If I cook it on the reactor, is it fusion cuisine?

[Scott DeWar]

Well, that's not any fun, radiation poisoning or cancer? blech!

Ok, so at best, Thorium is good as a long life low power battery and would require shielding that would make it 'not feasible'. Do I have the basics?

It looked like one of the descriptions of thorium powered cars required a laser to melt the thorium for it to be fissionable which had me wondering of the power used to power generated ration to see if it would produce enough to move the car with the heavy shielding need for a reaction core. Do I have the basics of needed power core necessities?

 

[Umbran]

Ok, so at best, Thorium is good as a long life low power battery and would require shielding that would make it 'not feasible'. Do I have the basics?

It is more that the power output of such devices* is not large enough to be used in something like a domestic vehicle. The Mars rover Curiosity has one that puts out about 125 Watts of power - enough for a couple of light bulbs, not enough to get you to work at 60 mph.

It looked like one of the descriptions of thorium powered cars required a laser to melt the thorium for it to be fissionable which had me wondering of the power used to power generated ration to see if it would produce enough to move the car with the heavy shielding need for a reaction core. Do I have the basics of needed power core necessities?

The descriptions are, as my father would have said, horsehockey. They are gobbledigook put together to sound convincing, but do not match up with anything in reality. You don't need a laser to melt the thorium. Thorium and its oxides melt at Very high temperatures (like, thousands of degrees Fahrenheit). You aren't going to melt that in a car engine. You aren't going to use a fission reactor in a car - melting or not, that produces hard radiation that takes shielding on the order of yards of concrete. Heck, the descriptions also say that there is no nuclear reaction going on!


*It isn't technically a battery. The radioactive decay produces heat - the heat is used to create electricity through thermocouples. They are just sometimes called "nuclear batteries".

 

[Scott DeWar]

It is more that the power output of such devices* is not large enough to be used in something like a domestic vehicle. The Mars rover Curiosity has one that puts out about 125 Watts of power - enough for a couple of light bulbs, not enough to get you to work at 60 mph.
*It isn't technically a battery. The radioactive decay produces heat - the heat is used to create electricity through thermocouples. They are just sometimes called "nuclear batteries"

believe or not, I actually knew that

The descriptions are, as my father would have said,

horsehockey​

.
They are gobbledygook put together to sound convincing, but do not match up with anything in reality. You don't need a laser to melt the thorium. Thorium and its oxides melt at Very high temperatures (like, thousands of degrees Fahrenheit). You aren't going to melt that in a car engine. You aren't going to use a fission reactor in a car - melting or not, that produces hard radiation that takes shielding on the order of yards of concrete. Heck, the descriptions also say that there is no nuclear reaction going on!

Horsepucky is what my grandpa would have said, step dad would use a more colorful metaphor that is not suitable for grandma's eyes.

Yeah, I figured it was pseudo science. It is just good to get clarifications. Out of curiosity, is there any research on improving the thermocouples to be more efficient and produce more power out of the heat radiating out? I realize there is nothing you can do for the shielding. its hard radiation and its gonna need thick leaded concrete.

 

[Umbran]

believe or not, I actually knew that

You might, but there may be other readers who didn't, so I included it as a nod to increasing science knowledge in the Universe

Out of curiosity, is there any research on improving the thermocouples to be more efficient and produce more power out of the heat radiating out?

I'm sure there is, but in the end, you are limited by the power output of the slow decay fo radioactive materials - a chunk of a given material will only put out so much heat per unit time, and that's it. Even if you were 100% efficient at gathering that energy, it isn't going to run a car.

 

[Scott DeWar]

got it.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm a bit confused. So what's the actual breakthrough, here? The size of the reactor?

I mean, there's this ITER project in South France where they already started building a fusion power plant, isn't there?

 

[Umbran]

I'm a bit confused. So what's the actual breakthrough, here? The size of the reactor?

Lockheed has not been terribly open about exactly what their technical breakthrough has been - which makes sense, as they probably want to patent the heck out of it. But the size and timescale difference implies they've found some really interesting idea they need help exploring.

I mean, there's this ITER project in South France where they already started building a fusion power plant, isn't there?

ITER is an experiment with one type of fusion reactor. It began construction in 2007. Currently, they expect construction to be finished in 2019. They don't expect to actually get power out of the thing until 2027 - 20 years after breaking ground. The first commercial power plant is expected to be a follow-on from ITER, not ITER itself, with the implied design and construction times for that added on.

Meanwhile, Lockheed says it thinks it can make a fusion reactor in a decade, soup to nuts, production ready. Now, from most folks, this claim would be scoffed at. But Lockheed already does fission power plants for naval vessels - they are not new to this game. They are not small, and are known to be technically competent.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Did they announce anything about the containment problem? Or is the Fleischmann&Pons, aquarium-scale cold fusion back? This kind of "announcement" won't get me buying Lokheed shares; there's got do be a lot more evidence for that.

 

[Umbran]

Did they announce anything about the containment problem? Or is the Fleischmann&Pons, aquarium-scale cold fusion back?

There's nothing saying it is cold fusion. Just that it can fit into a small space. I haven't seen anything about the process.

But, again, let us be clear - this is Lockheed. They already provide nuclear plants for submarines and other naval vessels. They've been working on advanced energy projects for years, and have more than a small amount of proven technical skill.

And their announcement was a request for partners - they admit they can't do it alone, and are looking for help from various sources, including the academic community. It then follows that scientists outside Lockheed are going to get eyes on the thing. It isn't like they can play the cold fusion shuffle under this setup.

 

[Scott DeWar]

Just thinking out loud here, if "small" means submarine and aircraft carrier power supplies, then that descriptor might be subjective as compared to a 100 acre sized compound. Not so much as being small as in 10 x 10 x 10 sized room. Unless they plan on making it a basement install kind of thing.