Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    65
    Posts
    20

    Default Some good news amongst the bad?

    Or just another teaser....
    http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-fusion-energy

    I'm never too sure about stuff I read on the Guardian.
    (I hope that link works, it's an article about fusion reaction)
    TM




    Lockheed announces breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    It's a theoretical break through, they still have to build and test it.
    Meanwhile they will use it to attract investors - cashed up oil companies perhaps - why do my cynical sensors suddenly go into overdrive at this point?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    339

    Default

    [QUOTE=BobL;1814545]It's a theoretical break through, they still have to build and test it.
    Meanwhile they will use it to attract investors - cashed up oil companies perhaps - why do my cynical sensors suddenly go into overdrive at this point?[/QUOTE

    One of the articles mentioned that the proposed reactor would be fueled with deuterium and tritium, the authors stated that the tritium was to be derived from 'natural lithium' without mentioning that inconveniently messy fission reactor processing step.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    [QUOTE=rob streeper;1814551]
    Quote Originally Posted by BobL View Post
    It's a theoretical break through, they still have to build and test it.
    Meanwhile they will use it to attract investors - cashed up oil companies perhaps - why do my cynical sensors suddenly go into overdrive at this point?[/QUOTE

    One of the articles mentioned that the proposed reactor would be fueled with deuterium and tritium, the authors stated that the tritium was to be derived from 'natural lithium' without mentioning that inconveniently messy fission reactor processing step.
    Fission reactions are not necessary as slow neutrons on Lithium also make Tritium.
    There is more than sufficient tritium available from existing fission reactions to get started, and after that Li lining of large fusion rectors should breed ongoing Tritium needs.
    Still not the best system since handling tritium is not all that easy - some tech breakthroughs still needed.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    339

    Default

    [QUOTE=BobL;1814553]
    Quote Originally Posted by rob streeper View Post

    Fission reactions are not necessary as slow neutrons on Lithium also make Tritium.
    There is more than sufficient tritium available from existing fission reactions to get started, and after that Li lining of large fusion rectors should breed ongoing Tritium needs.
    Still not the best system since handling tritium is not all that easy - some tech breakthroughs still needed.
    Relatively recently the US govt was whining about the need to re-start the fission reactors at Savannah River to replace the decaying tritium in the aging nuke stockpile.

    http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/tritium.htm

    Tritium as used in weapons and other devices comes from fission reactors, with all of the associated burdens. Should, yes, but as we (mankind) don't yet have a fusion reactor lined with anything, much less lithium, we get our tritium from fission reactors such as those formerly operating at Savannah.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    [QUOTE=rob streeper;1814556]
    Quote Originally Posted by BobL View Post

    Relatively recently the US govt was whining about the need to re-start the fission reactors at Savannah River to replace the decaying tritium in the aging nuke stockpile.

    http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/tritium.htm

    Tritium as used in weapons and other devices comes from fission reactors, with all of the associated burdens. Should, yes, but as we (mankind) don't yet have a fusion reactor lined with anything, much less lithium, we get our tritium from fission reactors such as those formerly operating at Savannah.
    There is no need to restart anything. There's plenty of tritium made in the current batch of fission reactors around the world but can you imaging the US gov asking the French or Chinese to get their weapons grade materials.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    19

    Default

    I seem to have a vague recollection, as a 20-year old uni student, of reading somewhere that usable fusion energy was about 10 years away at the time.

    Now, some 40 years later, it seems we've progressed to the point where usable fusion energy is only about 10 years away.

    Of course, my recollection could be wrong.

    Mark

  8. #8
    FenceFurniture's Avatar
    FenceFurniture is offline The prize lies beneath - hidden in full view
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    1017m up in Katoomba, NSW
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markkr View Post
    I seem to have a vague recollection, as a 20-year old uni student, of reading somewhere that usable fusion energy was about 10 years away at the time.

    Now, some 40 years later, it seems we've progressed to the point where usable fusion energy is only about 10 years away.

    Of course, my recollection could be wrong.

    Mark
    Well, in the absence of usable fusion energy, it's fantastic to see that at least a time travel machine has been invented. it may be going in the wrong direction at present, but that'll be just a matter of tinkering.
    Regards, FenceFurniture

    COLT DRILLS GROUP BUY
    Jan-Feb 2019 Click to send me an email

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markkr View Post
    I seem to have a vague recollection, as a 20-year old uni student, of reading somewhere that usable fusion energy was about 10 years away at the time.

    Now, some 40 years later, it seems we've progressed to the point where usable fusion energy is only about 10 years away.

    Of course, my recollection could be wrong.

    Mark
    Fusion has always been on the threshold of realization, except that is in the bomb form.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    Lets not forget that 99.9% of terrestrial biology has relied on fusion for the last few billion years and provided it doesn't foul its own nest will continue to rely on it for another few billion.

Similar Threads

  1. Good News
    By munruben in forum JOKES
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17th August 2007, 06:00 PM
  2. Good News and Bad News
    By havenoideaatall in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH RENOVATION
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20th February 2007, 04:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •