The End of Coal Fired Powerplants

This is exactly something which I don't believe, because it turns everything I know of physics upside down. I don't deny that it is theoretically possible, but it doesn't make sense to me. In this case - the bigger the easier. I would bet money against such a possibility

 

One of the problems with fusion is getting tritium. That can be hard. I hope they have worked out how to produce it without using neutrons.

 

Can't wait to see the military applications.

Think we just figured out Rail Cannon tanks!

 

What did we do with unemployed barrel makers, wagon builders, buffalo hunters, milk delivery men, chimney sweeps, whalers, seal hunters, gas pump jockeys, elevator operators, locomotive coal shovelers, blacksmiths....technology changes and so do jobs...

 

With abundant cheap energy why would you need one...the world will convert to rechargable batteries for everything portable...

 

Agreed jobs will be lost but many millions will be created as well...the entire global infrastructure will change and that requires a lot of man power...

 

A Nobel prize worthy if true, I'm still skeptical however...last time I heard anything about fusion was that it was still decades away....

It would be a game changer for climate change but there are climactic changes coming anyway, the CO2 damage has been done temps will continue to rise as will the oceans for a couple hundred of years there is no stopping it...

 

I don't think it's really feasable in the foreseeable future to make a smaller unit because nuclear fusion creates so much power. For a home it would have to be a nano-size generator.... then again with the advancements in nano-technology who knows what the future could bring.

 

The ITAR nuclear fusion powerplant is due for completion by 2020 as I recall but it's a huge megalithic structure that is taking years just to construct because of it's shear size. Lockheed-Martin, not driven by big government budgets, approached the design pragmatically as opposed to building a project based upon the size of government funding.

Yes, there will be continuing global warming for the foreseeable future. Many forget that only about half of AGW is being caused by CO2 emissions while the other half is being caused by the destruction of nature that absorbs CO2 and returns it to a solid state. Nothing is being done about the destruction of nature that allows the Earth to solidify the CO2 already in the atmosphere and that is produced by natural sources.

- - - Updated - - -

It actually requires much less infrastructure when compared to centralized power production.

 

Just pointing out that every action has an opposite reaction

 

it will require everything to be changed/redirected, it requires new fuels, an entire globe will be clamoring for the new technology and the materials/infrastructure it requires, there will a huge demand for more copper, plastic, steel, iron, batteries...there are billions of people who will benefit, cheap energy will raise the stanard living everywhere, people with more disposable income buy more products...
If cheap energy gets me in an electric vehicle it'll save me 400-500 per month, that's money I will spend on other goods (jobs)...

 

True, but as someone else pointed out the young can retrain and old will be phased out through retirement...its not going to happen overnight..let's say it takes 30yrs coal mines aren't all going to close down all at once...

 

Over Mitch McConnell's mouldering remains.

 

Gee thanks Phoebe, now I have a variation of John Brown's Body song, about Mitch McConnell, running through my head.

 

.

Here's some more info on this, including a video. Indeed, it is a Skunk Works project. This article says that they
are projecting a working prototype reactor within 5 to 10 years --


http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/17/lockheed-martin-fusion-chamber/

 

I don't know how much iron, plastic, steel or batteries can be jammed into a 100 MW generator that only takes up 7'x11' but it's a hell of a lot less than what it requires to build a coal fired power plant. There's more electrical wiring for a coal fired power plant just for lights than can be crammed into a 7'x11' nuclear fusion generator. As for fuel a nuclear fusion reactor of this size will use less than one gram of fuel to operate. The fuel for a nuclear fusion power plant is 1/10,000,000th of the amount that is required for electrical production using coal.

Yes, billions of people could benefit from the increased availability of low cost electrical energy but that still doesn't mean that they'll earn enough income to be able to afford it. Over 20% of American workers don't earn enough money to live on today and that percentage is increasing as artificial intelligence and technology replaces human labor. The number of people employed in manufacturing world-wide, which is increasing it's use of AI and technology daily, has declined by over 40% since 1970 while the production of goods has increased dramatically. While we can produce far more goods the fact is that there is not a corresponding increase in jobs that pay enough to afford the goods.

So yes, a person that could afford an electric car can benefit from the lower cost of clean electricity but with the number of jobs that pay a "liveable wage" decreasing because the cars are built by robots instead of people is problematic. The US can produce over 18 million new cars a year but Americans can only afford about 13 million of them and that problem is getting worse every year. Cheaper electricity also translates into fewer jobs as robotics and AI also use electricity.

 

Apparently Danial Cooper isn't very well informed because his "opinion" is contractory to Lockheed-Martin's press releases.

(see original article in Post #1)

As I've noted, as a former employee of the Skunk Works, I've never known of them missing scheduled dates. To my knowledge they've always finished what they stated they'd accomplish ahead of schedule. This ability has to do with the unique nature of how the Skunk Works operates. For example when I worked there any problems with design were addressed "on the floor" by the lead engineer and changes were made instantly in the design. At other companies, like Boeing where I've worked, the design revision process can takes weeks or even months to address.

 

You're not seeing the bigger picture, it would effect infrastructure everywhere, you're focused on the power plant itself...the reduction in energy costs puts cheap energy in places that have none, it becomes a quality of life changer for billions, which then becomes an economic driver...all of which will require more resources and infrastructure....

Batteries-with cheap plentiful energy the batteries arent for the fusion process, they're for fusion system itself but for everything we need to replace carbon energy....copper for all the transmission lines in countries with none...you're thinking local, you need to think global...cheap reliable energy is a game changer ....

 

Cheap plentiful fusion energy combined with new super batteries could (will) change our planet...http://www.digitaljournal.com/scien...-two-minutes-and-last-20-years/article/409388

 

What have they done that's not in the field of aviation, though? Going by how fast the field is developing I'd be more optimistic if it was Apple or Microsoft.

Still, if they can make it 10 by 7 they can probably make it small enough to go into a car and I really WANT a fusion powered car

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile/

 

Same thing we did with workers who relied on farm picking or buggy whip assembling jobs: fire them.





​

 

Globally these small very high output fusion generators will unquestionably help out third world countries as the massive infrastructure required for centrally located electrical powerplants is not required. It doesn't do much for America except to make our inter-city and regional transmission lines become obsolete. The elimination of the need for the regional power grids is a financial benefit for the consumer but it does come with the cost of the loss of jobs for those that build and maintain the regional power grids.

We will never replace the need for carbon based energy but it will certianly be dramatically reduced by nuclear fusion. Electric cars using batteries, for example, really don't work for long distant travel because they have limited range without the necessity for recharge. Hybrids work but not purely electric vehicles. They also fail when it comes to moving large shipments like in the trucking industry and electricity probably isn't viable for rail because of the dangers of running electricity in tracks that span tens of thousands of miles through open country.

Don't get me wrong because we won't need electricity produced by coal and this is a huge leap forward in energy technology. That also comes with a huge loss of jobs related to the coal industry and hundreds of communities are going to be hard pressed to find enterprises to replace the local revenue derived from the coal industry. Some will literally become ghost towns and that is to be expected. Because of the high energy output of nuclear fusion that uses almost no fuel based upon weight there will be far fewer jobs associated with it when compared to coal.

 

Electric cars do work and they will continue to improve, technology doesn't standstill...

Electricity is superior to moving large loads, its just a matter of scale and range...

Running electricity in rails? Have you ever left the usa in your life? High speed trains are running on overhead lines..and china a country as large as the USA is doing just that...the newest Maglev systems don't even use rails or overhead lines...

What we are looking at here should this system work is change on a global scale, another industrial revolution....

 

Fusion powered cars, I can't see that happening...maglev cars, that's a possibility...

- - - Updated - - -

Old ones will be phased out through retirement, younger ones can be retrained...as old occupations dissappear new opportunities will be created...

 

According to the article the batteries can last up to 20 years but remember that they only store the amount of energy that is input into them and how long they last on a charge depends upon how much energy is being used. We can also note that they stated that the cost was expected to be about $5,000 initially and that's for a cell phone or other small electronic device. I'd bet even money that energy required for a cell phone wouldn't move a car even one foot. Yes, the costs of the batteries could come down significantly in the future but it would have to be at least 1000 times less expensive than what they're projecting before it would be cost effective for use in an electric car. That's a pretty huge leap to make.

Someday it might be an excellent and viable battery for a cell phone but a car is a completely different catagory when it comes to usable batteries. Not saying it can't be done someday but I don't believe this is the battery technology that will get us there.