Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is “conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a “scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.

--
Ed Huntress

On 10/17/2014 3:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is “conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a “scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.



Just was I saw in the news yesterday.
Yeah, Wow!

I liked the very last part best.
The suggestion that it may be able to work with non-radioactive fuels.

Ten years?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the
page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday,
including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its "Skunk Works"
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10
years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is "conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission," Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports.
Lockheed
believes that by being "compact," the CFR as a "scalable concept
will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power
stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft
that
virtually never require refueling-ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors."

Wow, if they're right.

--
Ed Huntress

I've been following this for several years:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Low...41013-530.html

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:03:13 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 10/17/2014 3:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is “conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a “scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.



Just was I saw in the news yesterday.
Yeah, Wow!

I liked the very last part best.
The suggestion that it may be able to work with non-radioactive fuels.

Well, as far as I know, the controlled-fusion experiments have been
done with deuterium, which is non-radioactive, for more than 40 years.
When I co-owned a job shop in Princeton we made half our living by
making parts for the Princeton Plasma Physics Tokomak reactor. That
was a magnetic-containment project, too, and it fused deuterium.

But this is some kind of enormous advance in containment, and possibly
in ignition. I haven't followed it for years but this sounds like a
very big deal.

Ten years?

Yeah. I might even live to see it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:14:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the
page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday,
including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its "Skunk Works"
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10
years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is "conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission," Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports.
Lockheed
believes that by being "compact," the CFR as a "scalable concept
will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power
stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft
that
virtually never require refueling-ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors."

Wow, if they're right.

--
Ed Huntress

I've been following this for several years:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Low...41013-530.html


Let's keep our fingers crossed.

--
Ed Huntress

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the
page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday,
including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its "Skunk Works"
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10
years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is "conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission," Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports.
Lockheed
believes that by being "compact," the CFR as a "scalable concept
will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power
stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft
that
virtually never require refueling-ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors."

Wow, if they're right.

--
Ed Huntress

I've been following this for several years:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Low...41013-530.html


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/new...ar-fusion.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ergy?CMP=fb_gu

A miniature deuterium-tritium tokamak?

On 10/17/2014 4:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is “conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a “scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.


I've talked to my friend the physicist and he thinks that Lockheed
doesn't actually have a working system yet but there have been "better
than break-even" reactions done by various projects. It's said that
fusion is only ten years away, and they have been saying that for fifty
years...I guess it must be difficult. I do hope I see it in my lifetime
and it's not pure politics.

Fission reactors have come a long way with new designs and fuels that
show huge potential but it's all politics.

"Tom Gardner"
wrote in message On 10/17/2014 4:31 PM, Ed
Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally
I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking
about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news
sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never
brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing
Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact
Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement
that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear
fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business,
energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is
“conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger,
current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16,
Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a
“scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for
applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships
to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large,
nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of
which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the
dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission
reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.


I've talked to my friend the physicist and he
thinks that Lockheed doesn't actually have a
working system yet but there have been "better
than break-even" reactions done by various
projects. It's said that fusion is only ten
years away, and they have been saying that for
fifty years...I guess it must be difficult. I
do hope I see it in my lifetime and it's not
pure politics.

Fission reactors have come a long way with new
designs and fuels that show huge potential but
it's all politics.

Some years ago I heard something about thorium
reactors.
I wonder what is the latest on that.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:00:39 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 10/17/2014 4:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is “conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a “scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.


I've talked to my friend the physicist and he thinks that Lockheed
doesn't actually have a working system yet but there have been "better
than break-even" reactions done by various projects. It's said that
fusion is only ten years away, and they have been saying that for fifty
years...I guess it must be difficult. I do hope I see it in my lifetime
and it's not pure politics.

Fission reactors have come a long way with new designs and fuels that
show huge potential but it's all politics.

I just wish it would hurry up. I want it to happen while I'm still
here to see it.

Talk about a game changer...

--
Ed Huntress

On 10/17/2014 6:29 PM, Phil Kangas wrote:
....

Some years ago I heard something about thorium
reactors.
I wonder what is the latest on that.

Thorium-cycle is just a variant of the fission fuel cycle. Had some
advantages in reprocessing over Pu but since Carter nixed allowing any
licensing of any reprocessing whatsoever, it's been over since then.

We had Thorium cycle designs in design at B&W when I was there in the
60s that could have delivered then if utilities had wanted to go that
route. Of course, w/ the uncertainty looming, nobody wanted to take a
chance (and they were proven right to not have done shortly thereafter).

--

On 10/17/2014 4:14 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
....

I've been following this for several years:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Low...41013-530.html

When they publish this you _know_ it's bogus...

"LENR produced energy will be so low in cost that subsidies and mandates
for using pollution free LENR products will be totally unnecessary."

"Too cheap to meter" in wolf's clothing.

I seriously doubt this has much likelihood of having any success and
also question that the Lockheed announcement is at all related.

I'll believe it all when I see it and doubt that will live that long...

--

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:33:55 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ten years?

Yeah. I might even live to see it.

Its been ten years in the future for the last 50 years.

LFTR/MSTR is proven, and only needs commercialization. Can
use thorium, "spent" nuclear fuel rods (which still have
99.5% of the uranium energy), and under tight security
nuclear warhead material, solving those problems as well a
generating cheap energy. From studies done, it appears to
be practical to design a small rail possibly road
transportable modular unit that can directly retrofit
existing powerplants eliminating coal fired boilers, and
making considerable numbers of smaller power generating
stations again economically viable.

The PRC is known to have an intensive LSTR/MSTR program in
operation as does India.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:29:53 -0400, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:


"Tom Gardner"
wrote in message On 10/17/2014 4:31 PM, Ed
Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally
I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking
about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news
sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never
brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing
Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact
Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement
that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear
fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business,
energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is
“conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger,
current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16,
Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a
“scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for
applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships
to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large,
nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of
which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the
dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission
reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.


I've talked to my friend the physicist and he
thinks that Lockheed doesn't actually have a
working system yet but there have been "better
than break-even" reactions done by various
projects. It's said that fusion is only ten
years away, and they have been saying that for
fifty years...I guess it must be difficult. I
do hope I see it in my lifetime and it's not
pure politics.

Fission reactors have come a long way with new
designs and fuels that show huge potential but
it's all politics.

Some years ago I heard something about thorium
reactors.
I wonder what is the latest on that.


lots of links
http://tinyurl.com/osesjub


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

https://www.solveforx.com/moonshots/...y-for-everyone

--

dpb wrote:

On 10/17/2014 6:29 PM, Phil Kangas wrote:
...

Some years ago I heard something about thorium
reactors.
I wonder what is the latest on that.

Thorium-cycle is just a variant of the fission fuel cycle. Had some
advantages in reprocessing over Pu but since Carter nixed allowing any
licensing of any reprocessing whatsoever, it's been over since then.

News flash: Carter isn't in office anymore. Time to throw out some silly
rules and get to work.

--
Paul Hovnanian
Have gnu, will travel.

Richard wrote:


Ten years?

It is certain that we can get commercially viable fusion systems up and
running in a ten year period. We just have no idea when that ten year period
will start.

--
Paul Hovnanian
Have gnu, will travel.

On 10/17/2014 4:33 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:03:13 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 10/17/2014 3:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is “conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a “scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.



Just was I saw in the news yesterday.
Yeah, Wow!

I liked the very last part best.
The suggestion that it may be able to work with non-radioactive fuels.

Well, as far as I know, the controlled-fusion experiments have been
done with deuterium, which is non-radioactive, for more than 40 years.
When I co-owned a job shop in Princeton we made half our living by
making parts for the Princeton Plasma Physics Tokomak reactor. That
was a magnetic-containment project, too, and it fused deuterium.

But this is some kind of enormous advance in containment, and possibly
in ignition. I haven't followed it for years but this sounds like a
very big deal.

Ten years?

Yeah. I might even live to see it.

Might be Oxygen and Hydrogen Fusion unit. Might be quarks..... :-)
Martin

On 10/17/2014 6:41 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
dpb wrote:

On 10/17/2014 6:29 PM, Phil Kangas wrote:
...

Some years ago I heard something about thorium
reactors.
I wonder what is the latest on that.

Thorium-cycle is just a variant of the fission fuel cycle. Had some
advantages in reprocessing over Pu but since Carter nixed allowing any
licensing of any reprocessing whatsoever, it's been over since then.

News flash: Carter isn't in office anymore. Time to throw out some silly
rules and get to work.

Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works.
Laws/regulations/restrictions are implemented as knee-jerk over-reactions
to some world event. Lobbying groups amplify/twist those
events to get laws passed in their favor.

You can't get 'em undone.

We had an unfortunate roadside death. Before you could say boo,
there were numerous new laws on the books.
I'll stop short of saying that ANY death is allowed...but...
one person out of the 40,000 other roadside deaths is a tiny
drop in the bucket that started a flood of new legislation.

Just try to get it repealed...what? you want to kill the children?

Same goes for the tax code and the regulations on food.

One deranged kid shoots up a school and they want to take the gun
out of my safe.

I live 20 miles from a fusion reactor that was decommissioned, primarily
due to anti-nuke FUD.
Needed some repairs and those had become prohibitively costly due
to additional restrictions implemented since its inception. The utility
and government
just defaulted on the bonds and walked away.

The lobbyists made our bed...we gotta lay in it.

These days, you don't get approval for anything that doesn't
fart unicorns and butterflies.
But you can kill progress for any reason...and most are.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:33:55 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ten years?

Yeah. I might even live to see it.

Its been ten years in the future for the last 50 years.

LFTR/MSTR is proven, and only needs commercialization. Can
use thorium, "spent" nuclear fuel rods (which still have
99.5% of the uranium energy), and under tight security
nuclear warhead material, solving those problems as well a
generating cheap energy. From studies done, it appears to
be practical to design a small rail possibly road
transportable modular unit that can directly retrofit
existing powerplants eliminating coal fired boilers, and
making considerable numbers of smaller power generating
stations again economically viable.

The PRC is known to have an intensive LSTR/MSTR program in
operation as does India.


--
Unka' George


Thorium reactors will never be approved.

The promoters, lobbyists, marketeers, and scientists paid by the thorium
consortium
have overstated the bennifits and understated the risks. They have also
published
outright lies to push thier possition.

For some reason the salesmen forget to mention that in1955 the united states
detonated
a nuclear device that used fuel derived from a thorium reactor that operated
at oak ridge
national labs form the 1950's to the 1970's. "Operation Teapot".

Claim: thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, and so create little or no
proliferation hazard.


Response: thorium reactors do not produce plutonium. But an LFTR could (by
including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity
well above normal weapons-grade, presenting a major proliferation hazard.
Beyond that, the main proliferation hazards arise from:

a.. ? the need for fissile material (plutonium or uranium) to initiate
the thorium fuel cycle, which could be diverted, and

b.. ? the production of fissile uranium 233U.

Claim: the fissile uranium (233U) produced by thorium reactors is not
"weaponisable" owing to the presence of highly radiotoxic 232U as a
contaminant. Response: 233U was successfully used in a 1955 bomb test in the
Nevada Desert under the USA's Operation Teapot and so is clearly
weaponisable notwithstanding

any 232U present. Moreover, the continuous pyro-processing /
electro-refining technologies intrinsic to MSRs / LFTRs could generate
streams of 233U very low in 232U at a purity well above weapons grade as
currently defined.

Claim: 100% of the thorium is usable as fuel, in contrast to the low (~0.7%)
proportion of fissile 235U in natural uranium.


Response: Thorium must be subjected to neutron irradiation to be transformed
into a fissile material suitable for nuclear fuel (uranium, 233U). The same
applies to the 238U that makes up depleted uranium, which as already
observed, is plentiful. In theory, 100% of either metal could be bred into
nuclear fuel. However, uranium has a strong head start, as 0.7% of it is
fissile (235U) in its naturally-occurring form.

Claim: Liquid fluoride thorium reactors generate no high-level waste
material.

Response: This claim, although made in the report from the House of Lords,
has no basis in fact. High-level waste is an unavoidable product of nuclear
fission. Spent fuel from any LFTR will be intensely radioactive and
constitute high level waste. The reactor itself, at the end of its lifetime,
will constitute high level waste.

Claim: LFTRs can 'burn up' high level waste from conventional nuclear
reactors, and stockpiles of plutonium.


Response: if LFTRs are used to 'burn up' waste from conventional reactors,
their fuel now comprises 238U, 235U, 239Pu, 240Pu and other actinides.
Operated in this way, what is now a mixed-fuel molten salt reactor will
breed plutonium (from 238U) and other long lived actinides, perpetuating the
plutonium cycle.

Claim: Thorium and the LFTR offer a solution to current and medium-term
energy supply deficits.


Response: The thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK's
National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest
that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready
to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production LFTRs will not be
deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.

http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/thorium...une-2012-.html

Best Regards
Tom.

On 10/17/2014 7:29 PM, Phil Kangas wrote:

Some years ago I heard something about thorium
reactors.
I wonder what is the latest on that.




I was going to bring that up too, I will research it a bit. Years ago,
I read that Thorium was the perfect answer.

On 10/17/2014 10:49 PM, mike wrote:

These days, you don't get approval for anything that doesn't
fart unicorns and butterflies.
But you can kill progress for any reason...and most are.

And, the incidents in Japan bolstered the anti-nuke people for decades.

On 10/17/2014 7:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:00:39 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 10/17/2014 4:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is “conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a “scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.


I've talked to my friend the physicist and he thinks that Lockheed
doesn't actually have a working system yet but there have been "better
than break-even" reactions done by various projects. It's said that
fusion is only ten years away, and they have been saying that for fifty
years...I guess it must be difficult. I do hope I see it in my lifetime
and it's not pure politics.

Fission reactors have come a long way with new designs and fuels that
show huge potential but it's all politics.

I just wish it would hurry up. I want it to happen while I'm still
here to see it.

Talk about a game changer...


Too many people stand to lose too much money and power. I remember the
days in my youth when the "Popular Science" magazine came in the mail.
The daydreams ran rampant...I still want my flying car that I was
promised when I was nine years old! Now, even Popular Science doesn't
deliver to kids today. Where can they get inspired?

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:03:13 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 10/17/2014 3:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? Normally I'd just turn the page,
but this is the Skunk Works they're talking about.

Apparently it broke in four or five news sources yesterday, including
Aviation Week, which is another one I never brush off. This text is
from the SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) Daily Briefing:

"Lockheed Announces Plans For New Compact Fusion Reactor Concept.
Coverage of the Lockheed Martin announcement that its “Skunk Works”
lab planned to unveil a new concept nuclear fusion reactor in 10 years
received significant attention from business, energy and technology
news outlets...."

" Lockheed says its Compact Fusion Reactor is “conceptually safer,
cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems
that rely on fission,” Aviation Week (10/16, Norris) reports. Lockheed
believes that by being “compact,” the CFR as a “scalable concept will
also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from
interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.
It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that
virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely
abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and
complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.”

Wow, if they're right.



Just was I saw in the news yesterday.
Yeah, Wow!

I liked the very last part best.
The suggestion that it may be able to work with non-radioactive fuels.

Ten years?

Which means they have working models online now.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:57:57 -0700, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:33:55 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ten years?

Yeah. I might even live to see it.

Its been ten years in the future for the last 50 years.

LFTR/MSTR is proven, and only needs commercialization. Can
use thorium, "spent" nuclear fuel rods (which still have
99.5% of the uranium energy), and under tight security
nuclear warhead material, solving those problems as well a
generating cheap energy. From studies done, it appears to
be practical to design a small rail possibly road
transportable modular unit that can directly retrofit
existing powerplants eliminating coal fired boilers, and
making considerable numbers of smaller power generating
stations again economically viable.

The PRC is known to have an intensive LSTR/MSTR program in
operation as does India.


--
Unka' George


Thorium reactors will never be approved.

The promoters, lobbyists, marketeers, and scientists paid by the thorium
consortium
have overstated the bennifits and understated the risks. They have also
published
outright lies to push thier possition.

For some reason the salesmen forget to mention that in1955 the united states
detonated
a nuclear device that used fuel derived from a thorium reactor that operated
at oak ridge
national labs form the 1950's to the 1970's. "Operation Teapot".

Claim: thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, and so create little or no
proliferation hazard.


Response: thorium reactors do not produce plutonium. But an LFTR could (by
including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity
well above normal weapons-grade, presenting a major proliferation hazard.
Beyond that, the main proliferation hazards arise from:

a.. ? the need for fissile material (plutonium or uranium) to initiate
the thorium fuel cycle, which could be diverted, and

b.. ? the production of fissile uranium 233U.

Claim: the fissile uranium (233U) produced by thorium reactors is not
"weaponisable" owing to the presence of highly radiotoxic 232U as a
contaminant. Response: 233U was successfully used in a 1955 bomb test in the
Nevada Desert under the USA's Operation Teapot and so is clearly
weaponisable notwithstanding

any 232U present. Moreover, the continuous pyro-processing /
electro-refining technologies intrinsic to MSRs / LFTRs could generate
streams of 233U very low in 232U at a purity well above weapons grade as
currently defined.

Claim: 100% of the thorium is usable as fuel, in contrast to the low (~0.7%)
proportion of fissile 235U in natural uranium.


Response: Thorium must be subjected to neutron irradiation to be transformed
into a fissile material suitable for nuclear fuel (uranium, 233U). The same
applies to the 238U that makes up depleted uranium, which as already
observed, is plentiful. In theory, 100% of either metal could be bred into
nuclear fuel. However, uranium has a strong head start, as 0.7% of it is
fissile (235U) in its naturally-occurring form.

Claim: Liquid fluoride thorium reactors generate no high-level waste
material.

Response: This claim, although made in the report from the House of Lords,
has no basis in fact. High-level waste is an unavoidable product of nuclear
fission. Spent fuel from any LFTR will be intensely radioactive and
constitute high level waste. The reactor itself, at the end of its lifetime,
will constitute high level waste.

Claim: LFTRs can 'burn up' high level waste from conventional nuclear
reactors, and stockpiles of plutonium.


Response: if LFTRs are used to 'burn up' waste from conventional reactors,
their fuel now comprises 238U, 235U, 239Pu, 240Pu and other actinides.
Operated in this way, what is now a mixed-fuel molten salt reactor will
breed plutonium (from 238U) and other long lived actinides, perpetuating the
plutonium cycle.

Claim: Thorium and the LFTR offer a solution to current and medium-term
energy supply deficits.


Response: The thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK's
National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest
that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready
to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production LFTRs will not be
deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.

http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/thorium...une-2012-.html

Best Regards
Tom.

Are we taking Fission..or Fusion here?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:48:37 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

snip
Are we taking Fission..or Fusion here?

Both. Fusion would be ideal, if it can be made to work,
which is a big question with the existing technology. While
LFTR/MSTR is still fission, it solves several problems such
as the disposal of "spent" fuel rods, is much safer as it
operates at zero system pressure, and produces no bomb
material, in addition to being "fail safe" if properly
designed. To a considerable extent LFTR/MSTR builds on
existing nuclear technology, and appears to be far more of
an engineering/development challenge than a Nobel prize
physics challenge.
for more details on problems solved see
http://tinyurl.com/k5hb4u3


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

Gunner Asch on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:48:37 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:57:57 -0700, "Howard Beal"
wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:33:55 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:
Ten years?
Yeah. I might even live to see it.
Its been ten years in the future for the last 50 years.

LFTR/MSTR is proven, and only needs commercialization. Can
use thorium, "spent" nuclear fuel rods (which still have
99.5% of the uranium energy), and under tight security
nuclear warhead material, solving those problems as well a
generating cheap energy. From studies done, it appears to
be practical to design a small rail possibly road
transportable modular unit that can directly retrofit
existing powerplants eliminating coal fired boilers, and
making considerable numbers of smaller power generating
stations again economically viable.

Thorium reactors will never be approved.

The promoters, lobbyists, marketeers, and scientists paid by the thorium
consortium have overstated the bennifits and understated the risks. They have also
published outright lies to push thier possition.

For some reason the salesmen forget to mention that in1955 the united states
detonated a nuclear device that used fuel derived from a thorium reactor that operated
at oak ridge national labs form the 1950's to the 1970's. "Operation Teapot".

[thorium reactor arguments snipped]

Response: The thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK's
National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest
that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready
to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production LFTRs will not be
deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.

Snip

Are we taking Fission..or Fusion here?

IF it involves 'heavy' elements like Thorium, Uranium, or
Plutonium it is fission.

IF it involves light elements like Hydrogen (either Deuterium or
Tritium), then it is Fusion.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:57:57 -0700, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:33:55 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Ten years?

Yeah. I might even live to see it.

Its been ten years in the future for the last 50 years.

LFTR/MSTR is proven, and only needs commercialization. Can
use thorium, "spent" nuclear fuel rods (which still have
99.5% of the uranium energy), and under tight security
nuclear warhead material, solving those problems as well a
generating cheap energy. From studies done, it appears to
be practical to design a small rail possibly road
transportable modular unit that can directly retrofit
existing powerplants eliminating coal fired boilers, and
making considerable numbers of smaller power generating
stations again economically viable.

The PRC is known to have an intensive LSTR/MSTR program in
operation as does India.


--
Unka' George


Thorium reactors will never be approved.

The promoters, lobbyists, marketeers, and scientists paid by the thorium
consortium
have overstated the bennifits and understated the risks. They have also
published
outright lies to push thier possition.

For some reason the salesmen forget to mention that in1955 the united
states
detonated
a nuclear device that used fuel derived from a thorium reactor that
operated
at oak ridge
national labs form the 1950's to the 1970's. "Operation Teapot".

Claim: thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, and so create little or
no
proliferation hazard.


Response: thorium reactors do not produce plutonium. But an LFTR could (by
including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high
purity
well above normal weapons-grade, presenting a major proliferation hazard.
Beyond that, the main proliferation hazards arise from:

a.. ? the need for fissile material (plutonium or uranium) to initiate
the thorium fuel cycle, which could be diverted, and

b.. ? the production of fissile uranium 233U.

Claim: the fissile uranium (233U) produced by thorium reactors is not
"weaponisable" owing to the presence of highly radiotoxic 232U as a
contaminant. Response: 233U was successfully used in a 1955 bomb test in
the
Nevada Desert under the USA's Operation Teapot and so is clearly
weaponisable notwithstanding

any 232U present. Moreover, the continuous pyro-processing /
electro-refining technologies intrinsic to MSRs / LFTRs could generate
streams of 233U very low in 232U at a purity well above weapons grade as
currently defined.

Claim: 100% of the thorium is usable as fuel, in contrast to the low
(~0.7%)
proportion of fissile 235U in natural uranium.


Response: Thorium must be subjected to neutron irradiation to be
transformed
into a fissile material suitable for nuclear fuel (uranium, 233U). The
same
applies to the 238U that makes up depleted uranium, which as already
observed, is plentiful. In theory, 100% of either metal could be bred into
nuclear fuel. However, uranium has a strong head start, as 0.7% of it is
fissile (235U) in its naturally-occurring form.

Claim: Liquid fluoride thorium reactors generate no high-level waste
material.

Response: This claim, although made in the report from the House of Lords,
has no basis in fact. High-level waste is an unavoidable product of
nuclear
fission. Spent fuel from any LFTR will be intensely radioactive and
constitute high level waste. The reactor itself, at the end of its
lifetime,
will constitute high level waste.

Claim: LFTRs can 'burn up' high level waste from conventional nuclear
reactors, and stockpiles of plutonium.


Response: if LFTRs are used to 'burn up' waste from conventional reactors,
their fuel now comprises 238U, 235U, 239Pu, 240Pu and other actinides.
Operated in this way, what is now a mixed-fuel molten salt reactor will
breed plutonium (from 238U) and other long lived actinides, perpetuating
the
plutonium cycle.

Claim: Thorium and the LFTR offer a solution to current and medium-term
energy supply deficits.


Response: The thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK's
National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest
that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready
to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production LFTRs will not be
deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.

http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/thorium...une-2012-.html

Best Regards
Tom.

Are we taking Fission..or Fusion here?

Gunner


LFTRs are fission based reactors. Nothing special they are simply
breeder reactors. Breeder reactors have been around since 1944.
Neutron capture transmutes the thorium into uranium (U233).
They operate on the same physics principles as the hanford B reactor:

http://www.atomicheritage.org/tours

All fission reactors produce unavoidable fission products, the problem is
these fission
products if allowed to accumulate in the fuel will poison the reactor (
fission will stop)
and the reactor will shut down. This is the reason comerical reactors use
such a small
ammount of available fissile material. LFTRs have the same problem they
generate
unwanted fission products ( nuclear waste ) that will have to be disposed of
somewhere.

Now if the good folks at lockheed have indeed produce a working fusion
reactor that can
be scaled up to commercial scale power generation that would be a big leap
forward
in producing energy. A working fusion reactor would produce very little
radioactive
waste in comparison to a fission reactor and could use 100% of the fusion
fuel. I realy
hope they have done it and it is cost effiecient. Might be they have
achieved self sustaining
cold fusion?

Best Regards
Tom.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:48:37 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

snip
Are we taking Fission..or Fusion here?

Both. Fusion would be ideal, if it can be made to work,
which is a big question with the existing technology. While
LFTR/MSTR is still fission, it solves several problems such
as the disposal of "spent" fuel rods, is much safer as it
operates at zero system pressure, and produces no bomb
material, in addition to being "fail safe" if properly
designed. To a considerable extent LFTR/MSTR builds on
existing nuclear technology, and appears to be far more of
an engineering/development challenge than a Nobel prize
physics challenge.
for more details on problems solved see
http://tinyurl.com/k5hb4u3


--
Unka' George


George you got it wrong on fission. Its a simple law of
physics that fission will produce radioactive fission products.
It makes no difference if the fuel is a fuel rod or a molten
salt. You also have it wrong on bomb making material.
LFTRs are simply breeder reactors, they convert thorium
into uranium 233 a proven bomb making material.
Last but not least its not an engineering challenge, engineers
work within the laws of physics they cannot change them.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:29:55 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Response: The thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK's
National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest
that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready
to be deployed in existing reactor designs.
The indian nuclear establishment have been using thorium
augmented fuel rods in their commercial power reactors for
some time now, and plan to have a 300 mw hybrid prototype
reactor in 2016. http://tinyurl.com/qyftjdl

Production LFTRs will not be
deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.
Ridiculous estimate by people who don't want to do it.

LFTR/MSTR builds on existing expertise, and most of the
components, such as control systems are available "off the
shelf." Starting from the "ground zero" of the Manhattan
Project [ 1942 http://tinyurl.com/4een3 ] to first
commercial power reactor [ 1958 http://tinyurl.com/4sz9dqa ]
took only 16 years.


But not to worry, the PRC will build the units for US. ;-(


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:29:55 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Response: The thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK's
National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest
that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are
ready
to be deployed in existing reactor designs.

The indian nuclear establishment have been using thorium
augmented fuel rods in their commercial power reactors for
some time now, and plan to have a 300 mw hybrid prototype
reactor in 2016. http://tinyurl.com/qyftjdl

That design uses conventional fuel rods it is not a LFTR.



Production LFTRs will not be
deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.
Ridiculous estimate by people who don't want to do it.

LFTR/MSTR builds on existing expertise, and most of the
components, such as control systems are available "off the
shelf." Starting from the "ground zero" of the Manhattan
Project [ 1942 http://tinyurl.com/4een3 ] to first
commercial power reactor [ 1958 http://tinyurl.com/4sz9dqa ]
took only 16 years.


But not to worry, the PRC will build the units for US. ;-(


--
Unka' George

There are new uranium reactors being built to replace the obsolete
units that have shut down. At this point in time there realy is no
need to build thorium based reactors. If lockheed realy has a working
fusion reactor fission reactors will become a footnote in history.

Best Regards
Tom.