exactly

+It is I I notice that too. it was their original invention and are one of the biggest contributors to the project.

Tokamak " is a Russian acronym for toroidal chamber with magnets" which is what todays most successful fusion reactors are. The first tokamak was also made in Russia and they were the ones who purposed the ITER project 40 years ago. At the time fusion reactors that put out more energy then you put in "ITER" were so expensive no one country could afford it.

Russia should be proud that their name wasn't listed on this boondoggle. ITER is the largest disaster that has ever happened to fusion research.

deuterium tritium still produces radioactive waste, the way to go is with hydrogen boron that produces no radioactive waste and billions of times cheaper energy than any existing energy source today.

From the ITER website: "Lithium from proven, easily extractable land-based resources would provide a stock sufficient to operate fusion power plants for more than 1,000 years. What's more, lithium can be extracted from ocean water, where reserves are practically unlimited (enough to fulfill the world's energy needs for ~ 6 million years)."

Isotopes of hydrogen.

Until they need him again when robots attack, but he won't be there when they do. Reason: That is Descent.

Whoever Zubrin is....

I agree with your comment. (Tokamak?). It reminds me of the 'Perpetual Motion Machine', 'A free Lunch', 'Something for Nothing'. Ever since (circa 1950s), this promise has always been 'Just 10 Years Away'! Best regards.

Not all fusion reactors use steam, some old require magnets. As to the plasma your right, but it's an extremely small amount. Since there cannot be a meltdown, and the byproduct is not radioactive it's most certainly our best bet.

You're not wrong. The materials aspect is one of the main headline challenges facing the commercialisation of the technology.

If they can find a heat transfer medium that will last they can operate at temperatures where higher efficiency Brayton cycle CO2 and Helium turbines could be used. Such is the case for some of the Gen IV Fission reactor designs (MSR specifically). They produce significantly higher efficiencies than just supercritical steam does.

With aneutronic fusion (hydrogen boron fuel) you will not need any turbines, the heat can be captured directly by the all surrounding device that converts the heat directly into energy. This makes this makes for the far cheaper process of the energy capture. Better yet because anutronic fusion produces no neutrons you will not need to worry about protection from radioactive waste caused by neutrons.

+Arthur Leung We dont. Thats why we cant get it to produce more power than it generates yet. There is a plan to have a water cooling jacket at the back side of the walls. It will get heated to 500 C by neutrons that escape the magnetic confinment after fussion reaction happens and the steam generated will power steam turbines to produce electricity. Hopefully. The issue is that due to neutron bombardment the walls and all of the machinery will be transmuted and need to be replaced wery often so i dont really think it is a feasable cheap power source. I hope they prove me wrong.

+Makis Gkirgkoudis and they become radioactive

Euphorium Inc some material do become radioactive some do not. What happens to all is that their original properties become degraded so they loose functionality and need replacement. Very difficult problem to solve. I am not optimistic anymore.

+Makis Gkirgkoudis Go understand what aneutronic fusion and lawson criterion are then you'll know fusion is more than a century away at least.

The fusion process produces energtic alpha particles and energetic neutrons. The alpha particles are subject to the magnetic fields and stay in the plasma. Their kinetic energy is used for heating the plasma. The neutrons hit the wall and thereby heats the wall. The hot wall powers a steam engine just like a coal plant.

simpler and good, and we should use them, but fusion is more efficient by a massive margin. fusion fuel is much much more abundant and delivers over a thousand times more energy per kg fuel than even fission.

@@katraconnor8451 Not to mention the fact it doesnt generate any radioactive subproducts. Maybe fission should be used for now, while we dont have something better, but fusion is definitely the way to go.

@@katraconnor8451 ... what is keeping fusion energy from becoming reality? Is it too hard to control bc it's so much more powerful?

That really isn't true anymore. There has been a lot of progress in the last few years, and a positive energy machine is more like 5-10 years, which is very likely to lead quickly to a real pilot power plant.

xxwookey+ Yeah, it will be 10 years away now for many, many decades ahead.

This is the same statement that's been repeated by countless physicists and engineers since the 50s.

You will also have to realize that computational physics, design modeling, and simulations have improved over those 30 years with supercomputers and PIC (particle in cell) codes. In addition, the experimental efforts continue with advances in materials, physics, and engineering.

If you had a steady 6 figure salary to set around and talk all day long, would you admit anything that might interrupt that money stream. I don't think so. You can never trust a Warmer to tell you the truth until we take the money out of it.

Bigbadd Woofe agreed, I think he is underestimating capitalism replacing science as the means of funding these plants. The second it is profitable to build there will be billions more poured into the research and development.

Bigbadd Woofe Fusion to be done affordably requires room temp superconductors, they are still a long way off, if possible at all, supercooling magnets requires a good chunk of resources and helium prices are only getting higher.

Brent Cromwell Fusion can be done in more than one way. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I've never heard mention of a need for room temperature superconductors.

All current experimental power plant designs use superconducting magnets to generate the plasma containment fields, which means they need large amounts of either liquid nitrogen or more commonly liquid helium to keep the magnets at the appropriate temperature.

Brent Cromwell I see. I think if we funded the research as a top priority we might see big things happen. Though, it may not be possible to create a superconductor that operates at room temperature. Maybe there is another route that can be taken.

+Emilio Latsy VelascOs Rodriguez Use it as coolant, replacing liquid nitrogen since helium is a better coolant. Balloons too.

Haha love the balloon idea Kappa I see then it would be really a self sustaining mechanism

+Emilio Latsy VelascOs Rodriguez helium is rare on earth and nonrenewable . actually now we started to have a problem of not having enough helium stocks for serious uses and there is even talk about banning helium sale for entertainment so I think a new source of helium is more than welcome

+Emilio Latsy VelascOs Rodriguez We'll breathe it, and have a laugh.

+bakters That's nitrous oxide. Helium alters vocal cords and raised the pitch. It doesn't make you laugh. Actually, neither does nitrous oxide exactly.

That was the scam of the decade when it came out...

+Wheelman Josh Because lawson's criterion.

Except that Lockheed appear to be basing their design on a magnetic mirror configuration (though it's tricky to say, as they've released virtually no information), which is a type of reactor abandoned in favour of tokamaks in the 50's/60's. Not to mention they haven't released any information as to how they plan to address the main challenges facing the commercialisation of fusion: Tritium breeding, materials degradation, divertor design, remote maintenance (and several others I can't remember right now). Changing reactor configuration doesn't eliminate these problems, and it also serves to create others. As such I'm very skeptical of Lockheed's 10 year claims. It's pretty much only their reputation that doesn't make such claims laughable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and so far nobody has seen any.

David Middleton-Gear Skunkworks doesn't ever give specifics on designs until they are released and known to the public. I'm sure this fusion reactor is not for the public first, but actually for military purposes.

+Wheelman Josh Whilst I agree with you to some extent, and skunkworks has built its reputation in doing things that other people think are too difficult to attempt, I honestly can't see how they are going to live up to their claims. There isn't a single reputable fusion lab in the world that thinks that there's any research plan that could deliver a functional, cost effective fusion reactor within 10 years. Just going through the certification process for the design of a new reactor with a nuclear regulator can take years. And from a military perspective I don't see the application. All a fusion reactor can do effectively is make electricity, which is already done on subs with very well established fission reactors. The advantages presented by fusion: clean, no long lived radioactive waste, no carbon emissions, longevity of supply etc. are not really big sellers for the military. As for skunkworks' concept of building something that fits on the back of a truck, that seems illogical too, as fusion devices do not scale down well. The bigger they are the more efficient they become, as the radiative heat losses from the plasma become less dominant. I'm not trying to be Mr. Negative, hell I work in fusion research so it's in my interests for it to succeed, it's just there has been a flurry of organisations making sensationalist claims about their fusion devices lately, which in my view are unsubstantiated, and it's really hurts the credibility of the technology... Anyhoo, sorry for the monologue, it's just an interesting topic to discuss :-)

David Middleton-Gear Since you work in fusion, you get to skip probably most of the propaganda and know exactly where we are in this exciting field. Don't worry about arguing your point at length, that's great and I appreciate it. Let me say, that Lockheed SkunkWorks has not been one to put out sensationalist claims in the past. The SR 71 was thought to be impossible, as well as the Stealth bomber and F-117. I just think these guys are working on a different level and if you look at the structure of how SW does things, they are freely able to work without red tape and bureaucracy, have an incredible amount of funds available, and have a track record of delivering what they say may will and are unquestionably advanced.They even work with DARPA. Their job is to keep the United States ahead and prevent surprise. As far as military applications, just imagine a fusion power plant on aircraft carriers, destroyers, and cruisers? There is a unquestionable need for enormous amounts of energy in these platforms because of the advent of laser weapons, EM rail guns, ablative and EM shields, just to name a few. But I don't think fusion will solve everything immediately, there is still time to make new and innovative reactors like molten salt, and thorium which are much safer and will provide a outlet (thorium) for us to use our waste piles. I think it will be a combination of many different technologies that bring us into a new era of energy, it has to, we have to do it. Just imagine unlimited amounts of fusion energy in the future where you can pretty much do whatever you want within the realm of physics, because of the power contained there. We could build giant fusion air scrubbers for instance. Any other ideas you want to discuss, feel free, I enjoy it. Have a nice day.

Is this a perpetual motion machine or a way to harvest tides and currents?

That's a lot of jobs and we are talking about the early phase of this technology. Things'll be scaled up and real progress will happen.

+doodelay also remember... fusion reactors won't be the only form of reliable and extremely potent reactors out there... we still have the already generated nuclear-waste from current fission models that we absolutely have to burn in LFTR, in order to get rid of it. which in itself will probably be more than enough energy for at least the foreseeable future. Fusion is nice but it's not going to help with the cleanup much.

+Michiel Mitchell no it wont help clean up but it won't contribute either.

+Michiel Mitchell Nuclear waste is not a big deal. The only problem are current laws, so people simply store it (which is not bad if it can be used as fuel). But you could safely deposit nuclear waste on the bottom of the ocean. Very safely.

bakters Sure, lets waste the oceans permanently with hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive material. Its not like we have thrown enough shit in it already. Who on earth has told you, that this madness would be "very safely"?

But there's plenty of it on the moon, and there still plenty of it in the ocean, so not really a serious worry.

duterium is made from tritium that we know how do make now and is not a byproduct it is the fuel helium is the only byproduct

Helium we all be smurfs.

VX pesticide nerve agent and Lontrel herbicide and nerve agent both glow white . These are fluorinated pyridine rings. Agent Orange herbicide glysophate propanolamine glows green. These are Chlorinated pyridine rings. Brominated Dioxin fire retardant used on fabric glows blue. These are Brominated benzene rings. All are photo electric and repeatedly generate electrons from light and heat energy. These electrons destabilized atmospheric gases oxygen and nitrogen gases to salt and water. We see nitrate and ammonium sulphate in precipitation rivers and lakes.

+Stratos Adam You are confusing the law of energy conservation with the conversion of matter into energy. Theese are 2 totaly different subjects. There is no violation of the energy conservation law by fission or fussion process. A) Energy conservation says that you can not produce more energy from burning fuel than is contained in said fuel. B) In nuclear reactions you break up the nucleus into smaller atoms than their previus sum, releasing neutrons. All atoms have a huge amount of energy called strong nuclear force binding the protons and neutrons together. When you have a release of neutrons some of the strong nuclear force binding the atom together is lost and released as heat which we trap with water to power steam turbines. In fission this process is automatic because the nuclei of heavy atoms that have 200+ protons and neutrons are unstable. In fussion we need to force the smallest of atoms to bind together so we need to add energy to start the reaction. If still confused, read a high school physics book, and work your way up from that. Dont hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

The major thing is getting more out than you put in. That is the point of ITER. After that it is just a matter of making more and refining the process. It is a big thing for fusion.

How is powering a city of 500,000 people with clean energy not impressive?

Because it's costing what, 20 billion euros?? Lol. The biggest problem I see with tokamaks is (besides the break-even challenge) - that only a small fraction of the available fusion energy will be useable. 99.9% of the energy will be contained in the middle of the tokamak, and only a tiny fraction of energetic particles will reach the containment shielding. This SMALL FRACTION of a percent will be used for heat. With fission it's a million times easier to produce energy AND you can convert more than half of it. You're only limited by thermal transfer efficiency. This is why we need advanced fission - thorium MSRs #thorium

Robert Weekes Fission is nice and I like it. But it is not the future. Fusion is the next step for us to progress into a new technological age. That’s final. For us to progress we need fusion.

Robert Weekes, The "biggest problem" you see with tokamaks is in fact nonexistent. Fast neutrons carry away a lot more than 1% of the energy produced by fusing nuclei (it's 80% for D-T fusion). The remaining energy is carried by the produced alpha-particles, which deposit that energy in the plasma, thus sustaining plasma heating. The actual problem with D-T fusion is plasma-wall damage from the fast neutrons. You'll need to change the plasma chamber's lining every few years. The projected cost of that alone will cause vertigo for sure :-(. So I agree with your that MSR-fission reactors based on Thorium is the way to go (for now at least).

+grumpystiltskin LENR is a scam

we dont need a superconductor at room temperature. we can use super conductors that are cooled, the reactor produces enough energy to offset that extra consumption of cooling

+Jack Sullivan Probably because the word is hype, and you've entered the command wrong.

annoyed707 Yeah realized that a little too late, probably because I was so hyped up.

What??? 2035?!?!?! Well, we can safely forget about ever getting power from THAT priesthood.....

+Wheelman Josh Advanced nuclear reactors are the way to go until fusion gets viable.

+Wheelman Josh There are many technological ways to bridge the gap years . . . for starters burning coal + carbon capture would do the trick (that is probably the current cheapest way to produce enough clean electricity) . . . by 2020 solar power + Elon Musks power wall will be as cheap as clean coal now (by 2030 far cheaper) . . . and even better, it costs less and less energy to produce one Euro of economic growth so in the future we might require less and less energy per capita and still have a flourishing economy . . . we can well afford to take 50 to 100 years to get fusion going . . . and even if fusions fails, we perfectly can live with the 2030 version of solar power.

+vilkoos We are already using fusion power in wind and sunlight forms to bridge that gap. Even hydro-electric power and fossil fuels are derived from the fusion of hydrogen in the sun.

You've been horribly brainwashed by your professors and don't know it.

facepalm .... they exist for over half a century dude

we had fusion bombs since 1960s you derp

@@katraconnor8451 1950s.

***** no they are both equally intolerable

+wesley scott Misinformation you say? Just imagine how this reactor will be fueled. A public restroom will be put just outside the power plant and all of the piss will be purified and then the hydrogen gathered through electrolysis. Just imagine your piss providing essential energy to the world.

Chapter 12 of what, a comic book?

rstevewarmorycom What kind of talk is irresponsible, exactly?

encarsiaformosa Any kind in which you encourage people to ignore proven technology which could save the world and offer instead unproven and more expensive technology. Why? Because doing so could be responsible for ending human life and culture.

rstevewarmorycom I don't think anyone's ignoring proven technology, it's just the proven technology so far hasn't delivered, so we're looking for alternatives. The amount of money spent on fusion research is paltry.

+rstevewarmorycom Do you remember the part where he talked about the development timeline?

+encarsiaformosa Agreed it's paltry. But the amount to convert the world to fusion is staggeringly more than to convert the world to solar and wind. And how quick? 50 years to build a reactor for everyone everywhere? We'll have destroyed the planet for good by then irretrievably.