|
Title: 100 MW station Post by: CanaryInTheMine on October 15, 2014, 04:55:47 PM This is huge: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy/
edit: oops, meant to post one level up in hardware... contacted mod to move. Title: Re: 100 MW station Post by: Ski72 on October 15, 2014, 05:22:56 PM Talk about cheap and efficient source of energy for the network ...
Title: Re: 100 MW station Post by: philipma1957 on October 15, 2014, 05:24:39 PM This is huge: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy/ edit: oops, meant to post one level up in hardware... contacted mod to move. if true it is the biggest leap in electrical power supply source in more then 75 years. It would mean cleaner air no coal plants for power. Nice find. Title: Re: 100 MW station Post by: mwizard on October 15, 2014, 08:48:14 PM This is huge: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy/ The article has some major errors which makes me wonder about the author. For example the following sentence: "U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle." Submarines and aircraft carriers do not have a fusion reactor. The author seems to be confusing the very different fusion and fission nuclear processes. Also reactors are not replaced on a regular cycle. Possibly the author meant they need to be fuelled on a regular cycle. If you want to see what is involved in building a real fusion reactor see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER and www.iter.org. This is an international 10-20 billion dollar project to build a working fusion reactor. It is an international effort similar in size to that for the International Space Station and the Large Hadron Collider. Title: Re: 100 MW station Post by: CanaryInTheMine on October 15, 2014, 08:58:11 PM This is huge: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy/ The article has some major errors which makes me wonder about the author. For example the following sentence: "U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle." Submarines and aircraft carriers do not have a fusion reactor. The author seems to be confusing the very different fusion and fission nuclear processes. Also reactors are not replaced on a regular cycle. Possibly the author meant they need to be fuelled on a regular cycle. If you want to see what is involved in building a real fusion reactor see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER and www.iter.org. This is an international 10-20 billion dollar project to build a working fusion reactor. It is an international effort similar in size to that for the International Space Station and the Large Hadron Collider. Title: Re: 100 MW station Post by: mwizard on October 15, 2014, 09:33:30 PM It may be useful to read this article which seems to actually quote what McGuire/Lockheed say and be much more accurate.
http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details One more example of errors, McGuire says "The early reactors will be designed ... to fit into transportable units measuring 23 X 43 ft". Somehow this has become "seven feet by 10 feet" in the article on the Scientific America site. Title: Re: 100 MW station Post by: goozman96 on October 15, 2014, 10:56:30 PM Won't be available for another decade though, so let's not get too excited. :P
|