
Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details - geophile
http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details
======
nabla9
I'm not seeing any top physicists working in this program (McGuire is not
one). I would be willing to bet 1000 EUR that their math and modeling does not
add up, or they have skipped some details.

Problem with fusion research like this is that the closer you get self
sustainment or energy generation, the harder it gets and problems pile up.
This project looks like many other similar projects that have gone bust. They
start by solving the easiest problems first, get some funding and hit the
wall.

The main problem with any reactor design is how to handle the 14 MeV neutrons
produced by the fusion reaction (no mention in the article). They tend to
damage the reactor and make it economically unfeasible. At this point being
able to create fusion reaction is not the main challenge. It's the sustainment
and economics of limiting the damage. If they really have solved all the
problems and demonstrate economically sound fusion in 5-10 years, they will be
handed Nobel price in physics for sure.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
It's always a safe bet that the top Hacker News comment will always be "won't
work, it's too hard." It's like sitting around for a year trying to sell a
project at my current employer, with everybody and their lead telling you
"that'll never work," then you implement in a weekend and those same people
start nitpicking what you've come up with. (What happened to it'll never work?
"Well, your CSS isn't great.")

Honestly, those folks that stand back with their arms crossed watching you
fail, and reminding you the whole way that you might fail, are the biggest
pains in my ass in this profession. By a mile.

Maybe you can contribute your wisdom by going to Lockheed, instead of Internet
commentary in which you bet against them?

~~~
rayiner
That's hardly ever true. In my experience, Hacker News is full of people from
the software field; folks whose professions are often unconstrained by
physics,[1] and who have a generally optimistic "this can happen" mentality.
That's why everyone here believes we'll have fully self-driving cars in 5-6
years.

In the rest of the engineering world, the answer to any question is: it'll be
harder than you think it'll be (physics will beat you over the head at every
step). You can cross your arms and say "that won't work" and you'll be correct
97% of the time. Fusion is something that some of the smartest people in the
world, with enormous amounts of money behind them, have been beating their
heads against for the last half century or more. Somebody will figure it out,
eventually, but statistically, any given project is very likely not to be the
one that does, and it will almost certainly take much longer than the
optimists assume it will take.

Did you know that coal plants, which still make up the majority of U.S. energy
production, are only about twice as efficient today than they were a _century_
ago?

[1] Although math can be a kick in the ass too if you're working in domains
where you can prove there are no polynomial-time algorithms for whatever
problem you're working on. E.g. there is a reason people have been banging
their heads on the garbage collection problem since the 1950's and it's still
an active area of research.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Did you know that coal plants, which still make up the majority of U.S.
> energy production, are only about twice as efficient today than they were a
> century ago?

Did you know that wind and solar are already at grid parity in over half the
world? And that in many large first-world countries (Germany, Australia) the
price of energy goes negative during daylight hours because of the amount of
energy produced by renewables?

~~~
petercoolz
To be clear, the price of energy goes negative because of government
subsidies. For example, a wind plant with a $30/MWH subsidy can afford to run
at a price of -$30.

Similarly, if you're in California and you ever wondered why your electricity
bill is 2x that of any other state, it is because you are the ones footing the
bill for those subsidies. Without subsidies, wind and solar are far more
inefficient at a $/MWH basis.

~~~
rayiner
Being able to externalize pollution is a subsidy. Accounting for externalized
costs, coal is about parity with wind in terms of cost, though gas is ahead of
both.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Agreed, but with the price of oil headed below $80/barrel, shale and other
fracking operations that are expensive to operate are now going to operate at
a loss (causing some producers to go bankrupt). You're going to see the cost
of natgas dip down, and if enough producers go out of business, jump back up
to new highs as production will have dropped quite a bit.

------
nerdy
I know there are some very smart people at skunk works who've done incredible
things in the past but humans have cried wolf so many times on fusion it's
sort of hard to just accept until they've actually built a working reactor,
shown it and had it independently verified.

~~~
regularfry
Fusion physicists I know are very sceptical that this design can work. It's a
variant on a known design with a known problem: the plasma leaks out of the
ends of the magnetic containment. It's also unclear why Lockheed would be
publicising it this way at this point, unless it's a naked ploy for more
funding from the DoD, and an attempt to bring in money (and possibly pressure)
from non-classified sources.

That being said, if they've genuinely cracked it, the game changes so much as
to be unrecognisable.

~~~
charonn0
> the plasma leaks out of the ends of the magnetic containment

According to this link[1] posted by another commenter, they create a
"axisymmetric mirror by positioning zones of high magnetic field near each end
of the vessel so that they reflect a significant fraction of plasma particles
escaping along the axis of the CFR."

[1]: [http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-
compa...](http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-
fusion-reactor-details)

~~~
al2o3cr
When you're dealing with a plasma at 20 million kelvin, the leftovers from
that "significant fraction" that _don 't_ get reflected can really ruin your
day...

LLNL scientists almost tested a similar device (see 'MFTF') but the project
was cancelled in 1986 before it was turned on.

~~~
Anjin
It is possible though that though earlier attempts failed because the
computational resources and the plasma dynamics modeling available at the time
were not sufficient to design such a reactor.

I would guess that we have a much better understanding of plasma physics and
faaaaar greater ability to model it now - that could lead to designs that can
mitigate previously discovered issues with the concept.

------
etiam
> 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.

 _sigh_ To the extent this is true I suspect those "large fusion reactors" are
tuned not so much for generating electricity and a great deal for annihilating
whatever the carrying missile is pointed at.

But never mind fuzzy thinking at Reuters right now. This is _amazing_ news if
holds up. Fingers crossed.

~~~
delinka
Unless I'm missing something, I think you're making a similar mistake.

Submarines and carriers run on a _fission_ reactor. And it powers everything -
drives turbines for locomotion, electricity...

~~~
etiam
Maybe you're just less bothered than I about the writer conflating fission and
fusion when the difference between them makes for a good deal of the
newsworthiness of the article.

I'm well aware of the fission reactors in large military ships, but if there
is any application of nuclear fusion on them then pretty much the only option
today is thermonuclear warheads. It would be really nice if that's about to
change.

~~~
twistedpair
Most warheads have hollow plutonium pits that are filled with tritium (right
before implosion) triggering a fusion reaction from the high heat of the
plutonium fission reaction. So no, it's not only the H-Bombs, though those are
primarily fusion while tritium is only used to "boost" classic implosion
fission warheads.

------
ihnorton
Content-free article, but presumably it is this:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor)

This is not the first time they have gone public with this - Charles Chase
gave a talk at Google X last year, recorded and publicly-available:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY)

~~~
phkahler
I read the wikipedia link. How do they get the energy out? What are the
byproducts? etc...

~~~
nine_k
AFAICT, ²H + ²H produce ³H (which is the burned), H, ³He, and ⁴He, plus some
neutrons and gamma rays. The latter must bring the energy out of the chamber,
by heating some blanketing. Then it must be the same as with fission reactors.

~~~
DennisP
From the article Flexie posted, for production they're planning to use
deuterium-tritium, which produces helium and high-energy neutrons, which breed
more tritium from lithium. Like most fusion projects they use deuterium alone
for testing.

------
Animats
This might work. It's from Lockheed's Skunk Works, which has a very good track
record and tremendous respect in the aerospace community. With the basic
physics laid out, this is mostly an engineering and construction problem.
Their plan is to build and test a new prototype every year. The Skunk Works
can do that; they've been doing it for decades. They're a manufacturer of
prototypes, and have in-house capabilities for building things fast. They
don't have to contract out much, and where they do, they have a contracting
operation and supply chain they can rely on.

~~~
ninkendo
> With the basic physics laid out, this is mostly an engineering and
> construction problem.

That phrase has been accurate for nuclear fusion in general for more than 50
years. The engineering and construction problems are immense.

~~~
titanomachy
That's definitely true, and it's nice to have another set of brilliant
engineers working on this problem from a somewhat different angle than that
taken by previous brilliant engineers. Personally, I've become somewhat
disillusioned with ITER after reading so much about their bureaucratic
hurdles... but maybe they have enough talent onboard to pull it off anyway.

------
wcoenen
> _100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on
> the back of a large truck_

A typical thermal power station has an efficiency below 50% for electricity
generation, so the plant dissipates at least as much heat as it generates
electrical power.

I wonder how you could get rid of 100MW of waste heat from a volume small
enough to fit on a truck. That's a heat flux of more than a megawatt per
square meter of surface area.

~~~
javajosh
That's an excellent point! Perhaps they intend the truck to be sitting at the
bottom of a fast moving river.

But what gets me is that they are burying the lead. No fusion reactor of any
size has reached sustainability...so why is the story here talking about size
at all? Small size would be a very nice added bonus; fusion reactors that
don't consume more energy than they produce are earth-changing.

~~~
adrianN
Small size means you can build it easily. It's not a huge undertaking like
ITER.

~~~
Someone
I think it is more a matter of tolerances than of size what makes ITER take so
long. Also, it is experimental. That means that it is not just a matter of
ordering stuff and putting it together.

------
27182818284
> could be ready for use in a decade.

That's the standard issue joke. "Nuclear fusion has been just ten years away
for the last fifty years"

It is so common as a joke I'm surprised the article didn't mention it.

~~~
DennisP
No, the standard joke is "thirty years away." Or at least it was. Strangely
enough the number keeps decreasing with the passage of time.

~~~
z92
Plotting a "Year vs Years away" graph would then give us a good estimation on
when we can expect to meet that expectation.

~~~
willvarfar
If xkcd hasnt made that chart yet, it should!

------
cmsmith
I'm not sure why this article is focusing on things like whether the reactor
can fit on a truck, where you get deuterium, and how many coal power plants it
can replace - instead of the actual question which is how they managed to
produce a stable exothermal fusion reaction.

~~~
bkcooper
As far as I can tell from reading various articles (including the Aviation
Week article linked elsewhere in the comments), they haven't. The expectation
is that they will have a prototype in five years. For that reason, I wouldn't
get too excited about this.

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting when you compare to the recent dynomak paper announcement[1]. The
pointer to 'superconducting magnets' doesn't get a lot of ink though. I went
by Fry's the other day and they were out of them :-) I wondered about them
because to date such things usually are sitting in a cryogenic bath (think MRI
machine) and not next to a million degree hot plasma. Even in the LHC there is
a lot of space between the beam and the ring magnets. Dr McGuire in the
article suggests -- _“We should be able to go to 100% or beyond,”_ which is
quite the challenge from the thermal management perspective.

It is however another great example that there is money going into lots of
different fusion ideas. And that can only be a good thing as far as I am
concerned.

[1] [http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/10/08/uw-fusion-
reactor-...](http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/10/08/uw-fusion-reactor-
concept-could-be-cheaper-than-coal/)

------
jburwell
This appears to be further development of the novel nuclear reactor approach
described by Charles Chase at Solve in 2013 --
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY).
The video provides a basic overview of fusion reactor designs and their
breakthrough.

~~~
mbrubeck
Yeah, and when they first announced it, they were predicting a working reactor
in four years ("by 2017"): [http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-
works-promise...](http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-
promises-fusion-power-four-years)

A year and a half later, they're apparently no closer to that goal.

------
waterlesscloud
Makes YC's choice to invest in a fusion startup all the more interesting.

[http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/08/14/vc-
funding-y-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/08/14/vc-funding-y-
combinator-power-up-nuclear-fusion-co-helion-energy/)

------
ck2
nevermind, this is hype - buried in the article

 _The team acknowledges that the project is in its earliest stages, and many
key challenges remain before a viable prototype can be built_

This falls under the xkcd 10 year plan:

 _" we haven't finished inventing it yet, but when we do, it'll be awesome"_

[http://xkcd.com/678/](http://xkcd.com/678/)

------
orkoden
>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.

I don't think so.

~~~
everyone
I'm guessing thats a typo

~~~
bhhaskin
That is a pretty big typo if it is.

~~~
quink
Just in case someone skipped out on the relevant day of middle school science,
it should be 'fission'.

The difference is that fission is taking heavy elements, breaking them apart
and using the released energy. Radioactivity, Thorium, Uranium, Plutonium, all
the yucky stuff. Research has been going on for decades into making these
reactors safer, and with breeder reactors and modern conventional designs that
appears to have been achieved. Nevertheless, they appear on their way out
anyway.

Fusion fuses together light isotopes and uses the energy thus released - they
basically do what the sun does. And are clean. For various definitions of
clean.

And if you're wondering how they are the complete opposite yet both work, it
all pivots around iron. Copying from Wikipedia on iron:

> Its abundance in rocky planets like Earth is due to its abundant production
> by fusion in high-mass stars, where the production of nickel-56 (which
> decays to the most common isotope of iron) is the last nuclear fusion
> reaction that is exothermic.

And yes, that means that everything in this universe will one gigayear end up
right at the pivot between fission and fusion, ever onwards oscillating
further towards it. Our universe is ever tending tiwards irony. A pivot that
we're probably going to see humanity go through too, but in a different way.
Hopefully sooner rather than later.

------
dmfdmf
25 years ago my nuke professor used to scoff at some of the claims of the
fusion researchers. The problem is the high energy neutrons flying out of the
reactor will neutron-activate every material within the vicinity. He thought
the radioactivity and nuclear waste of a fusion reactor could be _worse_ than
a fission reactor. Also he thought that fusion researchers were vastly
underestimating the problem of neutron embrittlement of the reactor structures
and components. This is a very difficult engineering and material science
problem that would have to be solved even if they did get the fusion process
to work.

~~~
DennisP
With D-T fusion you would have more activation of the reactor materials,
because D-T produces such high-energy neutrons. What you wouldn't have is
transuranics, which make up the bulk of our nuclear waste (and all of the
really long-lived stuff), or fission products (the most radioactive stuff,
like the cesium and strontium we heard about after Fukushima).

But D-T is only the easiest form of fusion. Next up is D-D, which has much
lower-energy neutrons. Helion is working on D-D combined with D-He3, producing
only 6% of its energy as neutrons. And several outfits are hoping to manage
proton-boron fusion, producing very little neutron radiation.

~~~
dmfdmf
Correct me if I am wrong, but each of these "steps" is a research project in
their own right.

The AviationWeekly article mentioned D-T fusion for the Lockheed prototype and
includes a diagram with the caption "blanket absorbs neutrons to breed fuel
and transfer heat to turbines". This "blanket" will be tons of material that
would be activated during operation and would have to be disposed of at EOL.
Also, modern materials include many trace elements within the main molecular
lattice such as cobalt, chromium, etc in steel and in some ways might be more
difficult to process than used fuel rods.

I worked in the nuclear power industry decades ago and I don't recall the how
the energy of fusion neutrons vs fission neutrons compared but I thought that
in general fusion neutrons were significantly higher. Most power fission
reactors also have neutron moderators which help to reduce the activation and
embrittlement problems. Nevertheless, core components in fission reactors are
already experiencing neutron embrittlement and has been a concern.

I'm not trying to be negative on fusion power but these overly optimistic
reports have to be read with a critical eye.

~~~
DennisP
Oh absolutely. There are people trying to jump right into the more advanced
reactions, but Lockheed is just aiming for D-T right now. My point is just
that D-T could end up being a transitional technology. Once any form of net-
positive fusion is available, I'm thinking research will ramp up a lot.

I haven't seen any good quantitative comparisons of D-T waste to fission, now
you've got me curious.

------
JohnnyLee
Based on the image of the machine, this is a magnetic mirror with neutral beam
injection. Mirrors were some of the first plasma confinement devices. An issue
they have is that they lose charged particles out the ends in a way that
depends on the ratio of perpendicular to parallel velocity and the magnetic
field strength. It may be that they think they can use the neutral beam
injectors to inject the fuel in such a way that it's well confined in the
machine...

Never mind, another linked article says that the injectors are only used for
ignition.

------
Everhusk
"The team acknowledges that the project is in its earliest stages, and many
key challenges remain before a viable prototype can be built."

No doubt that Skunkworks is world class... but claiming a "breakthrough in
fusion energy" before a prototype has even been built is pretty bold of them.

------
ph0rque
> Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor
> measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large
> truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire said.

So that would power 50k to 100k typical houses in the US... not bad!

~~~
hga
Compact is good, because until you can fuse helium-3, the reactor is producing
neutrons, which will transmute the reactor and its shielding into other, often
radioactive elements. So the entire thing will have to be regularly replaced
and disposed of (which we can do safely, but too many people believe
otherwise).

~~~
Someone
I do not see how compact matters much here. As far as I understand, the basic
reaction used is the same, so that compact design will produce the same number
of neutrons per Watt produced as a large one.

Wouldn't the effect of its smaller mass be that the container will have to be
replaced more often, more or less in the ratio of the masses of the machines?

~~~
hga
We really don't know the practical consequences of this systematic
transmutation (for all we know, neutron liberating fusion reactors will never
be economic). It's entirely possible the device will have to be replaced more
often, I'm just pointing out the less mass in it, the less that has to be
disposed of when that happens.

------
leephillips
I wrote about this when the project was first revealed, in March 2013:
[http://lee-phillips.org/LockheedFusion/](http://lee-
phillips.org/LockheedFusion/)

I didn't find much to inspire confidence.

------
salzig
Sounds like the "Solve for x" talk from last year (2013-02-11)

[https://www.solveforx.com/moonshots/charles-chase-on-
energy-...](https://www.solveforx.com/moonshots/charles-chase-on-energy-for-
everyone)

------
KhalilK
Meanwhile, work on an _actual_ fusion reactor continues;
[http://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2020](http://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2020)

~~~
dweinus
From the article:

"Until now, the majority of fusion reactor systems have used a plasma control
device called a tokamak, invented in the 1950s by physicists in the Soviet
Union. The tokamak uses a magnetic field to hold the plasma in the shape of a
torus, or ring, and maintains the reaction by inducing a current inside the
plasma itself with a second set of electromagnets. The challenge with this
approach is that the resulting energy generated is almost the same as the
amount required to maintain the self-sustaining fusion reaction."

~~~
KhalilK
_From the article_ ?

------
robin_reala
“the first reactors […] could be ready for use in a decade.”

I’m sure I’ve heard that somewhere before…

~~~
akavel
I have the link to xkcd 678 "Researcher Translation" bookmarked for those
occasions. Quoting the appropriate row here:

    
    
        If a researcher says a cool new technology should be
        available to consumers in... -> what they mean is...
        [...]
        ten years -> "we haven't finished inventing it yet,
                      but when we do, it'll be awesome."

~~~
ufmace
That would be [http://xkcd.com/678/](http://xkcd.com/678/)

------
startupfounder
"The early reactors will be designed to generate around 100 MW and fit into
transportable units measuring 23 X 43 ft."[0]

These reactors will be similar to the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and
potentially only require refueling every 25 years through a process known as
ROH.[1]

100MW capacity in the size of an international shipping container? The
implications of this are massive if this technology can be brought to scale,
and that is the key term - SCALE.

The cost of solar is plummeting and by the time fusion technology can produce
10% of our energy demand the cost of solar will be heading to $1/Watt, battery
storage will be competitive and that is hard to beat even if the footprint is
only a fraction of a solar farm.

[0] [http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-
compa...](http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-
fusion-reactor-details) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-
class_aircraft_carrier#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-
class_aircraft_carrier#Refueling_Complex_Overhaul)

------
mletonsa
Two of their patents were published few days ago:

[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0301518.html](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0301518.html)

[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0301519.html](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0301519.html)

Both have publication date 10/09/2014\. Maybe connected with the press
release?

------
karcass
It's exciting to see that fusion has gone from being perpetually 20 years away
to being perpetually 10 years away. ;-)

~~~
Igglyboo
We're 10 perpetual years closer!

------
al2o3cr
I'd love to know how they're planning on disposing of heat in the magnets
themselves - most of the available high-current superconductors prefer to stay
close to liquid helium temperatures, which is a challenge when you've set them
next to a ten megakelvin plasma that's emitting a 100MW neutron flux...

------
peteretep

        > Lockheed shares fell 0.6 percent to $175.02 amid a broad 
        > market selloff.
    

Doh.

~~~
prewett
Any movement under 1% is noise. And if there is a broad selloff, you'd expect
Lockheed Martin shares to drop.

------
peter_l_downs
Crazy. Vernor Vinge has an excellent short story called "Bookworm, Run!" [0]
that, among other things, discusses the effects of cheap, clean, compact power
being distributed around the world. In particular, it describes a wide-spread
economic depression. Kind of interesting to think about, and definitely worth
reading if you're into sci-fi.

[0]:
[http://books.google.com/books?id=tEMQpbiboH0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA...](http://books.google.com/books?id=tEMQpbiboH0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=bookworm,+run&source=bl&ots=UTPAJ0Ppbn&sig=dUdh7ABbXwkxVjxnCNMflKmq9To&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Utg-
VKjKCdSIsQSBtoD4Ag&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=bookworm%2C%20run&f=false)

------
was_hellbanned
The ".NET Rocks!" podcast did three GeekOut shows this year on nuclear fusion,
which will probably make you only more skeptical of fusion research claims.

Fusion Power GeekOut:
[http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=1013](http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=1013)

Fusion Power GeekOut #2:
[http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=1022](http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=1022)

Cold Fusion GeekOut:
[http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=1037](http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=1037)

------
hliyan
As someone who still remembers the excitement and the disappointment due to
Pons and Fleischmann (I was a teenager at the time), I'm going to wait for
independent verification. But I can't deny I'm a bit excited.

------
ridgeguy
This looks like a real thermal engineering challenge in one respect. The
superconductive magnet coils are exposed to the neutron flux that transfers
fusion reaction energy to the absorptive thermal blanket. I don't know offhand
the neutron cross-sections of likely superconductor materials at whatever
neutron energy spectrum this reactor will produce, but I suspect energy
absorption by the magnet structure won't be small. I wonder how they plan to
keep the magnets cold. Never mind the other effects on materials of high-flux
neutron absorption.

------
higherpurpose
I guess that's somewhat game-changing. This, however, would be much more game-
changing (if we can get confirmation once and for all whether it's real or
not):

[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-
reacto...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-
verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-
density-of-gasoline)

~~~
altcognito
The "or not" link: [http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/10/12/rossi-handles-
samp...](http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/10/12/rossi-handles-samples-in-
alleged-independent-test-of-his-device/)

------
knappador
Aneutronic fusion would be lighter-weight, but it's good to see another
concept we can learn something new from. There are two aneutronic fusion
projects to look at. Polywell has become a Navy project last I heard and focus
fusion (DPF) is working on an all-tungsten electrode, after which we might see
the very first experiment without electrode contamination from arcing in the
contacts vaporizing metal.

------
mrisse
From the article: Lockheed shares fell 0.6 percent to $175.02 amid a broad
market selloff.

Shouldn't the market be a little more excited about this?

~~~
jerf
It's dangerous to read the market's mind, but my guess is that there isn't
enough information for anyone to believe that this is anything more than a PR
puff piece.

As much as I want to believe it I can't find any evidence myself, either. At
this point I'm pretty much at the "show me the over-unity reactor" phase.
There's so many research paths to fusion right now that are all "promising",
but until one of them actually builds something that works in the real world
I'm not personally interested in hearing any more vague promises.

By all means fund them and keep working on them! I'm just not interested in
the PR pieces any more. Give me a report about how it's _working_.

------
lnanek2
The article is completely wrong about US Navy ships having fusion reactors.
They have fission reactors, not fusion. I wonder if they are even reporting
the breakthrough right since they clearly don't know the difference. For all
we know the breakthrough may be smaller fission reactors too, which isn't a
big deal at all.

~~~
geekam
They issued a correction.

> U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have
> large fission reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle.

------
jacknews
Hmm, are they confusing fission and fusion?

~~~
tootie
Horse's mouth: [http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-
fusion.htm...](http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html)

Lockheed Martin is, indeed, saying they have a workable fusion reactor. Author
of this article is the one that's confused.

------
WalterBright
Makes me wonder if the modern Lockheed Skunkworks bears much relation to how
Kelly Johnson ran it in the 50's and 60's.

Many companies have tried to set up a skunkworks since, but didn't have the
guts to run it like Kelly did, and didn't get the results, either.

------
jscheel
So, they've come up with a way to make a fusor that produces more energy than
it consumes? Also, I'd be interested in knowing what kind of scram mechanism
they develop. If the superconductors were to fail, the expansion of the plasma
would be catastrophic, right?

~~~
astazangasta
It certainly wouldn't produce a runaway fusion reaction, if that's what you
mean. A hot plasma would dissipate pretty quickly once confinement fails, so
the only energy would be that in the plasma itself. Might be bad for whoever
is in the room, but probably not the county.

~~~
jscheel
Right, I meant catastrophic for the reactor. Definitely not worried about
blowing up the country. Probably shouldn't have typed that phrase. NSA is
probably all over me now.

------
adamzerner
I don't know much about fusion. It seems that the breakthrough they're talking
about is that reactors are ~10x smaller. Why is this a big deal? Square
footage is plentiful. I thought the problems are safety and how much energy it
could produce.

~~~
regularfry
Take a look at the footprint of ITER. It surprised me how massive the thing is
planned to be. That's the competition.

~~~
drjesusphd
> Take a look,at the footprint of ITER

Or any other power plant for that matter.

"If it sounds too good to be true..."

~~~
regularfry
The area energy density of ITER is particularly low. The whole plant is only
designed to produce 500MW, on a concrete platform 1000mx400m.

Compare that to this:
[https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Barking+Power+Station,+B...](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Barking+Power+Station,+Barking,+Greater+London+IG11+0GH/@51.5213895,0.1148288,546m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8a5f3748dd567:0x950349063e836eef)
google.co.uk

That's a 20 year old 1GW combined cycle gas plant, in a building roughly
50mx150m. _Anything_ they can do to bring fusion plants smaller than ITER is
going to help.

------
silviorelli
What a coincidence.. Few days ago has been released the report on the alleged
LENR/cold fusion E-Cat reactor...
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8436419](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8436419)

------
vegabook
Ready Steady (govt) Grant!

"Partners in industry and goverment". Translation: 10 years to product (but
hey, prototype in 5) so please give us lots of dough. It's the technology of
the future and always has been.

------
anigbrowl
On a tangent, is there any fundamental reason that reactors are always built
to drive turbines rather thermocouples - do they simply not scale up to the
amount of heat a typical reactor puts out, or what?

~~~
avian
Steam turbine plus a conventional generator is vastly more efficient than
thermocouples - 30-40% for steam versus <5% for thermocouples.

I suspect they are also much, much cheaper when you are talking about powers
in the hundreds-of-megawatts range. I don't have specific data at hand to back
that though. I never heard of any grid-level power generation being done with
thermocouples.

~~~
anigbrowl
That is in line with general impression. I just find it really weird that
after all the high-tech nuclear stuff is working the next stage is an old-
fashioned water boiler like on a steam engine of hundreds of years ago. (Well,
obviously these turbines are not old-fashioned or simple boilers, but you know
what I mean.) It just baffles me that we don't have a way of efficiently
generating electrical current directly from particle radiation, eg through
pressure fluctuations in a magnetic field, instead of through heat transfer.

~~~
DennisP
The reason we'll need turbines for the first generation of fusion reactors is
that most of their energy is released as neutrons. Some more advanced fuels
release most of their energy as fast-moving charged particles, which would let
us generate electricity more directly.

------
csdrane
Can we assume that their reactor isn't energy positive? Because if it were, I
would imagine that they would be announcing so--rather than this nebulous
"breakthrough."

~~~
seren
From the aviationweek.com [0] article, it seems it is a concept, and they
don't even have a prototype. They are trying to get some fundings to build the
PoC. What makes the announcement a bit strange is that they have very concrete
claims "it will fit in a truck" without much substance.

[0] [http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-
compa...](http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-
fusion-reactor-details)

------
aortega
IMHO the best thing is how they pitch this as a power source for carriers and
military ships, that are mostly used to fight wars for oil. Well played,
Lockheed.

------
gpvos
Does anyone know how to get around the paywall?

------
JustSomeNobody
Everything is always a decade away.

(And then it rarely happens)

------
Tloewald
"Ultra-dense deuterium is an isotope of Hydrogen" (1) ultra-dense?, (2) and
tritium which is denser (but hardly ultra-dense) and also an isotope of
hydrogen.

Ah science reporting.

------
jacknews
Hmmm, are they confusing fission and fusion?

~~~
Wintamute
I think they must write "fusion" instead of "fission" on the second to last
paragraph ...

------
spellingnazi
For christ sake fix the title.

~~~
Jetrel
Breakthrough Engery. Yesss.

------
zwieback
Mr. Fusion!

------
flexie
Here is more on the tech, including a drawing:
[http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-
compa...](http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-
fusion-reactor-details)

~~~
dkirtley
This looks very similar to the old Russian Gas Dynamic Trap:
[https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/366958.pdf](https://e-reports-
ext.llnl.gov/pdf/366958.pdf)

RF and neutral beam heated steady reactor with very high mirror ratio and
superconductors.

~~~
joezydeco
What is the operating temperature of these superconducting magnets?

I can't see how heat energy is supposed to be flowing out of that plasma
envelope yet the magnets are supposed to stay at near-zero temps?

------
flexie
Here is a link with more info on the technology behind:
[http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-
compa...](http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-
fusion-reactor-details)

------
_-__---
This title makes me engery

------
problame
I'm happy if that is true, but guys: the first thing you think of is putting a
potentially massive explosive on the back of a truck? Driven by humans? What
could go wrong...

~~~
Balgair
True, but we currently have gallons and gallons of highly flammable liquids
hidden behind the cheapest #8 steel possible and something literally called a
bumper, all exposed to whatever rust and rocks the nation's roads can throw at
it. It's all about the level of risk.

------
cowkingdeluxe
"McGuire said the company had several patents pending for the work and was
looking for partners in academia, industry and among government laboratories
to advance the work."

I'm guessing this means that they will try and maximize profit rather than
maximize cheap and clean energy for the entire world. That is a bit
disappointing if true.

~~~
hangonhn
Profit and good of the world need not be opposites. In fact they tend to go
together if the company is going for the long run.

------
ck2
Very cheap energy means cheap war and lots of it. This could be bad.

~~~
Tloewald
Our main reason for war right now is scarce energy.

Cheap clean electricity means no-one needs to care about the Middle East for
starters — most of the fighting there is superpower proxy fighting — e.g.
Assad would be gone if not backed by Russia and China, so no Islamic State. No
Oil, no Iraq war x2. No oil, no Hugo Chavez for that matter.

~~~
seren
I would only be cautiously optimistic : even if our energy problems are
solved, the construction of reactors, for example the superconductors, might
require some rare materials. The grab for energy could become a grab for
minerals. It will probably involved other regions of the world though and
change the whole dynamic.

------
bluedino
Then the dilemma becomes: Does the USA share this with other countries? Or do
we keep our clean, plentiful power for ourselves, become energy independent,
have clean skies, and keep (exploit?) this technological advantage over the
rest of the developed world for the next 20-30 years?

~~~
Ygg2
> have clean skies

You can't have clean skies if everyone else is polluting. That is what makes
pollution such a hard problem to solve. Even if USA cuts its pollution to
zero, China alone can make up the difference.

But yeah, having access to this technology for everyone would be a serious
game changer.

