Skip to comments.
Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project
Reuters ^
| 3 hours ago
| Andrea Shalal
Posted on 10/15/2014 10:50:41 AM PDT by apillar
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.
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.
In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: energy; nuclear
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Wait a minute! Hold the phone! Do they seriously mean a FUSION reactor or is the reporter confusing it with a minaturized fission reactor? Because if they seriously have invented a small working fusion reactor that would be the biggest science news in 100 years as the most optimistic experts say a fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes is still about 50 years away.
1
posted on
10/15/2014 10:50:41 AM PDT
by
apillar
To: apillar
To: apillar
....a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck,...
A 0.50 laser would be a good thing to have should Zombies apocalypse.
3
posted on
10/15/2014 10:54:08 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: apillar
I went out to the story and read it. Not a typo.
They said ‘compact FUSION reactor’ uses deuterium-tritium - for now. This one will produce some waste. Future ones using hydrogen won’t.
To: Paladin2
A reactor on the back of trucks....
What could possibly go wrong?
5
posted on
10/15/2014 10:55:23 AM PDT
by
illiac
(If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: apillar
This would be huge if true. As in, “change the world” huge. Something tells me the environmentalists/leftists would lobby for its outlaw. For no rational reason except the word “nuclear” is a part of the technology.
7
posted on
10/15/2014 10:56:13 AM PDT
by
BlueStateRightist
(Government is best which governs least.)
To: apillar
10 times smaller than current reactors
I wasn’t aware that there WERE any current Fusion
reactors....????
8
posted on
10/15/2014 10:56:25 AM PDT
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: apillar
9
posted on
10/15/2014 10:56:40 AM PDT
by
Lee'sGhost
("Just look at the flowers, Lizzie. Just look at the flowers.")
To: illiac
A reactor on the back of trucks.... What could possibly go wrong?Don't station any in Benghazi.
To: tet68
Actually and current WORKING Fusion reactors...
11
posted on
10/15/2014 10:57:35 AM PDT
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: apillar
If true (and I remain suspicious of the reporting), then this will change the world.
Or be banned.
12
posted on
10/15/2014 10:57:44 AM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: apillar
To: apillar
I’ve been hearing that they’ll be in use in ten years for fifty years now.
14
posted on
10/15/2014 10:58:38 AM PDT
by
blam
(Jeff Sessions For President)
To: apillar
To: apillar
16
posted on
10/15/2014 11:00:06 AM PDT
by
M Kehoe
To: apillar
Lots of articles if you gooogle lockheed fusion. I would say they mean fusion, not a Reuters typo.
17
posted on
10/15/2014 11:00:35 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
18
posted on
10/15/2014 11:00:50 AM PDT
by
smokingfrog
( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
To: Paladin2
"...which could fit on the back of a large truck..." Advantage: the Deep South, across to Texas.
19
posted on
10/15/2014 11:00:58 AM PDT
by
alancarp
To: apillar
If true, it's another triumph for the profit motive.
20
posted on
10/15/2014 11:02:07 AM PDT
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson