Quote
Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready for use in a decade.

Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work.

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 told reporters.

]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

Quote from: MACMan on October 15, 2014, 04:52:35 PM
]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

Quotewere now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work.

Will this be one more cash cow???   

Quote from: walkstall on October 15, 2014, 04:56:36 PM

Will this be one more cash cow???   

I think it's precisely where we need to go. I'm not sure it ought to be done on the taxpayers' tab, though. Lockheed Martin is big enough, I should think, to be able to run with it on their own.

My big question is: how do they control the heat? That's always been the bug with fusion -- the reaction that produces most of the sun's energy. Theoretically, fusion is thousands or even millions of times more efficient per pound of fuel than fission. It's how nuclear bombs got to be megaton weapons, as opposed to the 12-20 kiloton jobs dropped on Japan in 1945. When you're making bombs, the more heat the better! But not when you're making electricity.

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 15, 2014, 05:11:19 PM
I think it's precisely where we need to go. I'm not sure it ought to be done on the taxpayers' tab, though. Lockheed Martin is big enough, I should think, to be able to run with it on their own.

My big question is: how do they control the heat? That's always been the bug with fusion -- the reaction that produces most of the sun's energy. Theoretically, fusion is thousands or even millions of times more efficient per pound of fuel than fission. It's how nuclear bombs got to be megaton weapons, as opposed to the 12-20 kiloton jobs dropped on Japan in 1945. When you're making bombs, the more heat the better! But not when you're making electricity.

When you take money from the government, you are no longer in control.  If it is great as they say, they will have no problems getting backer. 

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 15, 2014, 05:11:19 PM
I think it's precisely where we need to go. I'm not sure it ought to be done on the taxpayers' tab, though. Lockheed Martin is big enough, I should think, to be able to run with it on their own.

My big question is: how do they control the heat? That's always been the bug with fusion -- the reaction that produces most of the sun's energy. Theoretically, fusion is thousands or even millions of times more efficient per pound of fuel than fission. It's how nuclear bombs got to be megaton weapons, as opposed to the 12-20 kiloton jobs dropped on Japan in 1945. When you're making bombs, the more heat the better! But not when you're making electricity.

I would hope Lockheed-Martin could run with it on their own. If it is successful, though, I bet we'll see massive pushback from all of the other energy sectors. Then there's the environmentalist nut jobs you'd have to contend with and you know how they always have the government's ear.

QuoteI think it's precisely where we need to go. I'm not sure it ought to be done on the taxpayers' tab, though.

(Cutn Paste is such a great tool don't you think)  

Tbone on that one I disagree.
Anyway runaway fusion, would be a bad, very bad thing for all of us.   

Remember we are talking about creating a what is star on Earth essentially. It should be controlled and or regulated by Government for the protection of the citizens.

Number two:

If someone develops a way. To create energy that way, which is safe secure, clean and efficient. Creating essentially what is called "cold fusion". If government pays to develop it.

It's owned by all of us. And that's the way it should be too. Because if the government pays to develop it. We, all of us who are citizens that is, would own it.

Fusion, cold fusion, would be a limitless power supply, it should be owned by all of us, so all of us have free energy.

And I say free, because once fusion gets going to keep it going all we need to do is throw some dirt in there and it's fueld.

Anyhow if you disagree, please let me know why you do.   

Quote from: daidalos on January 24, 2015, 09:55:22 AM
(Cutn Paste is such a great tool don't you think)  

Tbone on that one I disagree.
Anyway runaway fusion, would be a bad, very bad thing for all of us.   

Remember we are talking about creating a what is star on Earth essentially. It should be controlled and or regulated by Government for the protection of the citizens.

Number two:

If someone develops a way. To create energy that way, which is safe secure, clean and efficient. Creating essentially what is called "cold fusion". If government pays to develop it.

It's owned by all of us. And that's the way it should be too. Because if the government pays to develop it. We, all of us who are citizens that is, would own it.

Fusion, cold fusion, would be a limitless power supply, it should be owned by all of us, so all of us have free energy.

And I say free, because once fusion gets going to keep it going all we need to do is throw some dirt in there and it's fueld.

Anyhow if you disagree, please let me know why you do.   

Fears of runaway reactions and the end of the planet because of them were rampant when nuclear power was being developed, especially the first fission and fusion (hydrogen) bombs. It didn't happen, needless to say. Nuclear fusion has been created by man dozens of times -- every H-bomb test was an example of nuclear fusion and fission together.

As for government or public ownership of the technology, you kinda lost me there. In the case of nuclear fission, which was developed and weaponized through government efforts during WWII, I don't think I'd describe that technology as "belonging to all of us." The only things remotely "atomic" I've ever owned are smoke detectors and my old Timex watch. Even the obvious fabulous potential of fission -- large-scale energy production, specifically electricity -- has been choked nearly to death by the very government you think should develop fusion. Until 2013, not one single new commercial fission reactor had been started in the US since 1977, thanks 100% to the US federal government.

I'm not, and will never become, a fan of "public ownership" of technology.

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 24, 2015, 12:05:13 PM
Fears of runaway reactions and the end of the planet because of them were rampant when nuclear power was being developed, especially the first fission and fusion (hydrogen) bombs. It didn't happen, needless to say. Nuclear fusion has been created by man dozens of times -- every H-bomb test was an example of nuclear fusion and fission together.

As for government or public ownership of the technology, you kinda lost me there. In the case of nuclear fission, which was developed and weaponized through government efforts during WWII, I don't think I'd describe that technology as "belonging to all of us." The only things remotely "atomic" I've ever owned are smoke detectors and my old Timex watch. Even the obvious fabulous potential of fission -- large-scale energy production, specifically electricity -- has been choked nearly to death by the very government you think should develop fusion. Until 2013, not one single new commercial fission reactor had been started in the US since 1977, thanks 100% to the US federal government.

I'm not, and will never become, a fan of "public ownership" of technology.

Tbone to my know, we don't have anything that creates fusion yet. Except for very very brief billionths of a second in a particle collider. But I may be wrong.

You already are a fan of public ownership of technology are you not?

Or do you think that the internet, another thing we paid for to develop, (started as ARPIN net) should be taxed and regulated?

That's an example of what I mean. IF we the people own it, we the people shouldn't have to pay for it.

Besides as I said my friend, why should the people pay through the nose as we do now under traditional models of private ownership? As it is it's bad enough the way these corporations, such as DUKE for example which owns reactors (fission) charges customers through the nose down in cinci. And they get away with it too. Because they lined some pockets, to buy cinergy out. And PUCO (all appointees not elected officials) rubber stamped it. My point about that private ownership is that with Fusion you can throw some sea water in a fusion reactor and voila years of energy being produced.

Lastly, check out the series, and I am loath to inflict it upon you, THE COSMOS with Neil "got a hate on for pluto" Degrasse sometime. They do get SOME facts wrong, but their illustration of what would happen with fusion, runaway fusion, is from what I gather pretty accurate. In their discussion of the only way we know to-date how too create fusion, for any long sustained about of time. (theoretical still though).

Quote from: daidalos on January 25, 2015, 09:46:08 AM
Tbone to my know, we don't have anything that creates fusion yet. Except for very very brief billionths of a second in a particle collider. But I may be wrong.

You already are a fan of public ownership of technology are you not?

Or do you think that the internet, another thing we paid for to develop, (started as ARPIN net) should be taxed and regulated?

That's an example of what I mean. IF we the people own it, we the people shouldn't have to pay for it.

Besides as I said my friend, why should the people pay through the nose as we do now under traditional models of private ownership? As it is it's bad enough the way these corporations, such as DUKE for example which owns reactors (fission) charges customers through the nose down in cinci. And they get away with it too. Because they lined some pockets, to buy cinergy out. And PUCO (all appointees not elected officials) rubber stamped it. My point about that private ownership is that with Fusion you can throw some sea water in a fusion reactor and voila years of energy being produced.

Lastly, check out the series, and I am loath to inflict it upon you, THE COSMOS with Neil "got a hate on for pluto" Degrasse sometime. They do get SOME facts wrong, but their illustration of what would happen with fusion, runaway fusion, is from what I gather pretty accurate. In their discussion of the only way we know to-date how too create fusion, for any long sustained about of time. (theoretical still though).

Well, as I stated before, every H-bomb is at least partly a fusion device, so we have created nuclear fusion literally hundreds of times, albeit for a span of mere microseconds each time. My point is that the technology for creating fusion, and the knowledge of what fusion can do, is not unknown to science. The application -- H-bombs -- was such that it benefited from the maximum release of energy and heat in the shortest possible time. That's what every bomb does. And that's why H-bombs are called 'thermonuclear' devices. They use nuclear fission to create the mechanical and thermal energy to sustain exactly the sort of runaway nuclear fusion DeGrasse and his sort fear.

Perhaps you misread my last post. I'm not a fan of 'public' ownership of anything, if that means (as it generally does) government ownership. Maybe we're quibbling over terms. As far as the internet is concerned, I say leave it in private hands, unfettered by the government in any way. It may have come into being through research by the DOD that created ARPANET (I think that's what you meant when you wrote "ARPIN net"), but, as you point out, we paid for that through our taxes, and now the technology should be used by anyone who wants to use it. It's much the same with the technology developed by and through NASA during the 1960s and 1970s -- we paid for it, and it should be available for anyone to use.

Your references to Duke Power and Cinergy are a little confusing. Large public utilities in general are a special breed of cat. Because of their very structure, they tend to become monopolies, at least on a regional scale. This is one of the few fields where government regulation is beneficial, though I'll always oppose government ownership, a la TVA or BUREC or BPA, among many others.

Right now, residents of Washington state enjoy the lowest retail electric rates in the nation, primarily because roughly 77% of their electric energy is generated at hydroelectric plants located at dams built by the federal government -- in other words, financed by taxpayers across the nation. Without question, the power generation potential of, for example, the Columbia River, would have been fully developed by private companies. But that development was short-circuited by a rapacious, power-hungry central government. As a result, you and I -- and every other person you know -- send some pennies, or even quarters, every month of every year to the nice folks in Washington, at the behest of our beneficent national government.

That's how I understand "public ownership."

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 25, 2015, 02:21:46 PM
Well, as I stated before, every H-bomb is at least partly a fusion device, so we have created nuclear fusion literally hundreds of times, albeit for a span of mere microseconds each time. My point is that the technology for creating fusion, and the knowledge of what fusion can do, is not unknown to science. The application -- H-bombs -- was such that it benefited from the maximum release of energy and heat in the shortest possible time. That's what every bomb does. And that's why H-bombs are called 'thermonuclear' devices. They use nuclear fission to create the mechanical and thermal energy to sustain exactly the sort of runaway nuclear fusion DeGrasse and his sort fear.

Perhaps you misread my last post. I'm not a fan of 'public' ownership of anything, if that means (as it generally does) government ownership. Maybe we're quibbling over terms. As far as the internet is concerned, I say leave it in private hands, unfettered by the government in any way. It may have come into being through research by the DOD that created ARPANET (I think that's what you meant when you wrote "ARPIN net"), but, as you point out, we paid for that through our taxes, and now the technology should be used by anyone who wants to use it. It's much the same with the technology developed by and through NASA during the 1960s and 1970s -- we paid for it, and it should be available for anyone to use.

Your references to Duke Power and Cinergy are a little confusing. Large public utilities in general are a special breed of cat. Because of their very structure, they tend to become monopolies, at least on a regional scale. This is one of the few fields where government regulation is beneficial, though I'll always oppose government ownership, a la TVA or BUREC or BPA, among many others.

Right now, residents of Washington state enjoy the lowest retail electric rates in the nation, primarily because roughly 77% of their electric energy is generated at hydroelectric plants located at dams built by the federal government -- in other words, financed by taxpayers across the nation. Without question, the power generation potential of, for example, the Columbia River, would have been fully developed by private companies. But that development was short-circuited by a rapacious, power-hungry central government. As a result, you and I -- and every other person you know -- send some pennies, or even quarters, every month of every year to the nice folks in Washington, at the behest of our beneficent national government.

That's how I understand "public ownership."

I see you have not look at my power bill.   

I am between the of John Day Dam, upstream to the McNary Dam down stream.  I am about 50 miles from John Day Dam and about 60 miles from McNary Dam.  In between is what they call the Umatilla lake 110 miles long.   Can you say great Salem and Bass fishing.  Each dam has a set locks for moving up or down stream. 

Remember the government took for the Indians and the paleface farmers land and gave the farmers very little in return.  Also remember this was all the way upstream and all the way downstream in Washington and Oregon.  Plus all the lands for the power lines right of way.   I also have to drive 50 miles one way or the other to cross into Oregon.  The closest town is in Oregon 5 miles away.  Yet I would have to drive over 100 miles to get there now, as before it was only 8 miles. 

Think of it this way IF I lived back East I could save 2 to 3 thousand on a new car.  But I don't so I pay for it to have it come to me.  I am not asking the people back East to pick up the tab. 

Quote from: walkstall on January 25, 2015, 03:50:49 PM

I see you have not look at my power bill.   

I am between the of John Day Dam, upstream to the McNary Dam down stream.  I am about 50 miles from John Day Dam and about 60 miles from McNary Dam.  In between is what they call the Umatilla lake 110 miles long.   Can you say great Salem and Bass fishing.  Each dam has a set locks for moving up or down stream. 

Remember the government took for the Indians and the paleface farmers land and gave the farmers very little in return.  Also remember this was all the way upstream and all the way downstream in Washington and Oregon.  Plus all the lands for the power lines right of way.   I also have to drive 50 miles one way or the other to cross into Oregon.  The closest town is in Oregon 5 miles away.  Yet I would have to drive over 100 miles to get there now, as before it was only 8 miles. 

Think of it this way IF I lived back East I could save 2 to 3 thousand on a new car.  But I don't so I pay for it to have it come to me.  I am not asking the people back East to pick up the tab.

With all respect, my point was that no one asked anybody to pick up the tab. The Congress decreed that we all get to help pay for your electricity, along with all the irrigation water that goes mostly to millionaire farmers.

My electric bill ain't pretty, any more than yours is. I published a chart elsewhere on the board in the last couple weeks that shows the astronomic rise in electricity rates since 1970 -- coincidentally the same year the USEPA was established.

I know where you live, Walks, and I don't want you to think my post was a personal attack. My post was a general attack on the national government. It is simple fact that I've been subsidizing your electric bill my entire working life. BUREC (via the Corps of Engineers) built the dams, Bonneville sells the juice. Both are creations of the national government.

I've never been against tapping the natural environment for its power resources. I will FOREVER oppose forcing every American to finance such efforts, especially when the benefits are distributed locally.

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 25, 2015, 04:43:03 PM
With all respect, my point was that no one asked anybody to pick up the tab. The Congress decreed that we all get to help pay for your electricity, along with all the irrigation water that goes mostly to millionaire farmers.

My electric bill ain't pretty, any more than yours is. I published a chart elsewhere on the board in the last couple weeks that shows the astronomic rise in electricity rates since 1970 -- coincidentally the same year the USEPA was established.

I know where you live, Walks, and I don't want you to think my post was a personal attack. My post was a general attack on the national government. It is simple fact that I've been subsidizing your electric bill my entire working life. BUREC (via the Corps of Engineers) built the dams, Bonneville sells the juice. Both are creations of the national government.

I've never been against tapping the natural environment for its power resources. I will FOREVER oppose forcing every American to finance such efforts, especially when the benefits are distributed locally.

Simple answer. Cut the cord. Sure, it's a tough pill to swallow, but after nearly 30 years, I have absolutely no regrets.
I'd do it again in a heart beat.

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 25, 2015, 04:43:03 PM
With all respect, my point was that no one asked anybody to pick up the tab. The Congress decreed that we all get to help pay for your electricity, along with all the irrigation water that goes mostly to millionaire farmers.

My electric bill ain't pretty, any more than yours is. I published a chart elsewhere on the board in the last couple weeks that shows the astronomic rise in electricity rates since 1970 -- coincidentally the same year the USEPA was established.

I know where you live, Walks, and I don't want you to think my post was a personal attack. My post was a general attack on the national government. It is simple fact that I've been subsidizing your electric bill my entire working life. BUREC (via the Corps of Engineers) built the dams, Bonneville sells the juice. Both are creations of the national government.

I've never been against tapping the natural environment for its power resources. I will FOREVER oppose forcing every American to finance such efforts, especially when the benefits are distributed locally.

Did not think that even for one second.   Was just having some fun with what the government is doing to everyone.  Between b o and the government there milking us and the economy dry. 

I look at it this way you and I are both subsidizing the government when we pay for our power.   

Just think what our power bill would be like if they shut down all the dams on the Columbia river.   The city people would go bat shit crazy.  The wind turbine could not keep up, brownouts and blackouts all over the place.  All I would do is fire up two generators. 

It would be the first time all the wind turbine would be running at once.     Right now all I see running at one time around my area is two or three at a time.   Yet we all been subsidizing that green BS.

Quote from: walkstall on January 25, 2015, 07:44:07 PM
Did not think that even for one second.   Was just having some fun with what the government is doing to everyone.  Between b o and the government there milking us and the economy dry. 

I look at it this way you and I are both subsidizing the government when we pay for our power.   

Just think what our power bill would be like if they shut down all the dams on the Columbia river.   The city people would go bat shit crazy.  The wind turbine could not keep up, brownouts and blackouts all over the place.  All I would do is fire up two generators. 

It would be the first time all the wind turbine would be running at once.     Right now all I see running at one time around my area is two or three at a time.   Yet we all been subsidizing that green BS.

To coin a phrase, "truer words was never spoke." 

These days, the gubmint has so many ways to force us to participate in "charity" schemes...

Consider my neighbor, for example; we'll call him "D." D qualifies for various public and quasi-public "charity" programs mainly because he and his wife are uneducated hillbillies from West Virginia, and they both smoked all their lives, to the point they have COPD, and are therefore disabled. They support a household that includes four people, including D's son (also on SS disability for some reason) and D's son's son. No one in the household works, and none of them has worked in the seven years I've known them.

For whatever reason, the gubmint has decided that D and family should be permitted to use all the electricity they want to, but they should never pay more than $93 a month for the privilege. My bill (I live alone) is routinely more than that in the winter, and was $138 last month.

It's really not possible to view such a situation as being anything other than wealth redistribution. I put the word "charity" in deserving quotes. When the gubmint tells you to pay into the charity, it ain't a charity. Any way you slice it, I help pay D's electric bill, through higher rates on my own electric bill, and/or through taxes. Any way you slice it, I help pay YOUR electric bill through taxes levied by the United States federal government.

We established a national government to do a very short list of things. Generating electricity was not on that list. In my (seldom humble) opinion, the Bonneville Power Administration, BUREC, and everything like it should not exist. Closer to home, the Tennessee Valley Authority should not exist. The national government of the United States has no damned business in the business of generating electricity.

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 25, 2015, 08:20:10 PM
To coin a phrase, "truer words was never spoke." 

These days, the gubmint has so many ways to force us to participate in "charity" schemes...

Consider my neighbor, for example; we'll call him "D." D qualifies for various public and quasi-public "charity" programs mainly because he and his wife are uneducated hillbillies from West Virginia, and they both smoked all their lives, to the point they have COPD, and are therefore disabled. They support a household that includes four people, including D's son (also on SS disability for some reason) and D's son's son. No one in the household works, and none of them has worked in the seven years I've known them.

For whatever reason, the gubmint has decided that D and family should be permitted to use all the electricity they want to, but they should never pay more than $93 a month for the privilege.
It's really not possible to view such a situation as being anything other than wealth redistribution. I put the word "charity" in deserving quotes. When the gubmint tells you to pay into the charity, it ain't a charity. Any way you slice it, I help pay D's electric bill, through higher rates on my own electric bill, and/or through taxes. My bill (I live alone) is routinely more than that in the winter, and was $138 last month.
Any way you slice it, I help pay YOUR electric bill through taxes levied by the United States federal government.

We established a national government to do a very short list of things. Generating electricity was not on that list. In my (seldom humble) opinion, the Bonneville Power Administration, BUREC, and everything like it should not exist. Closer to home, the Tennessee Valley Authority should not exist. The national government of the United States has no damned business in the business of generating electricity.

Damn I must be subsidizing your power bill as my bill is three times as much as your, there only two of us.   This is a warm winter for the East side of Washington state.