Lockneed breakthough in fusion reactors.

[macdoc]

They didn't make a transformation towards green power yet. They're making progress on that front, much as everyone else.

leaps and bounds....did you miss the bit about 26 nukes on the go

Another thing, they made the first transformation using imported (and stolen) technology. This is an order of magnitude easier than it is to develop new technology, determine which options are best before they were extensively used, and stick with them, which is what the shift away from fossil power will require

.

so what - it's no industrial secret how Sweden moves greener.

Can it be done in 30 years? Sure it can ... if you have all the know-how you need when you begin the transformation and only need to implement it.

and they have and are

what's the US excuse?

 

[Trakar]

leaps and bounds....did you miss the bit about 26 nukes on the go

.

so what - it's no industrial secret how Sweden moves greener.


and they have and are

what's the US excuse?

Too much potential money to leave it in the ground, primarily.

 

[McHrozni]

so what - it's no industrial secret how Sweden moves greener.

It's a tad easier to move a nation of 8 million to move greener than it is for a nation of 300 (or 1300) million.

I'm not saying US couldn't or shouldn't do more, but we should keep the requests realistic.

McHrozni

 

[mike3]

Yeah, pretty much. Although it's not all crap, it's a reasonable concern: the strategy is far reaching, expensive, and not likely to repay itself within a century. How many predictions from 1914 about 2014 (or there about) were correct? Was it possible to determine that with any significant accuracy? Probably not. You need to adapt to the changing situation. Suppose you start building 5 nuclear plants per year, and after ten years they're all rendered obsolete because you've discovered for example efficient in vitro methane photosynthesis. The money for all that nuclear power could reasonably be spent better on a whole range of other things, including funding for such research.
Of course, it could be such technology won't be developed, which is why I think nuclear power is still our best bet for the time being.

McHrozni

And if you keep putting off doing something because "some better technology may come along", you'll never get anything done.

 

[McHrozni]

And if you keep putting off doing something because "some better technology may come along", you'll never get anything done.

Correct. But there is a difference between "doing something" and "irreversibly committing to a new strategy for a hundred years"

McHrozni

 

[macdoc]

It's a tad easier to move a nation of 8 million to move greener than it is for a nation of 300 (or 1300) million.

I'm not saying US couldn't or shouldn't do more, but we should keep the requests realistic.

Not for 300 million its not any different at all - do it sector by sector as some states already are. That is no excuse and EU is the same size as the US.

China - there are a raft of complicating factors with that population and India more so but at the same time there is no moral position the first world can take to hinder developing nations from wealth building on fossil resources.

For the first world, there is no excuse not to have a carbon neutral plan in place.....I do agree putting all eggs in one basket isa risk - one that has worked out well for France tho.

 

[jimbob]

On the subject of balancing the generational capacity - this is a potentially interesting press release:

http://alevo.com/alevo-launches-combat-30-energy-waste-using-innovative-battery-data-analytics/

Alevo Launches to Combat 30% Energy Waste Using Innovative Battery and Data Analytics

October 27, 2014

Billion dollar start-up opens 3.5 million sq. ft. manufacturing plant in North Carolina, creates 2,500 jobs, and announces agreements with China and Turkey

Alevo Group, the Energy Service Provider, today unveiled plans to deliver massive efficiencies to power generation globally through innovations in battery technology and data analytics. The company announced manufacturing plans in Concord, North Carolina, that will see the creation of thousands of skilled jobs, for the building of GridBanks. GridBanks, combined with advanced analytics, can substantially cut electricity waste in existing fossil-fuel generation while enabling full use to be made of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

Alevo will provide energy services to energy utilities worldwide through the installation of GridBanks, shipping containers of Alevo batteries that can deliver 2MW of power. When combined with the advanced Alevo Analytics, the GridBanks can be used to optimize entire grids in real time to eliminate up to 30% energy currently lost through inefficiencies and power waste. Core to Alevo’s ability to deliver these energy services is a breakthrough battery technology that is completely non-flammable, and can be charged and discharged with no resting period over 40,000 times (proven in a test environment), dramatically reducing the lifetime cost of utility-grade batteries.

 

[phunk]

Alevo seems mighty sketchy.

 

[jimbob]

They do, but seem to be implying that they already have funding.

 

[McHrozni]

Not for 300 million its not any different at all - do it sector by sector as some states already are. That is no excuse and EU is the same size as the US.

It's not an excuse, it's an objective reason. Sweden has a much larger hydro potential per capita than US, which is a substantial chunk of their success. It's a lot easier to commit to building two nuclear power plants than it's to build 200-300, as would be needed for US.

China - there are a raft of complicating factors with that population and India more so but at the same time there is no moral position the first world can take to hinder developing nations from wealth building on fossil resources.

Maybe, but why do you need a moral position anyway? It's either this, or they suffer the terrible consequences, as China already is.
Plus I see no reason to believe a superior moral position would do anything useful.

For the first world, there is no excuse not to have a carbon neutral plan in place.....I do agree putting all eggs in one basket isa risk - one that has worked out well for France tho.

For electricity production. France is not carbon neutral by a long shot. That doesn't mean putting all the eggs in that basked is always smart.

McHrozni

 

[rjh01]

It's not an excuse, it's an objective reason. Sweden has a much larger hydro potential per capita than US, which is a substantial chunk of their success. It's a lot easier to commit to building two nuclear power plants than it's to build 200-300, as would be needed for US.


<snip>

McHrozni

Actually it may be easier to build 200 rather than 2 nuclear power plants. That is if it is done properly. First off find a suitable design. Then build 200 of them all the same. Then if someone gets a highly specialized job at one of them they can transfer to another one without having to have a lot of retraining. And the other way round. If an employer wants to recruit someone to do a specialized job there would be already many people who could do that job.

Actually it might get a little more complex than that. You would build a few every year. Then every few years update the design and start building those. But the results would be the same.

 

[McHrozni]

Actually it may be easier to build 200 rather than 2 nuclear power plants. That is if it is done properly. First off find a suitable design. Then build 200 of them all the same. Then if someone gets a highly specialized job at one of them they can transfer to another one without having to have a lot of retraining. And the other way round. If an employer wants to recruit someone to do a specialized job there would be already many people who could do that job.

Actually it might get a little more complex than that. You would build a few every year. Then every few years update the design and start building those. But the results would be the same.

Building the power plants is the smallest of the problems. The largest problems are to commit the financing, especially against an established political lobby. With 200 power plants you face 200 political battles, versus just two with two power plants.
Add to the fact that 'environmentalists' will gladly fight the fight for greatest polluters, spread irrational fears among local population and the issue grows bigger still.

Of course finding enough money is also a problem. It's probably easier to find enough money for 2 power plants than it is for 200, even if the latter economy is proportionally bigger.

McHrozni

 

[macdoc]

Actually it may be easier to build 200 rather than 2 nuclear power plants.

Except for perhaps France ....that has been part of the problem in getting costs down. The Canadian reactor Candu design never got enough roll behind it tho it might have a second coming as a thorium reactor.
I think GE and Westinghouse were close to having a real cookie cutter set up that could have saved a lot but then red tape kept pushing the costs up and up.

In Ontario we stalled out of a good program as the pundits on the right wing said we had too much electricity more than we would ever need.....duh.

And really we've not seen any 3rd or 4th generation builds, pebble bed seems to have died an unneeded death, first in Germany, then South Africa and finally nothing out of China recently. That looked to be the safest of all designs.

In Ontario we could have built more - even on the existing sites....the plans called for it.
Now the expertise is gone - the costs astronomical compare to the 90s. Short sighted.

 

[McHrozni]

Except for perhaps France ....that has been part of the problem in getting costs down. The Canadian reactor Candu design never got enough roll behind it tho it might have a second coming as a thorium reactor.
I think GE and Westinghouse were close to having a real cookie cutter set up that could have saved a lot but then red tape kept pushing the costs up and up.

In Ontario we stalled out of a good program as the pundits on the right wing said we had too much electricity more than we would ever need.....duh.

And really we've not seen any 3rd or 4th generation builds, pebble bed seems to have died an unneeded death, first in Germany, then South Africa and finally nothing out of China recently. That looked to be the safest of all designs.

In Ontario we could have built more - even on the existing sites....the plans called for it.
Now the expertise is gone - the costs astronomical compare to the 90s. Short sighted.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, nuclear power is a very good option, but saying "we only need to build X plants per year" ignores ~99% of the problems you face. Political issues, necessity of long-term planning, 'environmentalists', existing lobbies and so on are the real problem. Yes, the world would be better off if you didn't have to fight that battle. The world would also be better off if we had practical fusion power as described in OP, and it might be it's more realistic.

McHrozni

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Except for perhaps France ....that has been part of the problem in getting costs down. The Canadian reactor Candu design never got enough roll behind it tho it might have a second coming as a thorium reactor.
I think GE and Westinghouse were close to having a real cookie cutter set up that could have saved a lot but then red tape kept pushing the costs up and up.

In Ontario we stalled out of a good program as the pundits on the right wing said we had too much electricity more than we would ever need.....duh.

And really we've not seen any 3rd or 4th generation builds, pebble bed seems to have died an unneeded death, first in Germany, then South Africa and finally nothing out of China recently. That looked to be the safest of all designs.

In Ontario we could have built more - even on the existing sites....the plans called for it.
Now the expertise is gone - the costs astronomical compare to the 90s. Short sighted.

This sent me off to try and find a recent newspaper article I saw (or imagined I saw ) about research in Saskatchewan into a "new" design. I did not find it but did find: https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9260/public which describes what is happening internationally in fission based power system R&D.

(PS. I could tell you my story of standing unsuited at the face of the Pickering 1 calandria. But this is not the place. )

 

[macdoc]

"we only need to build X plants per year"

that was not me that said that.....I'm fully aware of the stupid resistance.

 

[stevea]

Ships? Buses? According to the back of my envelope, a full-up 747-8 would do nicely on 100 MW.

I think not. If my BofE calc is right each of the 4 GE GenX can produce a peak around 60-65 MW, for a total ~240-260 MW. Then there is a small matter of weight and throttling.

 

[stevea]

I had a thought last night. Given that it's highly unlikely that Lockheed made a breakthrough that... Something like a flypaper for spies, an attempt to flush them out?.

I agree w/ your skepticism, but I'll suggest that Chinese spies are likely skeptical too.
This *smells* like an internally funded (IR&D) project that cost too much, and then the PR guys got a load of punch and ....

The claim on their site is they intend to produce the base load for the entire world by 2050. This would be at least as revolutionary as internal combustion engine. It's a particularly sweet fruit to try to steal.

Thoughts?

Hope I'm wrong, but I expect that if we ever hear of this again it will be in ~2yrs when they announce the test is still 5 years out and and "on track". I suggest you google-scholar the list of patents by Charles Chase (the Lockheed tech guru) patents and see if your impressions match mine. Certainly a bright and accomplished guy, but patents across a lot of fields - more a dilettante - not the sort of focussed power of a Craig Venter able to crack the hard nuts. I hope he proves me wrong.

If you had a functional prototype in 2020 and a working 100MW test model in 2025 it would still be 2045 before there was a major but slow rollout in the first world. That industrial space isn't paid to take risks on new-tech. Ppl funding a multi-billion dollar plant upgrades that are amortized based according to pricing set in a non-free market managed by a public utility commissions are highly reluctant to take risks - there is no upside. They aren't going to implement a test-idea that has less that 20yrs of operational history.

Maybe that equation is different for China/India or other nations with a fast growing energy demand, but I have doubts. (India is hot on the thorium fission path).

They intend to produce reactors to retrofit the smallish natural gas electric plant (which average ~650MW). So to the extent they displace fossil fuels - fabulous. I have no faith that the fusion power will be any cheaper than nat.gas power. I expect much higher reactor cost, and lower fuel cost, so it's an up front investment for comparable LT cost plus no carbon pollution..

... Given the capital requirements*, I think the most economical location for a fusion reactor is about 150-Gm from here.

Especially as the cost of photovoltaics is dropping rapidly -)

Yeah - be sure to PM me when the environmental impact of paving a surface area the size of Maryland with semiconductors doped with some of the most harmful & rare materials imaginable becomes acceptable, along with solving energy transport & storage cost and their 20 year replacement cycle. Using sunlight is brilliant, using current photovoltaics is tragic.

Maybe concentrated solar with molten metal storage but still consumes territory and has similar geopolitical issues (will Euros buy their solar energy from Spain & N.Africa for example?).

 

[macdoc]

I think you underestimate the pace of change in the solar market. Every one of your points is being corrected for upcoming panels.
You remind me of a person musing about the limitations of the computer in the 70s.

Take one point..rare materials..

New solar panels made with more common metals could be cheaper and more sustainable
Note to journalists: Please report that this research was presented at a meeting of the American Chemical Society.

PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 21, 2012 — With enough sunlight falling on home roofs to supply at least half of America’s electricity, scientists today described advances toward the less-expensive solar energy technology needed to roof many of those homes with shingles that generate electricity.

Shingles that generate electricity from the sun, and can be installed like traditional roofing, already are a commercial reality. But the advance ― a new world performance record for solar cells made with “earth-abundant” materials ― could make them more affordable and ease the integration of photovoltaics into other parts of buildings, the scientists said.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/p...ls-could-be-cheaper-and-more-sustainable.html

There are panels that can work after the sun sets off the IR in the environment and lately a sunlight to heat conversion of 90%.

New Solar Power Material Converts 90 Percent of Captured ...
www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=1589
Oct 28, 2014 - ... could significantly improve the cost competitiveness of solar energy by converting more than 90 percent of the sunlight it captures into heat.

snip

Click Here for a HighResolution Version
UC San Diego mechanical engineering professor Renkun Chen spray paints a novel material designed that could significantly improve the cost competitiveness of solar energy by converting more than 90 percent of the sunlight it captures into heat. Funded by the US Department of Energy's SunShot Initiative, the team is tasked with coming up with a material that can last for years in the air and humidity before it needs to be repainted, a feat the team believes it is close to achieving. Credit: David Baillot/UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering.
San Diego, Calif., Oct. 28, 2014 -- A multidisciplinary engineering team at the University of California, San Diego developed a new nanoparticle-based material for concentrating solar power plants designed to absorb and convert to heat more than 90 percent of the sunlight it captures. The new material can also withstand temperatures greater than 700 degrees Celsius and survive many years outdoors in spite of exposure to air and humidity. Their work, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot program, was published recently in two separate articles in the journal Nano Energy.

No one is promoting a single source solution ....it will be multi-sourced - the key is carbon neutral....the rest will follow and as there are many carcasses of tech littering our home and environment there will be in energy supply as well.

Consider the Edsel.

 

[McHrozni]

I agree w/ your skepticism, but I'll suggest that Chinese spies are likely skeptical too.

Possibly. But their priorities are different than ours. If there is anything on it after all, we'd simply admit we were wrong, that things that look too good to be true sometimes are true after all and moved on with no consequence whatsoever. For them it's another story.

This *smells* like an internally funded (IR&D) project that cost too much, and then the PR guys got a load of punch and ....

Dunno. Maybe. It would be a rather stupid move.

They intend to produce reactors to retrofit the smallish natural gas electric plant (which average ~650MW). So to the extent they displace fossil fuels - fabulous. I have no faith that the fusion power will be any cheaper than nat.gas power. I expect much higher reactor cost, and lower fuel cost, so it's an up front investment for comparable LT cost plus no carbon pollution..

Plus fuel can be produced pretty much anywhere. You no longer need to rely on the likes of Saudi Arabia or Russia to fuel your civilization. It's not a small consideration by any stretch of imagination.

Maybe concentrated solar with molten metal storage but still consumes territory and has similar geopolitical issues (will Euros buy their solar energy from Spain & N.Africa for example?).

Better Spain than Russia, I think?

McHrozni