems way too convenient to not try and get government money. I don't work at ITER or have a conflict of interest, and that's my opinion from seeing it in action elsewhere. We'll just have to see, assuming the whole project doesn't go completely black.

[Edited on 3-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

gregxy - 2-2-2015 at 10:41

Here is some more info on the Lockheed fusor.

www.google.com/patents/US20140301518

And some more here:

www.physicsforums.com/threads/lockheed-skunkworks-fusion-pla...

careysub - 2-2-2015 at 13:54

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

This link provides more details: http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compa...

From the looks of this, they have actually managed to produce
more energy from their test unit than they have put in. Not
huge, given that tokamaks have been doing that for over a
decade. The significant claim is long term containment. Tokamaks broke one second last year.

What have they actually done (not simulated, not planned, not projected)?

From the article (after wading through 17 paragraphs of background, biography, and hype, err, "projections") in the very last paragraph:

"Preliminary simulations and experimental results “have been very promising and positive,” McGuire says. “The latest is a magnetized ion confinement experiment, and preliminary measurements show the behavior looks like it is working correctly. We are starting with the plasma confinement, and that’s where we are putting most of our effort. "

In other words they have some preliminary physics experiments testing some aspects of their concept. They have no "test unit".

This is an early stage research project, one of hundreds that have come and gone over the last 60 years.

But progress is built on what went before, and the increasing power of computers, and increasingly sophisticated simulation software, continually brings new tools to the bear.

New designs that will work better than the tokamak are certainly possible. But until this work is much more advanced, it is impossible to say that it will not be yet another cul-de-sac on the road to fusion power.

It will still face the capital cost problem to be competitive, and the problem of the breeding blanket.*

*The problem I allude to is being able to build one with the necessary extreme neutron economy needed to produce as much tritium as the reactor consumes. D+T produced on neutron, and one neutron is needed to produce one atom of T. Neutron multiplying reactions exist, but the multiplication factor is not large (unless it is fission**) and neutron loss is inevitable.

**Non-critical fusion-fission reactors are a plausible approach, in many ways the easiest way to produce power using fusion (it uses essentially free depleted uranium, a far larger amount of energy is released in the blanket outside of those cryogenic coils, it has a large energy gain that pure fusion lacks, etc.) but produces radioactive waste just like a conventional fission plant.

Fulmen - 2-2-2015 at 14:11

I think what makes people suspect that they are onto something is that it seems a bit "out of character" for Lockheed to pull a stunt like this if they didn't have an ace up their sleeve. That company has managed to build an image of being miracle workers, but if that's anywhere true I have no idea.

neptunium - 2-2-2015 at 16:51

i am tired of all the ooplah about fusion . i used to get excited with the Farnsworth, tokomak and others that never passed the economical barrier, and/or the break even point.
Fusion is very promissing and attractive but the physics (unless something new comes along) does not support a viable efficient reactor way to cheap energy.
Thorium reactor seems more promising from an economical stand point than any pure fusion reactor.
nature can afford to do it because nature has the entire universe at its disposal . we do not .
maybe a combination of fusion/fission type of reactor could (and i mean could) work, but we are a long way off...
So i don t see any harm in researching the potential of a fusion reactor , hell we could stumble upon a great discovery ! but most of what i`ve seen so far is way off the industrial stage.
but what do i know? if anyone wants to spend money on it i say let them!

careysub - 2-2-2015 at 16:57

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

I think what makes people suspect that they are onto something is that it seems a bit "out of character" for Lockheed to pull a stunt like this if they didn't have an ace up their sleeve. That company has managed to build an image of being miracle workers, but if that's anywhere true I have no idea.

The problem is at this self-admitted early stage of research, they can't know if they are really on to something. Plasma physics is extremely difficult to get to work they way you want it to, and a complete prototype will be needed to confirm their projections, or more likely, point out the unexpected problems that will then need to be overcome.

Tokamak had early successes, the Russians beat the rest of world to many plasma goals in the 1960s, but it has taken 50 years to get to the current point where a system capable of Q >> 1 could be designed (ITER), but even a prototype powerplant is still decades away.

[Edited on 3-2-2015 by careysub]

Chemosynthesis - 2-2-2015 at 18:13

The way I like to look at it is, even in the sun, a self-sustaining fusion reactor, only roughly 1 in 10^22 collisions of 1H+1H results in a successful fusion, according to my old notes. Pretty sure I've posted that elsewhere before. That's a lot of failure, from one perspective, and it's not as though the sun has confinement issues compared to labs on earth.

Until LM starts publishing figures like T ~1-3×10^7K or T >= 5×10^6K, and density of ~100g/cm3, anything numerical as a Q (or various aux/input vs, output power values to calculate this yourself, if they want to obfuscate), etc. their stock photos are just stock photos. All this 5-10 years is standard hype for any R&D investment marketing. I can't even begin to list all the diseases I've seen people claim are 5-10 years from curing... and still plague the world in high numbers. And some people claim LM is not above hype, as they have had some serious polarization in response to their F-35 claims, which actually included numerical projections such as price points.

j_sum1 - 2-2-2015 at 18:33

@Chemosynthesis
Wow!
So, what you are saying is that feasible fusion is a seriously uphill climb and despite a lot of hand-waving, Lockheed cannot possibly be there yet (if ever).

macckone - 2-2-2015 at 20:40

Hydrogen collisions are much lower success rate than deuterium/tritium collisions. I don't have figures.

LM is well known for their cost overruns.
The F-35 program was only 18 months behind schedule
after 10 years, which is pretty good for them.

Any information out of skunkworks is pretty interesting.
Usually they just show up with the finished product.
That division is not at all like the aeronautics division.

Their most successful product was probably the EMP bomb.
Everyone had speculation but until they started dropping
on Baghdad no one actually knew what they would do.
They proved devastating to the power grid.

In any case in a few months we will see if a grant for
fusion work is given to LM. I doubt it, since that
money is tied up by agreement to the ITER.

Chemosynthesis - 2-2-2015 at 21:02

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1

@Chemosynthesis
Wow!
So, what you are saying is that feasible fusion is a seriously uphill climb and despite a lot of hand-waving, Lockheed cannot possibly be there yet (if ever).

That's my opinion based solely on their lack of claiming to the contrary (with the yet part). I can't extrapolate to the ever attaining the goal.

It just doesn't make any sense to me that they would be there, and then not publish any data. If you have workable fusion in such a small package, better in every feasible way than anyone else can produce yet without the vast experience in reactor production and maintenance, as well as some patents coming online, it doesn't make any business sense to me to obscure it and push for a couple five year plans unless you were considering buying back some of the company stock before revaluation. Hyping stock is the reverse of this, and can be useful to negotiate corporate acquisitions, partnerships, etc. which LM claims to be looking for. This is good risk diffusion.

http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/10/lockheed-looks-pa...
"The leader of a proposed compact fusion reactor project says that Lockheed Martin’s decision to lift the lid on its secret effort is an attempt to build a scientific team and find partners."
Big government is one of the most generous partners industry can have in STEM.

"McGuire declined to detail any measurements of plasma temperature, density, or confinement time—the key parameters for a fusion plasma—but said the plasma appeared very stable." There really isn't any reason to keep that information under wraps if you have a working prototype that you think you can market relatively soon, while announcing the project and making extremely incredible projections.

Also this video where the lead McGuire admits it's "high risk, high reward" and that you "learn something new [every design cycle]." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM
This is all speculative language. Note how he says "10 years and we have better military vehicles, 20 years and we have clean energy for everyone." Now all the math is getting fuzzier from that 5 year prototype when it comes to return on investment.

What I'm saying is Lockheed has yet to state that they have attained any fusion anywhere I have seen, shown any data, and that yes... it's a seriously uphill climb. Maybe I'm wrong because I don't do any nuclear reactor designing or maintenance, or I'm not read into some compartmentalized project that has a really strange marketing division, and maybe the people who do have reactor experience are masking their conflict of interest with jealousy despite the lack of data... but I wouldn't hold my breath. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised by a sudden panacea for all of humanity than suckered by promises with nothing backing them up.
More scepticism: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/10/lockheed-mart...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2jbajc/lockheed_...
People can appeal to the authority that is LM Skunk Works if they so choose. As long as we're all on the same page there is no LM data, and oil demand is down with supply up (or not down to account for futures).

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

Hydrogen collisions are much lower success rate than deuterium/tritium collisions. I don't have figures.

I'm aware, and DT has the highest Maxwell-averaged reaction reactivities at any temperature according to my charts, but I was talking about the first portion of the proton-proton chain of the sun; however I incorporated deuterium-hydrogen collisions in my temperature range if you care to verify or cite a different number.
The second reaction I adjusted my temperature for is:
2D+1H -> 3He + 5.49 MeV yields vs the 1.44 MeV of the first chain. Don't have the collision rate on hand, and am too lazy to look it up, as the energy is likely more important for this discussion given that I have supplied the temperature and density. Seems like it's probably a rough 25 orders of magnitude higher for DT, but I don't have a specific temperature for that, or density, so I'm not sure what rounding is applied but it seems reasonable to me glancing at the S factors between the two. I could be mistaken as it has been a long since I have had the joy of looking at these.

I didn't claim that my stellar temperatures were my exact expectation from a reactor (hence the use of "like"), am ware of the lower ignition temperature of DT fusion, but was giving an example I had on hand with units, and was noting that the sun doesn't have confinement issues like we do here on earth for sustained fusion, which Lockheed hasn't touched on publicly. No confinement time. No temps.

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

In any case in a few months we will see if a grant for
fusion work is given to LM. I doubt it, since that
money is tied up by agreement to the ITER.

A grant is not necessarily relevant. Grant application is what matters, being necessary and sufficient here. Sadly, one doesn't just get funding for every grant filed, regardless of what number it has at the top or your name/organization.

[Edited on 3-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

macckone - 3-2-2015 at 11:20

There a number of good reasons to delay producing figures.
Probably the biggest one is they have patentable inventions
that they haven't yet applied for. Their stated goal in releasing
the information is to solicit 'partners'. IF they are as close as
they seem to think, then they probably don't want to sign over
rights that the government requires when they become your
'partner'. That is a big IF. A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.

Looking back over the information they have and assorted links
it looks like they haven't gotten a sustained reaction yet. But they
are aiming for 10 seconds with breeding in a lithium blanket.
They say the concept has been lab tested, which probably means
they have been able to establish a stable contained plasma
and ignite it. They say they have some kind of lab prototype
but don't really say what problems they are having.
Low Q would indicate a problem that is more difficult to overcome.

Dealing with helium poisoning of the reaction mix is another one
that has not really been addressed by anyone including ITER.

Inertial confinement doesn't have that issue but it hasn't really
been very successful either. Getting ignition is easy but getting
a high Q is really hard with inertial confinement.

Chemosynthesis - 3-2-2015 at 12:37

Given the patents Lockheed has already applied for, particularly the ones that appear very vaguely relevant here, I doubt they would have that much difficult in patenting if they have data. The cost of patenting for a large company like LM is miniscule, and if anything, they would be served by overly conservative patent trolling, as is common in industry. Patenting can be annoying, but LM has plenty of lawyers for that, and their process has to be streamlined. Failing to apply for a patent, with such negligible cost, on this kind of high risk, high reward project... when you already have data far in excess of a patent application, and then making an announcement without a pending EPO patent application, and without mentioning various data to protect them under the U.S. FITF, would be insane. Name one business you know that has done this. If the U.S. still used first to file, that might be valid, but it makes no sense to me here.

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

Dealing with helium poisoning of the reaction mix is another one
that has not really been addressed by anyone including ITER.

There are a lot of issues in fusion that have yet to be addressed in any number of reactor designs, but that doesn't mean they are relevant or that Lockheed Martin has, or is going to, solve them, nor was I discussing ITER, NIF, etc. Of course every reactor design has its own strengths and weaknesses, as I said before. Until experiments are done and data published, it's an intellectual exercise.

We are definitely not drawing the same conclusions, and so I doubt either of us are going to get anything of this, but I do appreciate our conversation.

Back more to the original thread, just a week or two ago, Barack Obama mentioned a 2008 agreement with India on nuclear cooperation (the 123 Agreement), and despite reduced Japanese oil use (still third largest users globally), the Institute of Energy Economics Japan continues to push for Fukushima reactivation as an economic boost to the country, hinting at how important nuclear power is diplomatically for some of these nations.

http://www.cfr.org/india/us--india-civil-nuclear-cooperation...

http://www.cfr.org/india/us-india-nuclear-deal/p9663

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/03/us-india-obama-nuc...

Excellent analysis of global and local markets from Japanese perspective: http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/5911.pdf

[Edited on 3-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

careysub - 3-2-2015 at 14:31

Not sure why you are tying electricity to oil - only 4% of electricity worldwide is produced from petroleum, and a similar percentage of world petroleum output is used for electricity. Almost all consumption of oil for electricity is in oil exporting countries (for obvious reasons).

Electricity is produced by coal (40%), gas (23%), hydro (17%), nuclear (11%), oil (4.2%), wind (2.4%), biomass (1.8%), and solar (0.4%). Nuclear competes with coal and gas.

Chemosynthesis - 3-2-2015 at 15:37

That's an excellent point. Unlike my previous mentions of coal and natural gas, I am tying oil and nuclear power together in my last statement, in the context of Japan, due to the shift in Japanese energy markets after Fukushima:
"In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear incident, Japan's energy fuel mix shifted as natural gas, oil, and renewable energy now provide larger shares and supplant some of the nuclear fuel. Oil remains the largest source of primary energy in Japan, although its share of total energy consumption has declined from about 80% in the 1970s to 44% in 2013"
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ja

I understand the global trend (excluding developing, non-OECD countries) is that most oil use globally is for transportation, then chemical feedstock, and it has lost market share in the energy sector for decades on end, but "After the Fukushima incident, Japan has increased imports of crude oil for direct burn in power plants." According to the link, oil energy shares in Japan doubled from 2010-14, from 7-14%, in the wake of Fukushima. Still a minor proportion of total energy, but a relatively large jump.