Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kyoko9 t1_j3r8ead wrote

After 50 years of research, we've finally managed to get fusion power to work for more than a few seconds.

60

TheEvilBagel147 t1_j3tdjwi wrote

It’s proof of concept. I think the very first airplane was in the air for 11 seconds.

70

themadpants t1_j3v3hhw wrote

Yup, and the first commercial flight was in 1914, and the first commercial jet flew in 1949.

17

P1xelHunter78 t1_j3wh8vt wrote

Orville Wright allegedly was allowed by Howard Huges to to fly a Lockheed Constellation prototype before his death. In his lifetime he went from an aircraft that flew 11 seconds to one that helped establish reliable land based transcontinental service to the masses.

3

saltyhasp t1_j3u3m8o wrote

I do not think it was seconds. Probably much less. It was not energy positive either except in a very narrow sense.

9

derKonigsten t1_j3u7bxy wrote

Unless this is a different experiment than from a few weeks ago i remember watching a press briefing where the white coat said they input .5MW, and achieved an output of 1.5MW, albeit for like a few micro seconds (10^-6 seconds), but i think he also said their ignition pulse was in the hundreds of nano seconds. So very energy positive, just not sustained for any real world application

14

Independent-Ad-8531 t1_j3u9y1f wrote

And don't confuse the unit, they where talking about MJ not MW.

1MJ = 0.27 kWh

Edit: In more common units this reads like 0.14kWh of light energy produced 0.42kWh of fusion energy.

Edit2: To produce the amount of 0.14kWh of light energy the amount of 14kWh of electric energy where used. And an infinite amount of energy (in comparison) to produce the "fuel"

7

TerpenesByMS t1_j3uniff wrote

NIF's "COP>1" run that you joke about here points out how its style of fusion generation will never scale economically. Check out Helion's design and approach. Lofty targets, but my fave design among all I've reviewed by a lot. Electrolyzed heavy water? Direct-to-electric operating principle? Now we're talking

1

Independent-Ad-8531 t1_j3u9hst wrote

And the energy positivity is just the energy of the light hitting the target. Not the energy of the particle accelerator to separate the different hydrogen isotopes nor the electric energy to generate that light via lasers with a efficiency of about 1%.

3

CatalyticDragon t1_j3vckhh wrote

The reaction lasted for 5 microseconds.

And the power required to get it was 300-400 megajoules of grid power to create a 2.05-megajoule laser shot which yielded 3.15 megajoules of energy output.

Getting 0.9% the energy returned for a small fraction of a second is a breakthrough, of sorts, but fusion power remains many decades away from being a reality and even then it'll only be a reality in niche (military, space) applications.

It's complex, expensive, and produces massive amounts of waste heat, so it's just not really compelling when it goes up against dirt cheap renewables.

4

Independent-Ad-8531 t1_j3u4by0 wrote

No we didn't. We managed to get fusion stable for a tiny fraction of a millisecond. This uses the inertia of the "fuel" and ignites a miniscule fusion bomb. This is not stable and can not be done more often then once or twice a day by the nature of this experiment.

−4

geek66 t1_j3raouq wrote

While not news - this was reported weeks ago - this to me is a Milestone, but not a "breakthrough" as it was referred to - is is the result of multiple innovations and improvements. Conceivably a tipping point - but the size and the cost of the apparatus - relative to the energy gain is huge and we are still 20 years away

21

dun-ado t1_j3rnjxg wrote

Why is it a milestone and not a breakthrough?

1

geek66 t1_j3rpxsg wrote

"a sudden, dramatic, and important discovery or development." ? It was just an inevitable step in the long road of development.

Like people posting that their car reached 100000 miles - there really is not particular magic about that number.

5

dun-ado t1_j3rqa7d wrote

Do you know anything about fusion? Your statement is pathologically ignorant.

−20

Freethecrafts t1_j3sdh6v wrote

Fusion has been done multiple ways by multiple different types of mechanisms. The people trying to get more funding or sell off run their numbers in favorable ways to themselves. Some forget how much work went into the setup. Some forget how much cooling costs. Some forget there’s no form of heat engine or magnetic bottle system attached. Some forget that their system can’t be used repeatedly, in fast succession, to power an electrical system. There’s nothing new to another “fusion milestone” that isn’t any closer than the last scam, only with newer materials developed by a different third party.

A fusion milestone is a system that can run from ignition into a standard electrical line using less electricity than it requires. It’d still be way underwater, but it’d be a functional milestone. Not just another funding round for a multibillion dollar boondoggle that lets a few frontmen feel important.

7

dun-ado t1_j3sigiq wrote

You're a total ignoramus regarding fusion.

−18

Freethecrafts t1_j3sip9i wrote

Go on then. Let’s hear your lecture on how this is a milestone any different than every other boondoggle that produced nothing.

4

dun-ado t1_j3sjcja wrote

Your pathological ignorance is beyond repair. You can hold onto as much stupidity as you want.

−17

Freethecrafts t1_j3sjj76 wrote

Excellent. I’ll take that as you have no idea on any of the history, mechanics, nor shortfalls.

12

[deleted] t1_j3skhus wrote

[removed]

−5

Freethecrafts t1_j3skvif wrote

I’ll be here waiting on your basic assignment. I can get away with open deadlines because those late assignments never show up.

6

[deleted] t1_j3sl5qw wrote

[removed]

−1

Freethecrafts t1_j3slfjl wrote

Excellent. I didn’t realize you were only here to make friends and had no grounding in any of the subject matter. Carry on.

4

kobullso t1_j3t4zy4 wrote

Not gonna lie this feels like another in a long line of fusion "breakthrough" announcements. We are still a long way off from a Q value that might actually be viable.

1

Independent-Ad-8531 t1_j3ty3mv wrote

Because it didn't produce net energy and it is literally impossible it ever will. It is the least possible way of fusion power there is.

0

bripi t1_j3vas6z wrote

> we are still 20 years away

As a physicist, the running joke is "Ah, fusion is the energy of the future! And it always will be."

1

ory_hara t1_j3r0dx8 wrote

This is really old news. Nothing to see here.

6

St4nkf4ce t1_j3seauv wrote

Please let's not assume every Redditor is up on the latest fusion news. This is exciting news that will be seen as a watershed moment in the future. It's alright to continue the discussion past the first week of reporting imho.

17

BobDawg3294 t1_j3te5aw wrote

It took decades for electricity to become a part of everyday life

3

Independent-Ad-8531 t1_j3siahp wrote

It means exactly nothing for the usage of fusion power. This method has exactly zero chance of being ever used in a commercial fusion reactor. However more and more people think that the inevitable and hard change to renewable energy sources could be avoided. This article, like a lot of the other, unreflected articles makes me really sad.

2

bhau-saheb t1_j3tve0m wrote

Sir/madam, it’s the effort in the right direction that counts. Something will bear fruit eventually. Don’t be sad. Pessimist will never solve anything, optimist at least stands a chance!

6

Independent-Ad-8531 t1_j3txsar wrote

It is obvious that this approach will never be usable to generate energy. There are better approaches even when talking about fusion. This consumed already that much energy in generating the "fuel" heating the lasers and everything. It only produced a tiny amount of the energy it consumed in total. Moreover it's pulse is one, maybe two shots per day. There is no way in enhancing this since the lasers need to cool (cooling with energy seems counterproductive for obvious reasons). Every shot generated not even enough energy to heat a cup of coffee. There is no path on how to improve that in a foreseeable future. There is literally no way to scale this up or make this produce net energy. Yet everyone keeps telling that this is a "breakthrough" of any kind. Telling that that this will help to solve the energy crisis in any possible future is not optimistic, it is simply wrong. Yet there are obvious things we definitely can do with greater impact. We simply do not approach the obvious things because we keep telling ourselves that this is will somehow help. Some realism is important here.

3

bhau-saheb t1_j3wdwkc wrote

After reading the article, it looks like scientists tried to recreate how the sun creates energy. Conceptually they know how the sun creates energy but to recreate that process on earth, there were/are significant impediments. Most thought it was impossible. However, after repeated experiments over the span of 50 years, for the first time, they made a net energy gain which is a breakthrough. You are saying that the energy gain is insignificant; hence this endeavor is not worth celebrating. I am saying that humanity, as a whole, when stays with a problem for long enough; nearly miraculous things have happened. It's the effort in that (right) direction that ultimately matters. Progress is always incremental. Anyway, I am pouring a sip on the ground today for those scientists. A good day to you, sir!

1

Independent-Ad-8531 t1_j3wz0mu wrote

Have a good one yourselves. You should celebrate rightfully on the scientists. It is a great accomplishment. Nevertheless no energy was being created. A tremendous amount of energy was wasted to make this experiment work. Keeping that in mind if we just look at the last step some energy was created compared to the energy used (a really small amount that can by no means be scaled up). This is a milestone but is by no means the breakthrough the article does make it look like. It is a great achievement for science but it has no further meaning to the use of nuclear fusion to generate power. Since all the other processes around do and will necessarily always waste so much more energy than can be gained by the last step. This approach to nuclear fusion is a dead end that can and will never produce any net energy. If we accept that, it will nevertheless produce valuable new knowledge. A lot know how of plasma physics can be gained from it.

2

Vladius28 t1_j3u7eso wrote

I'm still getting the feeling that we will perfect fusion power plants about 5 years before we invent an antimatter reactor

2

AutoModerator t1_j3qyx67 wrote

Vote for Best of r/science 2022!

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

xrftester t1_j3ux7rx wrote

Sure, then the Clintons show up and its lights out for everybody. RIP

−3