[HN Gopher] US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved ___________________________________________________________________ US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved Author : novateg Score : 1446 points Date : 2022-12-13 16:44 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.energy.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.energy.gov) | already wrote: | It's a big deal, it will change the way people live. Hopefully it | also help to eliminate wars, the war for the natural resources | and land. | amelius wrote: | There will probably still be wars over other natural resources. | standardUser wrote: | Currently, there are a couple dozen authoritarian regimes, most | heavily armed, that are almost entirely funded by fossil fuel | exports. That makes me fear things will get worse before they | get better. | Arubis wrote: | True; however, this was already the direction things were | headed for said regimes as much of the world has begun to | focus on energy security. On the upside, perhaps the lowered | long-term demand for fossil fuels will reduce the risk of | additional resource discoveries leading to more despotic | regimes. | bushbaba wrote: | Maybe. Fusion energy might be more expensive than current forms | or has undesirable yet to be known side effects. | | People said the same of nuclear and here we are. | eastbound wrote: | The negative effect of nuclear were known in 1927 (Hermann | Joseph Meller). It would be surprising if we discovered | another form of radiation, given calculations lead us far | further without showing new forms of radiations. | seandoe wrote: | And had we continued to develop and improve upon fission we'd | probably be in a better place. | dal wrote: | You mean like tearing a hole in the fabric of space and time | and opening a hell portal to another dimension? | jrootabega wrote: | That only happened ONCE. | sh1mmer wrote: | People also said the same thing about wind and solar, and | those still have some downsides but they are also rapidly | becoming the cheapest current form of peak energy, or with | cheaper grid storage, energy period. | | Sci-if authors have been talking about both solar and fusion | for years, and now solar has been industrialized why wouldn't | we be excited to see progression in fusion? | puttycat wrote: | 2022, not ordered by importance: Dall.E 2, Chat-GPT, Fusion | Ignition. Can't wait for 2023. | freediver wrote: | Putting these in the same basket is hardly justified. | alasdair_ wrote: | True. AI will have a much bigger impact on humanity in the | next two decades than fusion will. | hoten wrote: | Can you elaborate? Someone with no context can read your | comment either way. | zhrvoj wrote: | No, first two will use third. Nikola Tesla dreamed of free | energy for the world. I don't think they dream the same... So | entropy will go down now? | low_tech_punk wrote: | AI can be quite useful in real-time computation for magnetic | confinement. But sure, that's beyond GPT-3's current | capability. | low_tech_punk wrote: | And at some time point in the future, the fusion generated | energy will be used for training the power-hungry AI to | improve the efficiency of fusion. | megaman821 wrote: | If ignition was achieved, why would they have to keep on shooting | more fuel pellets? Shouldn't they just ignite one fuel pellet and | feed in more fuel? | jeffbee wrote: | That's not really how NIF works. It's really a tiny bomb. It | destroys the apparatus every time. It even wrecks the optics in | the laser primary, which they have to regularly replace. | frellus wrote: | I hate to ask this, but have to ... is there any danger of these | discoveries being weaponized easily by hostile countries? i.e. | does this make unconventional weapons more accessible to | countries who otherwise have embargoes on technology and material | to make atomic weapons? | frellus wrote: | Oops, answered my own question I guess: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_fusion_weapon | | That ain't good. Although fusion is clearly the future of | energy, we have to get our sh*t together on earth so we don't | kill ourselves off or devolve with endless wars. Or give up and | use fusion to leave the planet efficiently. | mbauman wrote: | > That ain't good. | | Your takeaway does not match that article. The article | details how "no measurable success was ever achieved" and | that the large amount of energy required to start fusion is | hugely prohibitive. | | I don't see how the NIF's success here changes that. | jameshart wrote: | From your wiki source: | | > The power densities needed to ignite a fusion reaction | still seem attainable only with the aid of a fission | explosion, or with large apparatus such as powerful lasers | like those at the National Ignition Facility, the Sandia | Z-pinch machine, or various magnetic tokamaks. Regardless of | any claimed advantages of pure fusion weapons, building those | weapons does not appear to be feasible using currently | available technologies | | Nothing about this result from NIF seems to suggest that | igniting fusion is any easier than previously suspected. | rubyist5eva wrote: | I don't see how this is any different to mutually assured | destruction via nuclear weapons. | tinco wrote: | So.. we attack our enemies by building large fusion power | plants in their countries, and then blowing them up? Why not | just build a traditional nuclear fission power plant and blow | that up? It seems that would be a lot cheaper. | kimbernator wrote: | We already have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons spread | across the planet, with only two ever actually being aimed at | anyone. Lots of problems but the threat of weapons at this | scale are a well-feared thing already. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _is there any danger of these discoveries being weaponized_ | | Any advance in energy production or propulsion has a weapons | counterpart. | mnd999 wrote: | Fusion bombs (H bombs) have existed for a long time. | chasd00 wrote: | > Fusion bombs (H bombs) have existed for a long time. | | and their yield can be made arbitrarily large with designs | perfected in the 50s. I don't see this tech contributing to | weapons. ...well maybe the lasers i guess but not the fusion | at least. | saul_goodman wrote: | You have to remember that all of the classified details about | US hydrogen bomb designs we have were leaked from leaked from | Russia after the Soviet Union broke apart. And yet only two | countries have managed to become nuclear states since then | (Pakistan and North Korea). | | It's the engineering that makes nuclear weapons hard to do, not | the knowledge. | jameshart wrote: | A process which has been finally accomplished at one of the | most advanced research facilities in the world after decades of | effort, and which requires as an energy input almost as much | energy as the process produces, is not _easily weaponized_ , | no. | | Fusion reactions are hard to start. To use one as a weapon | would require you to deliver the fusion fuel together with a | source of enough energy to start the fusion reaction off. So | the most effective way to do so has historically been to | trigger them with a nuclear fission reaction from an atomic | bomb - which results in a Hydrogen bomb. | | In other words, weaponizing fusion generally requires you to | already have an extremely powerful weapon. | | Weaponizing this laser based inertial confinement fusion | approach requires you to deliver a facility the size of the | Lawrence Livermore lab plus the electricity generating capacity | of a significant part of the west coast of America onto your | target. | tinco wrote: | There are much simpler ways to generate fissile material for | dirty bombs. This technology doesn't seem to be weaponisable in | any other way that I can tell. | Steuard wrote: | I'm not an expert (I'm a physics prof who once took a seminar | on nuclear arms control back in college), but what they're | trying to do here is much, much harder than making an atomic | bomb. If you want nuclear weapons, this work on carefully | controlled and contained fusion is close to the opposite of | what you'd need to do. (Fusion power is in general much cleaner | than fission, at least where lasting radioactivity and waste | are concerned.) | alfor wrote: | Fusion bombs (H-bombs) were functional in 1952 | anfilt wrote: | Like a fusion reactor can be used as a neutron source to | effectively make a breeder reactor. | | However, most countries can dig up rocks out of the ground with | radioactive isotopes that can act as a neutron source. However, | this has legitimate uses as well from research to medical | imagining. Also any power generating reactor is gonna want to | use those neutrons to make Tritium otherwise it would quickly | run out fuel so not something you just want use on something | unrelated to running the fusion reactor. | scarier wrote: | The short answer is no. | Quarrelsome wrote: | from my layman understanding I believe fusion reactions are | unlike fission reactions in that if they escape the confines of | their environment they fizzle out as opposed to runaway like a | nuclear explosion. | dang wrote: | Related ongoing thread: | | _Nuclear-fusion lab achieves 'ignition': what does it mean?_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33971953 - Dec 2022 (82 | comments) | | Two threads from before the announcement: | | _Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33945863 - Dec 2022 (755 | comments) | | _Secretary Granholm to announce major scientific breakthrough by | DOE [video]_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33968357 - | Dec 2022 (160 comments) | citilife wrote: | Given the resulting output was "2x higher than expected", I'll | wait patiently for any peer reviewed work on the subject and a | replication (or improvement) of the results. | | In the presentation they mentioned they couldn't reproduce the | results immediately due to the containment imperfections -- at | least that was my understanding. | phtrivier wrote: | Since I absolutely decided to take this in the worst possible way | (get the downvotes ready) | | What is the timeframe for those lasers to light a bulb somewhere, | vs the timeframe of those lasers killing someone on a battlefield | ? (As in, how much of is applicable for the military?) | adventured wrote: | I'm not sure what you're talking about. What is it you think | you took in the worst possible way? | | The lasers in question are mediocre for battlefield use. The | consequences for the military are trivial, unless you're | talking about 70 years from now when the US military is using | fusion to power some of its military bases, subs or carriers. | phtrivier wrote: | I decided to take this "fusion breakthrough" with a massive | dose of salt additionned with twice it's weight in pepper and | bile. | | At least the Nature article had a good ratio of actual | information about the experiment, its limitations and | prospect, as opposed to massive hyperbole from other | commenters already popping the champagne as if the energy | crisis was over. | | This made sound grumpy, which, truth be written, I am. | | (And, jealous, too, of course. I wouldn't mind a bit of | actual success, once in a while.) | | Or maybe the grunts working on the experiment know better, | and are _also_ grinding their teeths at the PR effort ? Maybe | _they_ also feel unsatisfied because they still haven't met | their own goal ? I suppose nuclear fusion physicists must | have imposter syndrome, too ? Who knows. | [deleted] | leephillips wrote: | Old news: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13008 | johnthuss wrote: | "NIF, the world's largest and most energetic laser | system...-located at LLNL in Livermore, Calif.--is the size of a | sports stadium" | | That's an important piece of information - the thing is gigantic! | valine wrote: | Even if it doesn't get smaller (unlikely), we as a society | build stadiums all the time. Large construction projects are a | small price to pay for abundant clean energy. | [deleted] | aidenn0 wrote: | So for my entire lifetime Fusion has been 30-50 years away. Now | it's 29-49 years away? | jackspratts wrote: | correct. about as long as a typical academic research career, | with an extra margin thrown in for emeritus positions to be on | the safe side. get the boffins' grand kids through college etc. | anyway, there won't be grids in 50 years. or if for some | sentimental reason there still are 95% of us will be off the | failure prone things while making, storing and using our own | uninterruptible power safely at home. much sooner really. i | can't even imagine being on the grid in 10 years let alone 49. | no way then to distribute the staggering costs for what will be | the planet's most expensive and complex power plants. | | - js. | over_bridge wrote: | Are there any thoughts on how this will become a power plant yet? | It's awesome to see it filled up, reacted and then reset as a | proof of concept, but can it ever be a continuous flow through | the chamber without losing that ignition temp? Or will it be more | like a 4 cylinder engine where each reactor is at a different | stage of being filled, heated, reacting and emptying, with the | net result being continuous? | brofallon wrote: | I'm still a little unclear on the benefits that fusion offers | compared to things like wind and solar. I understand that we need | to develop better storage technologies for the energy produced by | wind and solar, but that seems so much easier than the challenges | currently facing fusion. Wind and solar just seem so far ahead of | fusion already - they're pretty cheap and very widely deployed on | a global scale. In comparison fusion seems very expensive and | unproven and even when we get everything to work it might not be | much better than a solar farm with a big battery pack. But maybe | I'm missing something important about the economics? | anon291 wrote: | Solar and wind have massive environmental impacts. Fusion's | foot print is much smaller for the same output. Batteries are | rather dangerous. Fusion is -- as far as I understand it -- | much less likely to escape a reactor due to how difficult it is | to sustain the reaction. Moreover, it's more dependable. | | So in sum, the advantages are (1) dependability, (2) safety, | and (3) small footprint. | josho wrote: | > Solar and wind have massive environmental impacts | | Got a source for this? The only time I've seen this has been | political talking points that had no backing. | anon291 wrote: | My source is the fact that solar panels cause shade on the | ground and squander energy that would normally be going | towards developing biomass into developing energy instead. | It just doesn't seem healthy for the animals and | environment that live there. Especially with the talk of in | ground installation, which basically destroys entire | environments and soils and covers it with impermeable | membranes. That's not great for soil health. | xzlzx wrote: | Consistent baseline grid load is the difference. | karaterobot wrote: | Apart from the safety improvements and environmental benefits, | it's a way to produce a ton of energy. I believe it's about 4 | times as much energy from fusion compared to fission with the | same amount of fuel. I'm a fan of solar and wind, but it's | going to be way easier to power the entire world sustainably if | you've got fusion in the mix. | ridgeguy wrote: | I think when comparing PV/wind to nuclear (fusion or fission) | generation, we should include the cost of storage for | renewables in the comparison. | | Renewable generation + storage gives a system that's capable of | meeting base load needs, just as nuclear generation does. Cost | comparisons among base load-capable technologies is a better | way to evaluate the economics, IMHO. | abecedarius wrote: | High power density. Start and stop on demand. Abundant fuel is | another advantage, but in our neighborhood sunlight is also | abundant. Fission also has good power density, but not so good | on the start/stop flexibility. | bitcurious wrote: | Wind and solar have a max theoretical output that is | constrained by physical space and competition for its use, in | addition to weather patterns, etc. | | Fusion energy has a theoretical max that's orders of magnitude | higher. | | Wind+solar is the path to decarbonization and sustaining our | current world. | | Fusion is the path to post scarcity. If/when we get scalable | commercial fusion, it'll be like the transition to oil - | society will radically change, in ways we can't predict. | thehappypm wrote: | It's potentially just a much better version of fission. | | Fusion won't cause a runaway reaction -- in fact it's brutally | difficult to get it to react at all, hence why this is an | achievement. | | It also doesn't use materials that can be used for a bomb, | again unlike fission. | | As a result it has the potential to be cheaper to implement, | cheaper to fuel, with no meltdown risk. | dharmab wrote: | Isn't tritium used in fusion and a potential weapons | material? | devmor wrote: | It's a fission yield booster. It's as much of a weapons | material as charcoal is. | mlyle wrote: | It's not controlled. It does help boost some fission | weapons. But it's not the hard part or critical piece of | producing a nuclear weapon, and you can get by without it. | | To illustrate how little it's controlled-- I have a little | bit on my keychain as an alpha source with a phosphor so my | keyring always glows. | dogma1138 wrote: | Depending on the scale and reactor design, we have really | good examples of run away fusion reactions. Run away | reactions are easy, controlled ones are hard. | | And whilst I won't doubt that if fusion ever becomes | commercially viable the reactors would be walk away safe it | doesn't mean that you don't need to account for that in your | design. | [deleted] | willis936 wrote: | What is an example of a run away fusion reaction? | dogma1138 wrote: | The US strategic arsenal. | blamestross wrote: | A Hydrogen Bomb. It is basically using a nuke (fission) | to trigger fusion instead of lasers. | willis936 wrote: | That is a run away fission reaction that ignites a short | lived fusion reaction. We don't even talk about neutron | populations or k factors in fusion because there is no | avalanche effect possible. | valine wrote: | Also don't forget the biggest benefit over solar/wind: it | keeps on generating power on cold windless nights. | jszymborski wrote: | No need to worry about Cold Dunkelflaut! | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xsg9iK5yo | zardo wrote: | > But maybe I'm missing something important about the | economics? | | I think you've understood it. | | Imo fusion is never going to be able to compete with | renewables+storage with the energy being captured from | neutrons. Maybe reactions that release energy in charged | particles or photons could, but they're even harder to do. | Analog24 wrote: | Could you elaborate on your point a bit more? If you're | talking about utilizing the weak force vs. the residual | strong force then I'm not sure this argument holds up. | | Also, when comparing to renewable+storage you have to | consider how much land has to be dedicated to energy use in | these scenarios. Wind and solar require orders of magnitude | more than a potential fusion reactor (or an existing fission | reactor). | zardo wrote: | Just referring to what particles the released energy is | carried in. | | The easiest fusion reactions to make happen release most | energy as neutrons. But neutrons are, from a practical | standpoint, a huge pain in the ass to deal with. They just | fly off until they hit another atomic nucleus. | | They irradiate the structure of reactor, making it | radioactive and weakening it, neccesating periodic | replacement. This means handling radioactive materials, | which as the existing nuclear power industry demonstrates, | is hard to make cheap. | | Reactions that release excess energy as charged particles, | though all harder to actually do, leave you with charged | particles that can be directed by electric or magnetic | fields and can be used for direct enerergy conversion. | | Yes solar requires a lot of surface area, but fusion power | is just not looking like it will be anywhere near cheap | enough for the real estate savings to matter. | UltraViolence wrote: | Much more compact, less use of land or sea real estate, more | power produced per volume and throttleable. | jasonhansel wrote: | If we get an order of magnitude more energy, we can do an order | of magnitude more things; fossil fuels gave us the Industrial | Revolution, and nuclear fusion may unlock something similar. | dark-star wrote: | Wind and solar only provide power during wind / during the day. | Fusion can provide 24/7 power. Battery packs can only store so | much energy, and Lithium is a contested resource as most of the | Lithium produced is required by the automotive industry these | days, and the largest deposits are in regions where you maybe | don't want to get your Lithium from (child labor, unsafe | conditions, politically unstable countries, etc.) | | But yeah, future energy will be a mix of available | technologies, not a single technology alone. So you need e.g. | fusion (or fission) for "baseline" power and wind/solar for | peaks | ragebol wrote: | Fusion brings the power of the stars directly to us, without it | capturing the energy millions of miles later. It unlocks a Star | Trek, post-scarcity future that PV and wind cannot bring due to | their space requirements. | | Also, you could eventually put one on a spaceship or other | planet. For that Star Trek future. | galuano1 wrote: | Predictable and abundant supply of fuel, and hopefully greener | to produce the powerplant itself. | vfclists wrote: | Industry does not run on solar and wind and sad to say it, | current storage energy is not green. | | The cleanest energy available now is nuclear fission, but there | is no money in it for the energy industry. It is too plentiful | and cheap if implemented properly and capitalism does not like | plentiful and cheap. | | France has had cheap electricity for decades and it seems it | has been so cheap that they don't want it anymore. | | This is all capitalist boondoggles. | trhr wrote: | I have an idea. Why don't we just take all the nuclear weapons | we've accumulated around the planet and explode them in the South | China Sea? | rcgorton wrote: | MrFoof wrote: | I'm glad we might see fission power plants in my lifetime (next | 30-50 years). My father still finds it novel that he basically | gets to wear Dick Tracy's watch. | | Yet I'm concerned that shortly thereafter, the giant robotic | laser death spiders will destroy entire cities. This might also | be be before we've built the arcologies to launch into outer | space to escape the giant robot laser death spiders. | pmarreck wrote: | > fission power | | you probably meant "fusion" | | > My father still finds it novel that he basically gets to wear | Dick Tracy's watch. | | Well, except for the front-facing camera, but that's trivial to | add at this point. And as a 50 year old, I agree. I feel like | being incarnated in '72 has gotten me ethereal tickets to the | greatest technological expansion/brouhaha in all of human | history, and I don't know what my soul did to deserve this | pleasure. Everything I've been into as a kid "before it was | cool" has absolutely exploded: Computers, electronic music, | gaming, telecom, AI, green energy/electric cars... but also | science, medicine, etc. are making tremendous progress (I'm | down 35 lbs thanks to Mounjaro, a brand new drug). Hell, even | that weird side interest in UFO's (one of the first sections of | the library I discovered as a kid) has paid dividends with the | USG finally admitting they're real. BRB, I have to pinch | myself. Unironic "what a time to be alive"! | | > giant robot laser death spiders | | you should probably worry more about the silent airborne drone | army suicide bombers first. (What was the movie that actually | featured a scene with those, btw? I think it had Morgan | Freeman? EDIT: Found it, thanks to those other technological | wonders, Google and YouTube: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40JFxhhJEYk) | | There will always be dangers with progress. Two steps forward, | one step back. But I leave you with this. I asked ChatGPT to | summarize this article as a sarcastic poem | https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/everything-sam-bankman-f... | and here's what it gave me, and I'm still chuckling about how | awesome this is: | | Sam Bankman-Fried talks a lot | | But it's all just hot air | | He tries to seem transparent | | But he's just trying to repair | | His reputation, once so grand | | Is now as tarnished as can be | | He's just a fraud, don't be fooled | | By his attempts at publicity. | MrFoof wrote: | Yes, fusion. I 1000% blame mobile autocorrect. | | > What was the movie that actually featured a scene with | those, btw? I think it had Morgan Freeman | | It was specifically a SimCity 2000 reference. | anotherman554 wrote: | The original Dick Tracy Watch introduced in 1946 didn't have | a camera. A newer model featuring a camera came out in a 1964 | comic. | | I haven't read Dick Tracy in a long time, but if it's still | being made I bet Tracy's watch has been upgraded with a bunch | of new features the Apple Watch lacks. | pmarreck wrote: | I did not know that! | jkelleyrtp wrote: | > LLNL's experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering | 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 | MJ of fusion energy output, demonstrating for the first time a | most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE) | | Yesterday, everyone was complaining about the 2.2:2.0 ratio, but | now we're working with 3.15:2.05. | | With modern lasers, that'd be a total Q of 0.375 assuming 100% | efficiency through direct-energy-capture. | | The jumps to get here included | | - 40% with the new targets | | - 60% with magnetic confinement | | - 35% with crycooling of the target | | The recent NIF experiments have jumped up in power. The first | shot that started this new chain of research was about 1.7 MJ of | energy delivered. Now, 2.15 MJ. However, the output has jumped | non-linearly, demonstrating the scaling laws at work. | | > I've helped to secure the highest ever authorization of over | $624 million this year in the National Defense Authorization Act | for the ICF program to build on this amazing breakthrough." | | It's nice to see this milestone recognized, even if the funding | it still rather small. | rsync wrote: | "Yesterday, everyone was complaining about the 2.2:2.0 ratio, | but now we're working with 3.15:2.05." | | What is the difference between todays announcement and | yesterdays ? | | I thought we were just getting re-submitted headlines, but | apparently this news is different than yesterday ? | highwaylights wrote: | Speculation. | | People believed that X:Y was 2.2:2.0, but it's now 3.15:2.05. | | The 10% EROI apparently wasn't impressive enough, it's now | 54% EROI on paper (assuming less because of capture | inefficiencies). | | I'm no expert, but theoretically my understanding is that | this ratio should scale along this same pattern for higher | values of Y. | yk wrote: | Yesterdays news was that this result was leaked to the FT | with apparently preliminary numbers. And today there was a | press conference that had somewhat better looking numbers. | adrianmonk wrote: | The official announcement (with the real info) was this | morning. | | Before that, the only official word was that an announcement | was coming, and all the info was unofficial leaks and rumors. | IgorPartola wrote: | I keep getting lost in the numbers here. What was the net | gain/loss for the entire system? Without the "lasers are 1% | efficient at 20% energy loss with 40% energy transfer loss" and | all that. | joosters wrote: | They needed roughly 500MJ of energy to power the lasers and | produce the 2.5MJ of energy, so the net loss was... about | 500MJ. | zbobet2012 wrote: | The net gain of the entire system at NIF doesn't matter, | because the system at NIF was never designed to make a net | gain. | | People are estimating how this result moves the equation for | an overall system that is designed for power production. Most | numbers I have seen still leave a theoretically optimal power | plant producing around a 30% loss in power with this number. | nine_k wrote: | _AFAICT:_ There 's a large net gain compared to the energy | emitted by the lasers. There is still a considerable loss | compared to the energy consumed by the lasers. | | While at it: I don't think the NIF approach will ever be | applicable to commercial power generation on Earth. But I | hope it will be one day applicable to a fusion-based rocket | engine. | jackmott wrote: | w0mbat wrote: | Their total power draw from the grid was 300 megajoules and | they got back about 3 megajoules, so don't start celebrating | yet. Source: New York Times. | poopbutt6 wrote: | I agree! These results are NO cause for celebration. To do so | would be deliberately misleading, and potentially devalue | celebrations in general. | cheriot wrote: | I think the "With modern lasers" part is addressing that. | makestuff wrote: | > It's nice to see this milestone recognized, even if the | funding it still rather small. | | Just wait until the DoD figures out they can use this for some | military application and it will get 100x funding overnight. | davedx wrote: | We've had thermonuclear weapons (h-bombs) for a long time | already. | | Harnessing the energy in a _controlled and sustainable | fashion_ is what 's hard. | TeeMassive wrote: | H-bombs use the hydrogen to produce more neutrons which | boosts the fission process. It still is a fission bomb. | Analog24 wrote: | You have it backwards. The fission component is just the | "trigger" for the fusion element, which produces the vast | majority of the energy release. | yk wrote: | No, you can have a fusion booster, like in the "Sloika" | [0] design, but for a Teller-Ulam design, that is a | H-bomb, you use a nuclear primer to ignite a fusion | reaction and by far the most energy comes from the fusion | part. [1] | | [0] https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/hydrogen- | bomb/page-11.... | | [1] https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Teller.html | davedx wrote: | Nope... | | "thermonuclear bomb, also called hydrogen bomb, or | H-bomb, weapon whose enormous explosive power results | from an uncontrolled self-sustaining chain reaction in | which isotopes of hydrogen combine under extremely high | temperatures to form helium in a process known as nuclear | fusion." | p_j_w wrote: | This is already used for nuclear weapons research, which is | why it's under Dept. of Energy. | davrosthedalek wrote: | Not really. I mean, yes, nuclear weapons are a thing, but | Dept. of Energy supports many many directions not related | to nuclear weapons. Physics research is mostly funded by | DOE Office of Science or the National Science Foundation. | saboot wrote: | It's an explicit goal of the NIF to better understand the | physics of fusion for weapons research. Not the main one | but it's pretty important! | davrosthedalek wrote: | My point was: NIF would be funded via DOE whether or not | it's relevant for weapon research. Sorry for not have | been clearer. | zizee wrote: | I'm no expert, but I think you have it backwards. My | understanding is NIF raison d'etre is weapons research, | with a power generation being a secondary concern. It got | funded because of weapons research regardless of whether | it was relevant to fusion power generation. | | It may surprise people, but the DOE is the government | body that is responsible for nuclear weapons research in | the US. | saboot wrote: | If it was already decided to be funded, yes it would have | been under DoE. Though I believe the weapons aspect had a | very major contribution in deciding for it to be funded | at all. It was proposed shortly after the nuclear testing | ban and has been a big part in fulfilling that area. | | I'm not trying to correct you, but adding context for the | weapons aspect. | kortilla wrote: | That doesn't follow. The DOE covers a bunch of energy | research that has no relationship to nuclear weapons (e.g. | solar). | jameshart wrote: | Cheap and abundant energy has a multitude of military | applications. | | Peaceful ones too, probably. | saboot wrote: | The appropriate analogy for this technology would be that it | may be possible to initiate a thermonuclear weapon without | relying on fission at all. Currently we use a fission nuclear | bomb just to generate the temperature and pressure needed to | start the fusion reaction, same as the one on today's | announcement. | | So far it hasn't proven to be viable, but time will tell. | tgflynn wrote: | I wonder if it might be possible to gain not percentages but | orders of magnitude more or less just by making the targets | bigger. Is it conceivable that the same basic approach and a | comparable amount of input energy could be used to ignite a 100 | MJ or even 1 GJ target ? Of course that would present some | containment challenges but perhaps not insurmountable ones. | | I'm also a bit concerned that this type of research may | encounter national security related obstacles. Obviously a pure | fusion bomb would be a game changer for nuclear | (non-)proliferation. | jocaal wrote: | I don't think a pure fusion bomb will have any form of | advantage compared to the current hydro-bombs. They wouldn't | produce more energy, but will need more gear to reach | ignition. | tgflynn wrote: | The advantage would be that you wouldn't need tightly | controlled and hard to make materials like U-235 or Pu to | make one. | | I'm not in any way saying that using lasers would be a | plausible route to such a weapon, since the NIF facility is | huge, but if it turns out that the research needs to focus | on how to get more output per shot, which I think it | inevitably would since a typical conventional or nuclear | power plant generates on the order of 1 GW thermal power | (To match that with a 1 Hz repetition rate, likely a | stretch for a MJ class laser, you would need to generate 1 | GJ per shot, comparable to the energy in a ton of TNT.), it | would probably be touching on areas that are highly | classified. | yamtaddle wrote: | Shiiiit... here I was thinking how cool it would be if | they could miniaturize this, having somehow forgotten | that my pet solution to the Fermi paradox is that a nigh- | inevitable wrung on the ladder to interstellar presence | involves discovering One Weird Trick to release a whole | bunch of energy pretty easily, even on a DIY basis. | Instant end of civilization. Even ant-like societies | might have mutated members who'd go rogue and misuse the | tech, and it wouldn't take many to ruin everything. | | Basically it's a twist on the ice-9 solution to the | paradox. | sterlind wrote: | any sufficiently speedy spacecraft makes for a deadly | kinetic kill vehicle, unfortunately. | LarryMullins wrote: | A pure fusion bomb would produce less (not zero) fallout. | Neutron activation would still produce some fallout, but | you wouldn't have the fission byproducts like caesium-137, | iodine-129 or strontium-90. | | This is probably a bad thing; politicians might decide the | bombs are clean enough to use. | sterlind wrote: | even without actual radioactivity, pure fusion bombs | would still be politically radioactive. look at the | fallout (so to speak!) from the Hafnium controversy. they | nixed all the research and stopped looking, after | realizing that nuclear isomers would do little for energy | storage (due to emitting energy as gamma radiation) but | lots for bypassing restrictions on fissile materials. | LarryMullins wrote: | To be clear, pure fusion bombs would still emit massive | amounts of radiation. Gamma rays, x-rays, thermal | radiation, all off that EM radiation would be emitted | just like a regular fission bomb. Neutron radiation too. | You'd have less (not zero) contamination of the earth | itself afterwards, but everybody in the area would still | be very badly irradiated. | | I don't know enough about the Hafnium controversy to | comment on it. | spullara wrote: | I mean almost all of the power in a nuclear bomb comes from | fusion. The fission part of it is just like the detonator for | the real explosion. | dgacmu wrote: | This is actually backwards. Fusion weapons are | substantially higher yield because they result in more | fission, partly by preventing the fission primary from | blowing itself up before it has finished. | | Wikipedia: "Fast fission of the tamper and radiation case | is the main contribution to the total yield and is the | dominant process that produces radioactive fission product | fallout." | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon | Retric wrote: | It varies quite a bit by design, apparently the USSR's | initial design was only 15-20% fusion while US designs | where closer to 50% which is still apparently the most | efficient option in terms of warhead size. | | However it's possible to have higher fusion ratios at the | expense of a larger device for the same yield. Most | notably in the case of the Tsar Bomba's which reduced the | contribution of fission and too massively reduce the | amount of fallout produced. | phasetransition wrote: | Almost all nuclear weapons rely heavily on fission of the | tamper for yield. | | Suggest "Ripple: An Investigation of the World's Most | Advanced High-Yield Thermonuclear Weapon Design" from the | Journal of Cold War studies to read about a predominantly | fusion device family. | AlanSE wrote: | This seems to say to me that D-T reactions produce | neutrons, and that the kinetic energy of the neutrons is | smaller than what you get by hitting U with that neutron. | You already have the energy from the neutron (which will | land somewhere in the system eventually), and you might | as well get a multiplier by putting a blanket of U-238 in | front of it. | | That could be carbon-copied to a fusion power plant, and | indeed, there are many proposals of hybrid fusion-fission | plants in the literature that only require Q values | marginally greater than 1. But if you go that route, you | have radiation just like a fission plant, and one starts | to question why you don't just build a fission plant | (indeed, why don't we?). | | My personal pet theory of the future is that, one day, | we'll progress so far in fusion research that we get | economic energy. But at the same time, the line blurs | between both fission and weapons technology, so people | are unhappy with the result. This doesn't feel | particularly contrarian but no one ever seems to bring it | up. | moloch-hai wrote: | Since you asked: We don't build fission plants because | they cost more than every other energy source. Fusion | plants, if they could ever be made to work at all, would | cost a lot more. So, there won't be any. | metal_am wrote: | This particular research is literally built off of weapons | research (National Ignition Facility). | pfdietz wrote: | The Q needs to be something like 500 to 1000, not because of | energy breakeven, but to produce enough energy that the shot is | financially positive. The amount of fusion energy produced in | this shot is worth a penny or two. | | (And even then, it's dubious a laser fusion scheme will be | competitive with other energy sources.) | echelon wrote: | It will get there. It's just a matter of time and resources. | | The destination will be a milestone for humanity, so we | should not give up. | pfdietz wrote: | Why should I agree with this article of faith? The | obstacles appear quite grave to me. Moreover, even reaching | that Q doesn't mean we're there. That's a necessary, not | sufficient, condition. | | A large, complex machine that explodes the equivalent of | 500 lb. bombs to generate heat to drive a turbine sounds | like an engineering nightmare. | m4rtink wrote: | I wonder how much energy each stroke in the largest | diesel ship engines has when compared to the energy | released by individual bombs/high explosives. | Quarrel wrote: | While I'm sure that you're correct, the obstacles are | large and there is a lot of overcome still, I can't help | but think of James Watt & (my ancestor) Richard | Trevithick - the inventor/pioneer of the compact steam | engine. | | Watt went around telling everyone that Trevithick and his | compact (ie high pressure) steam engines were too | dangerous and would never work. | | Yes, some exploded. But then we got steam trains and even | today almost all power generation on the planet is high | pressure steam-electric power plants. | aaroninsf wrote: | An answer matched in tenor and tone to the question, but | nonetheless entirely serious, | | is that because while the obstacles are grave, the | consequences of failing to overcome them are much graver | still, | | and to the best of our collective knowledge, | | industrial scale fusion would be the least bad answer to | our energy demands for the next epoch. | | That is true but also does not obviate the need for other | parallel efforts and other technologies whose challenges | are also very grave, e.g. the need for very near term | very large scale carbon sequestration, for a modern | electrical grid with deep redundancy and resilience, the | need for effective safe scalable stores for energy from | whatever source, etc. | pfdietz wrote: | > the consequences of failing to overcome them are much | graver still, | | Why is that? Fusion is not needed, although if it turned | out to be cheap that would be nice. | azinman2 wrote: | Because sustainable positive energy out has never been | achieved before in 60 years of research. This is | gigantic. It's potential to decarbonize the world is | massive, and now it became a whole lot less theoretical. | | It's an incredible milestone, not a solved problem. | pfdietz wrote: | That's a circular argument. It's big because the people | doing it call it big. Why should I, an outsider, care | about their internal goals, their egoes, or their status | in their field? What does it do or imply for me? | azinman2 wrote: | To achieve fusion for power production, you need more | output than input. For 60+ years this hasn't been | achieved in a replicated fashion. Now it has, and it's | 50% more power rather than 0.1% more power as was | sometimes shown for 2 nanoseconds before. So now we know | fusion for power is possible. If it can be scaled | successfully (now likely not an if anymore, but a | function of time), then we have the ability to have clean | and safe energy 24/7. That would help mitigate the worst | of climate change, and if cheap, turbocharge the entire | economy. | | What's the circle or not big milestone here? | pfdietz wrote: | I'm asking why this somewhat arbitrary line being crossed | is something I should care about. It doesn't imply fusion | will reach a state of practical application. Why is this | more exciting that achieving a ratio of .1, or .5, or 2, | or 10? It seems entirely arbirary to me, and smells of an | argument that somehow this has made the end goal | significantly more attainable. | azinman2 wrote: | Because until now contained ignition has never produced | anything meaningful. We've had failed experiment after | failed experiment. Now we finally have an experiment with | a meaningful more amount of energy out than in. | | Is this the right approach? Who knows. There are many | fusion designs in the works, and those may ultimately be | the right call. Or some yet-to-be-created design. That's | even probable. The NIF is for simulating nuclear weapons, | not creating energy. None of that takes away from this | breakthrough - we've never had meaningfully more output | than input on a repeatable basis. It's proof that | contained fusion for energy isn't just hypothetical, | which will also mean funding & interest will generally | increase from this point on. | | I think you're setting too high a bar. It's like saying | no milestone should be celebrated until we have a working | metropolitan-size plant running that's cheaper than | anything else. Punch cards in the 1950s are insignificant | compared to modern SSDs, yet they were an important step | even though we don't use anything like it now. | Breakthroughs are breakthroughs. | floxy wrote: | >why this somewhat arbitrary line being crossed is | something I should care about. | | That is something personal and unique to each individual. | In 1903 when the Wright brothers flew a heavier-than-air | machine for 59 seconds, 99.99999% of the people on the | planet wouldn't have cared. The airplanes you've flown on | are vastly far removed from that original one. Same story | for the point contact transistor in 1947. None of that | solid state physics is used for modern transistors. Some | people like to be early adopters for new ideas and | things. Some don't. And that is OK. | TheCoelacanth wrote: | It's a common joke that fusion power is always 50 years | away. With this milestone, is it finally less than 50 | years away? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > A large, complex machine that explodes the equivalent | of 500 lb. bombs to generate heat to drive a turbine | sounds like an engineering nightmare. | | And using actual bombs and explosives to dig kilometers | down and mine coal is not an engineering nightmare? Dying | of gas in the mines, fires on oil wells, oil spills, | these things are 'engineering simple'? | pfdietz wrote: | We don't place precision optics in those blast zones. We | don't put structures there that are repeatedly exposed to | blast. Over the life of a inertial DT fusion reactor | there will be about a BILLION such explosions in the | reactor core. | pelorat wrote: | It will get there, but it won't be from NIF or via any | technology developed for this experiment. What they are | doing is not viable for a rector, won't ever be viable for | a reactor, and won't even be considered a starting point | for any future rector. | | It's a fusion plasma research experiment. It's not a | program that is being run with the goal of creating a | usable fusion energy power plant. | YetAnotherNick wrote: | > The Q needs to be something like 500 to 1000 | | Is there any calculation to this? What's the cost of shot? Is | there any limetime limit of the laser? | VLM wrote: | Its worth pointing out that per unit energy a lot of money is | made making economically unviable cargo ship power, submarine | and other military naval power, space ship power sources, | diesel-electric locomotives ... | | True if you want to replace base load of a civilization size | network it needs to be economically viable, but we generate | "a lot" of power at higher than market minima. Ironically, | "good batteries" are the natural enemy of fusion research. | | One fun thing about laser fusion is it theoretically can | scale down very low and has a trivial "off" switch making it | a good resource for engineering tokamak reactor materials or | sensors or similar tasks. | | The inner lining of a production fusion reactor is hard to | make, so a laser facility would be ideal for research. Which | is why we have one... | pfdietz wrote: | DT fusion reactors would be terrible for mobile | applications, since there are so much larger than fission | reactors of the same capacity. In space or mass constrained | applications they would be ruinously inferior to fission. | hackernewds wrote: | Offset the financial viability with the cost of freedom from | energy reliance and the need (more like craving) for military | interventions | pfdietz wrote: | That would be a valid argument if the only alternative to | fusion was petroleum. | orthecreedence wrote: | I'm confused by this. Does the US have the productive | forces and resources to replace petrolium with solar | panels (and the required energy storage)? Does it have | the nuclear fuel to replace petrolium with fission | reactors? | | What alternatives to petrolium does the US have that it | does not rely on others for? | pfdietz wrote: | What scheme do you imagine that fusion could be used to | replace petroleum that would not also work when powered | by solar? Production of synfuels using hydrogen, for | example, would also deal with solar's intermittency, | leaving the energy sources to compete on the basis of | levelized cost. The levelized cost of solar has become | quite low, and it's very difficult to see how any fusion | scheme, and DT fusion in particular, will ever compete. | orthecreedence wrote: | I specifically asked about the _production_ of solar | panels. Are you assuming that we already have all the | panels we need to replace petrolium sitting in a | warehouse? What good is solar in an energy independence | plan if we can 't build our own panels? | pfdietz wrote: | What? Production of solar panels is just a matter of | building and running more factories. There's no | significant limit to this. | Firmwarrior wrote: | Nuclear fuel actually isn't that expensive or rare | | Those crazy sci-fi stories from the 30s and 50s where | everyone used nuclear power (and it was so cheap they | didn't bother to meter it) were all completely accurate | from a non-political viewpoint | orthecreedence wrote: | Oh, interesting. I read/heard a few places that most fuel | used for fission was controlled by a few countries. I was | unaware it was abundant. | vel0city wrote: | The stuff is kind of all over the place, but it's not | high purity. The engineering to refine the material is | highly controlled. | mywittyname wrote: | Exactly. Beyond power generation, humanity still uses | petroleum products in their chemical industry. Which is | why the shutoff of Russian natural gas hurts Germany much | more than other countries, they now have a starving | chemical sector. | ajuc wrote: | Solar panels (+ synthetic fossil fuel generation if you | need unlimited energy storage) would be orders of magnitude | cheaper way to achieve that. | baq wrote: | Military interventions to blow up other people's under | construction fusion reactors will still be a thing, worry | not | colechristensen wrote: | Foreign energy reliance is finished and has been for some | time. North America can produce more petroleum energy than | it uses. In both 2020 and 2021 the US was a net petroleum | exporter. | floxy wrote: | >The Q needs to be something like 500 to 1000 | | Why wouldn't a final Q of 50 be economically viable? Interest | on capital costs? Other? | Tuna-Fish wrote: | Inertial confinement fusion requires fairly expensive | targets to collapse. To make it economically viable they | have to produce a lot more energy per target destroyed. | londons_explore wrote: | > fairly expensive targets | | The targets are only expensive because they aren't | produced at scale yet. | | They are the exact kind of thing a machine could churn | millions of per day out, and then use them at the same | rate. | | Even if the targets were made of expensive materials (eg. | platinum), most of that platinum could later be recovered | from the reactor wall, so it still wouldn't be very | expensive. | hutzlibu wrote: | "most of that platinum could later be recovered from the | reactor wall, so it still wouldn't be very expensive. " | | And recovering comes for free? | | Every step costs energy (or money). | | There is no working design yet. It is waay too early to | make any predictions about how scaling could reduce | costs. Scaling can even increase costs, if it depletes | limited resources like tritium. | pfdietz wrote: | Capital cost, cost of individual targets. | andruc wrote: | If you've done the math to determine the threshold, you | may as well show it already | pfdietz wrote: | I'm repeating what I've heard. Personally, I suspect even | that wouldn't reach the goal of being competitive. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Q is irrelevant, you need throughput. If your Q is one | million, but you are processing one tiny capsule per second, | you are producing too little money to pay for the facility. | | If you can process a tanker worth of hydrogen per second, Q | can be just above break even and you will still make money. | sillysaurusx wrote: | This tweet claims that 500MJ of energy was required: | https://twitter.com/latzenpratz/status/1602686252486217728 | | > "had to put 500 megajoules of energy into the lasers to then | send 1.8 megajoules to the target - so even though they got 2.5 | megajoules out, that's still far less than the energy they | originally needed for the lasers," says Tony Roulstone of the | University of Cambridge. | | But it's good to finally see progress. Very few technologies | can transform the world the way a practical fusion reactor | could. | Robotbeat wrote: | That's only because they're using old school flash pumped | lasers, not the new solid state lasers you'd use today if you | wanted to make a power plant demo. | BeetleB wrote: | Can solid state lasers produce the high energy needed here? | Robotbeat wrote: | Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Inertial_Fusion_ | Energy#M... | px43 wrote: | I'm not really seeing any convincing numbers there. | Mercury lasers seem to only be 10% efficient. I get that | this is better than the lasers that were just used at | NIF, but that still seems pretty far from useful. | sillysaurusx wrote: | It just seems a little strange to take credit for a | milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to | be reached. (More energy out than in.) | | Good to hear that there's a laser design that might achieve | that. | ganbatekudasai wrote: | Don't take it too personally, but you, and many others | here, need to rethink their approach. You see a short | tweet without context about a topic you clearly know | nothing about (which is totally, fully okay, it's a | complex topic), and think you are now able to criticize | milestones in this impossibly complex topic. | | Not even ask questions, not something like "hey, I saw | this tweet, I know it's just a tweet, but can someone | help me understand context?", no, you actually go ahead | and criticize work that you know nothing about, and when | confronted, you _double down_. | | On some level, you must know yourself that it might be | better to ask as many unloaded questions as you want, but | otherwise sit this one out in terms of assessment. | sillysaurusx wrote: | No thanks. | | I get that people are emotional about this, but it's | important to treat science with a critical eye. | | The claim is that more energy came out than was put in. | This is false. | | It's not just me saying it. | https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ | | There is no "context" to understand. Yes, it's an | impressive feat. Yes, other laser designs might fix the | huge ignition costs. But _that hasn't happened yet_ , and | until it does, it's completely fair to point that out. | | Will it win me any friends? Probably not. It's like | showing up to a party and saying the reason for the party | is mistaken. Very few people care. | | But scientists should, and I am one. Doubly so for | incorrect reporting to laymen. We have a responsibility | to convey what was actually achieved, not what we wish | was achieved. | boc wrote: | "...what was actually achieved" | | Honest feedback? You're coming across as an edgy 17 year | old. Dismissing criticism as others simply "getting | emotional" and then missing the point of this experiment | so hard that I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling is | not a good look. | LarryMullins wrote: | Your "honest feedback" is nothing more than naked | insults. | | Sillysaurusx is right. The "impossibly complex" matter is | actually quite simple, Q=1 is little more than a | psychological milestone, not some sort of technical | tipping point where further progress becomes easier. And | they haven't even gotten to Q=1 unless you buy into the | justifications they give for dodgy accounting of the | energy they put into it. The "impossibly complex" matter | of commercial fusion is actually quite simple, it needs | to put out _a lot_ more energy than you put into it after | you _fully_ account for all the energy you put in. They | aren 't even close to this. | geysersam wrote: | You are entirely correct. I'll just add that it's not | only about the energy put in, but ultimately about the | cost. Net positive energy output is the absolute basic | requirement. We're not there, we're not close, and even | if we were, the hurdle would be to make it economically | viable. | twojacobtwo wrote: | Just as a note, since I made the same mistake initially, | the person you're replying to didn't make the post from | which you are quoting "impossibly complex". | | It seems, to me, that boc was criticizing the | unnecessarily dour tone of sillysaurusx's previous | comment and not the technical aspect of the achievement. | | The whole thing seems to come down to whether one | interprets the announcement as an attempt to deceive the | public at large or simply a celebration of a milestone | that many in the fusion research community have been | trying to achieve for a long time. I can understand it | being interpreted both ways, but I think the more | charitable interpretation is that science reporting, in | general, doesn't usually properly explain the levels of | nuance of various achievements and, as such, something | that is genuinely exciting for those in the community is | not necessarily as exciting for those outside of it - | which comes across as deceptive. | boc wrote: | When a baseball batter hits a ball at a record 120mph, | you calculate the impulse of force ([?]p) they put into | the swing to cause that result, not the total calories | the player consumed during the past year in order to | build their muscles. | | You're arguing that the process of charging some | inefficient lasers (aka eating food throughout the year) | is invalidating this entire result. That was never part | of the experiment, nor is it relevant to this test. | | I understand exactly what you wrote above, and I'm | telling you that it's not relevant to this discovery. | You're arguing a non-sequitur in the classic definition. | sillysaurusx wrote: | Which criticism am I dismissing? | | People do seem to be getting emotional about fusion, and | pointing that out is hardly edgy. | | Once fusion achieves more output than input, I'll be | celebrating right there with you. But until then, | ignoring the Doberman in the room is a worse look, from a | scientific standpoint. | | I even cited a source from someone with a phd in | mathematical physics, who is likely far more qualified to | be talking about this than most of us here. So in terms | of dismissing criticism, the stack seems to be in the | other direction. | | Scientific reporting matters. Reporting something false | is generally a bad idea. Saying "we got more energy out | than we put in" is false. Which link in this chain of | reasoning is invalid? | twojacobtwo wrote: | > It just seems a little strange to take credit for a | milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet | to be reached. (More energy out than in.) | | That comment/criticism is a little strange in and of | itself. I would say it's the oddness or seeming petulance | of the above comment that brought on boc's comment. | | A silly, but illustrative analogy: Kid: | Dad, look! I scored a home-run! Father: Who | cares? Have you won the game yet? Stop celebrating until | you do something that everyone cares about! | simplicio wrote: | I think the confusion here is at least partially due to | most articles obscuring the primary purpose of the NIF. | Its not supposed to support commercial energy | development, its supposed to support nuclear weapons | development under the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, where | testing bombs via setting them off is banned. | | So the NIF is supposed to give a testbed to study | implosion created fusion reactions that produce enough | energy to "ignite", that is, propegate the reaction to | the rest of a hypothetical bomb. In that case, the amount | of energy needed for the infrastructure to produce the | initial implosion doesn't matter, what matters is that | the energy coming out is more then the actual energy that | triggered the reaction, so that the hypothetical bomb | would blow up and not fizzle. | nilsbunger wrote: | It's a significant milestone because demonstrating you | can get net energy from the reaction removes a lot of | uncertainty of whether it's possible in the real world. | It starts to turn inertial fusion into an engineering | problem of how you increase the efficiency of each stage. | jacoblambda wrote: | Worth noting that the milestone achieved was positive | Q_plasma (more energy out of the plasma than in). | | They are using inefficient lasers because they are | cheaper to buy/maintain/modify for research purposes. | | Determining the conditions for positive Q_plasma is | largely a matter of science/research so the external | system doesn't matter as long as the variables are | controlled and results are reproducible. | | Once positive Q_plasma is well understood/reproducible, | achieving positive Q_total (more energy produced than | spent running the infrastructure) is just a matter of | engineering and potentially waiting for the SOTA for | components (like lasers or materials) to catch up. | | TLDR: This is the scientists proving the theory. Now it's | the scientists' job to refine the theory. Then the | engineers get to put it into production. | moloch-hai wrote: | The theory was proven to everybody's satisfaction in | 1950. | | There will be no production, except of new, smaller | thermonuclear warheads. That is their legislated remit. | kelnos wrote: | It _is_ a milestone, and I do think the researchers | deserve credit for that. Getting more energy out of the | reaction than was delivered to it by the lasers _is_ | actually important. | | No one (except perhaps poor science "reporters") is | claiming that this means we now have free and cheap | fusion power. Of course the energy put in to operate the | lasers themselves needs to be accounted for -- and it is! | -- but that doesn't make what they've achieved useless. | It's also useful to remember that the researchers | involved are not the people writing press releases and | articles; let's not minimize their achievement just | because of sloppy, sensationalist reporting. | | I like the analogy downthread of a kid being excited | about scoring a home run in baseball, but the dad | chastising the kid for celebrating before actually | winning the game. That's what it feels like is happening | here. | | This is a huge step in the right direction, and it should | be celebrated as such. | worik wrote: | Why are they using these "flash pumped" lasers if more | efficient ones are available? | londons_explore wrote: | It's a very old lab, and replacing them isn't cheap/easy. | | You don't need to use efficient lasers to get the | scientific results they're after - other people have | already very accurately measured the properties of modern | lasers, so we can predict how they would perform without | having to actually use them. | jcarreiro wrote: | Because they are researching inertial confinement fusion, | not trying to build a working power plant. The efficiency | of the lasers doesn't matter, since it doesn't affect | their research. | Aeolun wrote: | Is energy on the order of 300MJ so cheap? You'd think | that cutting it down to 150MJ would allow them to do more | experiments. | nrki wrote: | 300MJ ~= 83kWh which is like, $2000 in CA | beowulfey wrote: | It's a proof of concept. Upgrading lasers that already | work is not necessarily the best use of limited funds. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | They could get higher power out of more efficient lasers, | enabling research at higher energies or bigger targets | 988747 wrote: | Not to mention the money they would save on electricity | bills. | kelnos wrote: | That's not the purpose of the research, though. They are | solely focusing on the energy transfer between the lasers | themselves, and the output from the reaction. It's not | clear that higher energies or bigger targets will teach | us anything new. | | Upgrading the lasers would slow the project down as new | hardware is installed and issues are worked out. Not to | mention I doubt the new hardware is cheap, and may be | more expensive than burning excess energy using old laser | tech in the meantime. | | Other research groups work on laser efficiency, and the | "final product" using this method (if it ever proves | viable) would put together all the best pieces to get the | best efficiencies. | Rebelgecko wrote: | It was discussed a lot in the threads about this yesterday, | but apparently the lab had relatively inefficient lasers. | Newer ones are an order of magnitude more efficient | petilon wrote: | This is what I captured from the press conference: | | 300 megajoules was used to generate the laser (this is also | captured in [1]). They also mentioned that newer lasers | have 20% wall plug efficiency. If so, they need to improve | the energy output by 5x in order to break even relative to | wall plug energy consumption. | | [1] https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/13/world-record-fusion- | experi... | LarryMullins wrote: | That's just the lasers, the rest of the plant needs power | too. Big water pumps are big power hogs, as is the rest | of the supporting equipment that any power plant requires | to operate. _Far_ over "wall plug" break even is | required for commercial viability. | jameshart wrote: | "Wall plug energy consumption" | | I don't know why but this caused me to picture Alec from | Tech Connections in a few years time, showing off his | fusion laser plugged in to a kill-a--watt, while he | explains carefully, through the magic of buying two of | them, why you can get more power out than you put in, and | why these old inertial confinement fusors were pretty | neat actually. | hackernewds wrote: | The funding does seem miniscule given we spend 100x more on | funding military excursions in the name of energy security | azinman2 wrote: | Is the bottleneck for fusion money though? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | There are like 20 designs of various fusion reactors on the | drawing board that need to be built and tested. | | Scientists also don't work for free. They arent mushrooms | that grow by themselves | nerpderp82 wrote: | One of the things that I think I noticed from the press | conference, is that funding is going to be the bare | minimum to meet some goal for a design they select. | | This seems like a gross mistake. | | If we are going to avert a climate catastrophe we will | need TW of power to "unburn" the carbon we put into the | environment (ocean and atmosphere). Instead of barely | hitting this target, we should over deliver since we are | running out of wall-clock time. | | Every project that meets a bar for feasibility, | organizational/operational capabilities (if they dont | have it, either fix it, or transfer design to capable | team) should be given funding (50-100M). We should be | dropping BILLIONS on this, if we can drop 50B+ on | semiconductors we can do the same for fusion. | LarryMullins wrote: | Dump trillions of dollars into fusion energy today and it | will still be decades before the first fusion power plant | is connected to the grid. You'd be better off funding the | construction of fission power plants. Those are very | expensive and take years to build, but they're still a | hell of a lot cheaper and faster than funding fusion to | the degree you're suggesting. | moloch-hai wrote: | Each dollar diverted to chase nuke wills-o'-th'-wisp | brings climate catastrophe nearer. | | Money is fungible. Dropping $billions on this means _not_ | dropping those $billions on something that works already, | works fantastically well, and would work even better with | more money. We already know how to prevent (more) climate | catastrophe. We just need to do more of it. | rowanG077 wrote: | money is always the bottleneck in some sense. There are | diminishing returns but in general more money will make it | happen faster. | fullshark wrote: | The laws of physics also a limiting factor | JKCalhoun wrote: | You might be right -- we threw enough money and put | humans on the Moon. The Manhattan Project was well funded | and produced results as well. | hcknwscommenter wrote: | I believe the Manhattan project (where we basically built | an entire new city, and entire new manufacturing process | from scratch: mining operations, refineries, enrichment, | milling, etc.) cost less in constant dollars than the | stealth fighter. | ErrantX wrote: | They also had a strong ideological element too. | [deleted] | maria2 wrote: | This is like saying thread count is always the bottle | neck in computation. More money allows more parallelism | as you can pay for more people and more equipment for | more research. As in computing, there are diminishing | marginal returns and surely a version of Amdahl's Law for | human endeavors. | xattt wrote: | > thread count is always the bottle neck in computation | | The softer the bed linen, the more rested the computer | scientists will be and the more likely they are to come | up with novel solutions that lead to faster computing. | [deleted] | BuckRogers wrote: | I would have to agree. The "in general" though is | carrying an enormous amount of weight in that statement. | | I think what other commentors may be getting at is that | in many cases the simple analogy of asking how 9 women | can have a baby in 1 month is instructive here. You could | throw trillions at that problem, a need to have a baby in | 1 month. Sometimes there are hard limits that money has a | hard time addressing. | | A case could be made that with enough money put towards | advanced technology, like gene therapy to force a fetus | to maturity in 1 month vs 9, it could be done with | horrendous side effects. | | So to your point money does solve all problems, but I | think diminishing returns is putting it very lightly. | z3phyr wrote: | More money attracts more eyes, hands, grey matter which | they would otherwise focus on something with more money. | But it is a long process. | jacoblambda wrote: | yes. fusion funding has been sliding downwards for decades | which is a large reason why it takes so long to do | anything. | | It's largely the same reason why NASA takes so long to do | anything. | | 1. Shortage of funding | | 2. failure can result in loss/exhaustion of funding | | 3. extremely low risk tolerance | | 4. physical experiments needing new HW only happen when the | likelihood of success is extremely high | | 5. projects are over engineered to reduce chance of failure | | 6. projects are over budget and over schedule | | 7. projects only make minor incremental progress | | 8. lack of fast/exciting progress drives decrease in | funding | | 9. GOTO 1 | kortilla wrote: | It has nothing to do with funding. SpaceX had far less | than NASA. | | For another example from a different angle, the military | has limitless supplies of funding but innovates even less | than NASA. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | You are comparing company that makes trucks with a | company that makes precision scientific instrumers, and | you are declaring that truck companu is more efficient | per kilo of produce. this is stupid. | | Nasa develops nuclear reactors, landed on titan and has | reached pluto. Spacex vehicle has never left the Earth- | moon system. | kortilla wrote: | Lol "spacex makes trucks". Way to throw on the anti-Musk | blinders and completely ignore the back-half of the | comment and misunderstand the first half. | | Also, spacex has launched outside of the earth-moon | system. It was a roadster | mynameisvlad wrote: | SpaceX is not Tesla. It's disingenuous to call SpaceX a | "company that makes trucks". Just like NASA, they also | make precision scientific instruments. They're the first | privately funded mission to the ISS and run a massive | satellite constellation. | | They may not have the same accomplishments as NASA, but | they're _far_ from a "company that makes trucks". | ftlio wrote: | The analogy is apt in at least defining a separation | between the overall complexity of what SpaceX produces | compared to NASA, to say something of how the two | different models of R&D work, but maybe off in degrees as | you discussed. | | "NASA makes precision scientific instruments and SpaceX | makes precision scientific instruments that have lower | tolerances with a higher focus on throughput, and there | are rapidly diminishing returns in how much funding can | be used to close the gap" is probably the right take if | not as fun. | zaroth wrote: | I can't agree that _funding_ is "largely the reason" why | NASA takes so long to do anything. I doubt funding is a | top 3 reason. | | NASA just isn't about high-risk / high-reward "moonshots" | anymore. The overarching political environment doesn't | allow it, never mind the office politics. | | NASA will get back to the moon using easily an order of | magnitude more funding than it should have taken, with a | launch system that costs an order of magnitude more money | for each launch than it should. (almost two?) | krainboltgreene wrote: | > I can't agree that funding is "largely the reason" | | > NASA just isn't about high-risk / high-reward | "moonshots" anymore. The overarching political | environment doesn't allow it, never mind the office | politics. | | Why doesn't the political environment allow for it. What | could happen. What could regulatory bodies do to NASA for | taking a risk and failing. What sort of constricting | change could political bodies do in such a situation. | LarryMullins wrote: | > _Why doesn 't the political environment allow for it. | What could happen._ | | Three astronauts were incinerated alive. That was when | they started to take safety more seriously. Subsequent | accidents have only reinforced this. | ngcc_hk wrote: | The funding senator became the administrator of the | current moon attempt. The funding insist on using the old | technology in the funding. All these sounded bad. If nasa | has more freehand. But then the fund will not get back to | the states ... | BobbyJo wrote: | Have to +1 this. A lot (most?) of NASA's funding is | directed toward keeping people employed and skilled, as | opposed to accomplishing goals, as with a lot of | government money. NASA could do a LOT more with the | funding they already have, if they were willing to divest | from older technologies and vendors, but the politics of | its funding doesn't allow that. | krainboltgreene wrote: | > A lot (most?) of NASA's funding is directed toward | keeping people employed and skilled, as opposed to | accomplishing goals | | This is so hilarious wrong I don't even know where to | start. | | > but the politics of its funding doesn't allow that. | | The post _that you are agreeing with_ says that | "funding" is not the reason for their plan. | BobbyJo wrote: | > This is so hilarious wrong I don't even know where to | start. | | Anywhere at all would be better than nowhere. I worked | for a defense contractor for a few years, so I'm basing | my comment on my experience there. | | > The post that you are agreeing with says that "funding" | is not the reason for their plan. | | Not sure what you are saying here. | jacoblambda wrote: | I agree however that culture was caused by a lack of | funding. | | You can't be swift and lean when you are given very | limited, budgeted funding. You can't take risks or you | risk putting people out of a job and killing the program. | | That leads to an overly conservative culture that | restricts any risk taking and over-engineers everything | to the point failure is effectively impossible. | | This slow movement, overly conservative, design by | committee approach helps limit risk but it absolutely | balloons costs in the long run and horrifically delays | progress. Of course if they were a company they'd | eventually run out of money but that's not really an | option for gov orgs so when the overly conservative, | limited run designs end up encountering production | issues, the projects explode in cost with nearly no upper | limit. | | TLDR: The political climate is a direct consequence of | the lack of budget and continued restriction of that | budget only worsens the problem. | ufmace wrote: | "Funding" isn't really a good answer IMO. I don't know a | ton about Fusion research specifically, but NASA is | horrifically inefficient with money compared to private | competitors. Giving them more money won't magically make | them more efficient. Reasons why include: | | - Their incentive is to optimize for political approval, | which means spreading facilities among as many | congressional districts as possible, which creates a ton | of inefficiency from poor communication and the need to | constantly ship things around | | - Public approval is the goal and failure is the worst | possible option, so things tend to be optimized to take | as few engineering risks as possible and have huge | amounts of bureaucracy to spread the blame for any | possible failure | | There's a reason why SpaceX started landing rockets with | a fraction of the money that NASA spent on building | ridiculous boondoggles. | geysersam wrote: | Also, SpaceX did it 60 years later. | nabla9 wrote: | 3.15 Mj = 0.875 kWh | moffkalast wrote: | > demonstrating the scaling laws at work | | One would think that one look at the sky would be enough to say | that "hey this fusion thing scales pretty well". | zardo wrote: | The targets are really the secret sauce right? If there were a | civil ICF for power program, would NIF designs and data even be | available to help, or is it all classified? | jkelleyrtp wrote: | There are pictures of CAD and experimental setups for the | targets. They're also pretty open with the setup numbers, so | in theory, you could make your own NIF setup and try to get | their target designs working. | | From what I understand, a lot of the work from the past years | has been trying to piece together geometries, pulse timing, | stability, and quality of targets. | bmmayer1 wrote: | This is a stupid question but I don't know anything about | fusion: | | How is it possible for X energy to create X+Y energy in output? | Doesn't that violate some fundamental law of physics? | garfieldnate wrote: | I think it's more like a release of potential energy; kind of | like how you can lightly nudge a large object teetering on | the edge of a cliff and it'll make a huge splash at the | bottom. It took a lot of energy to create the big splash, but | you didn't need much to trigger it. | ceejayoz wrote: | You're using X energy to release Y energy _from the fuel_ | (the pellet, containing deuterium and tritium). It was there | already, just not in a usable form. | xdavidliu wrote: | sometimes, when two small particles fuse, they become a | single larger particle, but the larger particle's mass is | slightly less than the sum of the masses of the two smaller | particles. The slight difference becomes energy released, and | the amount of energy released, roughly speaking, is E = mc^2. | simiones wrote: | The energy is "released" from the binding energy of the | nuclei. It's similar to how throwing a bottle of | nitroglycerine can generate a huge explosion, even though you | use a tiny amount of energy to throw it. | spullara wrote: | If you look at the mass before of their fuel, 1 deuterium | atom + 1 tritium atom: 2.01410177811 u + | 3.01604928 u = 5.03015105811 u | | vs the mass of the fusion products of 1 helium atom and 1 | neutron: 4.002602 u + 1.008 u = 5.010602 u | | You'll notice that even though we started with 5 neutrons and | 2 protons and ended up with the same number there was some | additional binding energy that is unaccounted for in the new | configuration. This is the energy released by the fusion | reaction via E = mc^2. Here we see the mass difference is: | 5.03015105811 u - 5.010602 u = 0.01954905811 u | | Converting that to energy you find that is 17.6 MeV. As you | go up the periodic table fusing nuclei you will get less and | less marginal energy until you get to iron where at that | point fusion become net negative and fission is then takes | over where breaking nuclei apart gains energy, marginally | more as you go up the periodic table. That's why you want to | fuse light particles and fission very heavy particles. It is | also why there is so much iron as it is kind of the base | state of both of these reactions. | eklitzke wrote: | Tangentially related, but I think this is an interesting | fact, all the atoms in our universe/galaxy/solar system | with a mass up to that of iron are formed in the core of | stars in stellar fusion. Hydrogen fuses into helium, and as | a star nears the end of its lifetime you get heavier | elements like lithium, carbon, and so on. Under normal | stellar fusion no elements heavier than iron will be | produced, and iron is only element number 25. If you just | looked at nucleosynthesis through the lens of stellar | fusion, it isn't obvious that there should be any heaver- | than-iron atoms at all in the universe. | | These heaver-than-iron elements are created in a very | interesting and exotic process. When a large enough star | dies it explodes in a supernova, and a _huge_ amount of | energy and neutrons are released in a very short period of | time. This supernova generates enough energy and neutron | material that small amounts of heavier elements like gold, | platinum, etc. are created through exotic nuclear fusion | reactions, even though these heavy fusion reactions are | energy-absorbing. | | It's interesting to think when you're wearing jewelry made | from gold or platinum, all of those atoms in your jewelry | were created during the death of a star. | jmartrican wrote: | So that means that for life to form, we probably need a | star to die so that the heavier atoms used in complicated | life forming chemical reactions (correct me if i am wrong | here as what I'm about to say depends on it), hence it | could be the case that if the universe is 13.5 billion | years old, then we humans are appearing in the universe | at the earliest possible time. | | 13.5 billion years seems like the time required to create | a star, have the star die and blow up, have all that | material settle and create a new star, then the planets | are formed, than enough time on one of those planets | needs to pass for life to form, then complicated life. | marcyb5st wrote: | Not necessarily. First generation stars were, | theoretically, enormous both due to low metallicity of | the collapsed medium and a higher average concentration | of said medium. These stars lifespans were extremely | short, shorter that blue giants we see today. So novas | due to the death of these stars happened fairly early in | the lifespan of the universe (talking about few million | years after the big bang). | | Therefore, life could have developed in a few tens to few | hundreds of millions of years after the big bang. That's | still true even if we assume that heavier elements are | created mainly when neutron stars collide and not by | super/hypernovas as we theorized before LIGO/Virgo | observatories. | | Consequently, we likely are not a "progenitor" | civilization in the universe if we only consider planets | formation. We might not see anyone out there either | because there's a great filter for intelligent life to | emerge (so the bottleneck is in our past) or because | few/no civilizations get to have an impact on their host | stars (the filter is in our future) that would allow us | to see them. | hnuser123456 wrote: | Basic life (single-celled?) requiring the elements above | lead might have a chance at that time, but complex life | like us wouldn't do so well if there were still | supernovas going off left and right. There's a theory | with decent evidence that at least one of the mass | extinctions was caused by a supernova: | https://www.space.com/supernova-caused-earth-mass- | extinction... | | That being said, I wasn't aware of how LIGO changed the | understanding of how heavier elements are usually formed, | guessing it changed the expected neutron star prevalence? | Do you have any additional reading on that? | maxbaines wrote: | Very much a laymen also, however funnily enough I was | listening to a bbc program called in our time, a couple | of nights ago, where a similar topic was discussed one | comment was that life is carbon based and for carbon to | exist a star has to die, so yes therefore we are in the | early stages. Will try to fin the episode.... | heavyset_go wrote: | > _13.5 billion years seems like the time required to | create a star, have the star die and blow up, have all | that material settle and create a new star, then the | planets are formed, than enough time on one of those | planets needs to pass for life to form, then complicated | life._ | | Maybe for a main sequence star, but there other processes | that involve nucleosynthesis. | short_sells_poo wrote: | I'm just a layman but I believe by the time our sun has | formed, we've gone through multiple star cycles. The | early stars were very pure - made basically purely of | hydrogen (maybe some helium?). They were huge, burned | very bright and died comparatively quickly. Each time | stars died, more heavy elements (and heavier elements | than before) were produced. Over time the heavy element | content (called metallicity) has increased in all stars. | I believe there are also theories of white dwarf mergers | undergoing runaway fusion and a lot of heavy elements | being generated during the explosion. | | You raise an interesting question though: what is the | earlier point of time where the heavy elements were | abundant enough for life (as we know it) to form? Just | because we started existing at +13.5 billion years, it | doesn't mean carbon based life couldn't have formed much | earlier. | matt-attack wrote: | I have zero ability to answer your question but I would | love to know about about this. If life (like we know it) | requires the explosion of aged stars, what is the | earliest it would take. What is the minimum time needed | to form, grow and explode a single star? Has there been | time for this to occur 10s, 100s of times since the Big | Bang? (obviously they can happen in parallel, but I'm | thinking about how many in series). | b33j0r wrote: | It's funny that alchemy was kinda onto something, but | underestimated the energy requirements by orders of | magnitude of orders of magnitude | hgsgm wrote: | BizarroLand wrote: | True, all you need to turn lead into gold is a moderately | powerful collider and some hydrogen. | | The conversion is also very slow. And expensive. To make | it this way it would cost a Quadrillion dollars an ounce. | | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or- | fiction-l... | unnouinceput wrote: | Quadrillion now, but costs will drive down and once is | turned to gold, it stays gold. In the far future where | all gold was mined this will be the only process left to | get more. Or explode stars and capture gold from them. | 867-5309 wrote: | _we are all made of star stuff_ | pishpash wrote: | Star stuff sounds like some German element. | emmelaich wrote: | Exactly what I thought! I checked with google translate. | | star stuff = sternzeug. stern stoff = star fabric | hibbelig wrote: | Stoff had more than one translation into English. One is | cloth. Another refers to substances. Eg hydrogen is | called Wasserstoff in German: water-stuff | maerF0x0 wrote: | or as I like to say to encourage myself that small things | matter | | "Stars are made of quarks" | rhacker wrote: | What are quarks made of? | | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/d/d9 | /Qu... | ajross wrote: | Actually current modeling has supernovae as being only a | small contributor to the measured abundance of heavy | nucleii. These guys tend to come from a more exotic | source still: material thrown off as a _neutron star is | tidally disrupted during a merger event with another | neutron star or black hole_. | | The wikipedia page is pretty good, as always: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis | | Almost everything with mass of 90 or above comes | predominantly from neutron star mergers, basically. | MayeulC wrote: | After all, is there anything better to create new | elements than a hot, dense neutron soup? | short_sells_poo wrote: | I'm always fascinated by the sheer and unfathomable | amounts of energy that is thrown around in these events. | Just thinking about the fact that a single spoonful of | neutron star matter contains more mass than Mount Everest | fills me with wonder about the world we live in. | galangalalgol wrote: | What happens whena tablespoon of neutron soup gets thrown | out of the well of a neutron star? Does it suddenly | expand to the size of everest? Where do the electrons | come from? | heavyset_go wrote: | I'd imagine some of the energy and degenerate matter | consisting of neutrons would convert to protons and | electrons, and nucleosynthesis would take place to form | elements. | | I have no idea, though, but I'm pretty sure I watched a | video about this. | Mistletoe wrote: | Good Lord the universe is old. To think of how rare all | that must be and how it had to have time to somehow get | here to our planet. | clavalle wrote: | If they weren't here, we wouldn't be able to talk about | it. | | I'd be interested to know if we're in an element rich | vein of the wider universe or if all the good stuff is | more or less evenly distributed? | Mistletoe wrote: | I'm not sure but this has some interesting info such as- | | >Some whole galaxies have average metallicities only 1/10 | of the Sun's. Some new stars in our galaxy have more | metals in them than the original solar nebula that | birthed the Sun and the planets did. So the amount of | "metals" like oxygen and carbon can vary by a few orders | of magnitude from star to star, depending upon it's age | and history. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9tujxn/are_t | he_... | stock_toaster wrote: | "The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our | teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in | our apple pies were made in the interiors of | collapsing stars. We are made of star stuff". | - Carl Sagan | [deleted] | steam_raven wrote: | We have calcium in our bones, iron in our veins, | carbon in our souls, and nitrogen in our brains. | 93 percent stardust, with souls made of flames, | we are all just stars that have people names" | Nikita Gill | tomdekan wrote: | I find this poem inaccurate. | andrepd wrote: | ? | gretch wrote: | I understand this is a poem that is focused on artistic | expression and not scientific accuracy, but I find the | line about "carbon in our souls" to be out of place. I | guess the rest of the poem is incidentally correct (when | not abstract) | guelo wrote: | You could define soul as the fuel engine for life, which | is basically burning carbon. As long as that furnace is | functioning you're alive == you have a soul. | ok_dad wrote: | One who is a materialist could argue that your "soul" | comes from the stuff you're made out of, so your "soul" | probably has carbon it somewhere. | dr_dshiv wrote: | Sure, the word "soul" comes from the proto Germanic | "saiwiz" (for sea or ocean). | | But not because "you are like a drop in the ocean," but | because "you are like an ocean in a drop." | | The idea of soul can be objectionable when it is based on | an immortal being or on a vitalist life-force (like | "anima" of the Latin). But it seems fine when it is based | on the psyche (like the "Psuche" of the Greek). | | I embrace taboo words like soul because they 1. are | common 2. are useful for referring to things that seem | pretty important (like avoiding soulless companies or | products or buildings) and 3. are challenging to my | normal (scientific) understanding of the world. | | Still, I'd be more comfortable if the poem referred to | the "carbon of our souls" rather than "carbon in our | souls." Hmm... | hgsgm wrote: | SiVal wrote: | Iron is always spoken of as the dividing line, but I'd | like to know whether iron is _exactly_ on the line, on | one side (which?), or it depends. IOW, does fusion of | iron atoms release energy (hydrogen side of the line), | absorb energy (uranium side of the line), neither, or | either (depending on conditions)? | kennend3 wrote: | My son has a masters in nuclear physics and i've always | been curious as to why iron causes stars to explode. | | He does an excellent job explaining things and put it to | me like this. | | Elements to the Left of Iron can undergo fusion and | release energy, Elements to the right can undergo fission | and release energy. | | Iron IS the line because it needs energy to do either of | these. | | All elements want to find stability, and Iron is that | Element because it needs energy for either fission or | fusion. | | So yes, Iron is the dividing line and this is what makes | it so stable. | | Edit: forgot to link the chart when referencing left or | right.. | | http://www.splung.com/content/sid/5/page/benergy | eropple wrote: | As I understand it, iron is the first element that | absorbs energy under fusion, and therefore won't fuse | further. Could be wrong, though. | 29athrowaway wrote: | It is also interesting that the Milky Way will collide | with Andromeda and then we will be invaded by zerg. | joe-collins wrote: | And on a total tangent, this fact played a part in | worldbuilding done by the author L. E. Modesitt, Jr. | | > When I initially decided to write _The Magic of Recluce_ | in the late 1980s, I 'd been writing science fiction | exclusively... I conveyed a certain dismay about the lack | of concern about economic, political, and technological | infrastructures in various fantasies then being written and | published in the field... | | > I faced the very real problem of creating a magic system | that was logical... Most fantasy epics have magic systems. | Unfortunately, many of them, particularly those designed by | beginning authors, aren't well thought out, or they're | lifted whole from either traditional folklore or gaming | systems and may not exactly apply to what the author has in | mind. | | > I began by thinking about some of the features and tropes | of traditional fantasy. One aspect of both legend and | folklore that stuck out was the use of "cold iron" to break | faerie magic, even to burn the creatures of faerie, or to | stand against sorcery. Why iron? Why not gold or silver or | copper? Not surprisingly, I didn't find any answers in | traditional folklore or even contemporary fantasy. Oh, | there were more than a few examples, but no real | explanations except the traditional ones along the lines of | "that's just the way it works." | | > For some reason, my mind went back to astronomy and | astrophysics and the role that nuclear fusion has in | creating a nova... Each of these fusion reactions creates a | heavier element and releases energy... The proton-proton | reaction that produces iron, however, is different, because | it is an endothermic reaction... | | > At the same time, the fact that metals such as copper or | silver conducted heat and electrical energy suggested that | they were certainly less than ideal for containing | electrical energy. Gold and lead, while far heavier than | iron, do not have iron's strength, and other metals are too | rare and too hard to work, particularly in a low-tech | society. | | > At this point, I had a starting point for my magic | system. I couldn't say exactly what spurred this | revelation, but to me it certainly made sense. Iron can | absorb a great amount of heat. If you don't think so, stand | on an iron plate barefoot in the blazing sun or in the | chill of winter. Heat is a form of energy. In fantasy, | magic is a form of energy. Therefore, iron can absorb magic | and, by doing so, bind it. | | https://www.lemodesittjr.com/the-books/saga- | recluce/recluce-... | aaroninsf wrote: | This is an A+ comment--helpful, well-formatted, concise, | with bonus interesting additional detail. | | Thank you. | qorrect wrote: | Yes well done . | spullara wrote: | Thanks, finally got to use my physics masters degree. | zaroth wrote: | First time for everything!! | subsubzero wrote: | Do we know how much tritium is needed for a city's energy | generation? What about a state etc? Reason I ask is the | only uses I have seen for tritium is on old watch dials | made in the pre-90's. Curious how much of this resource is | out there. | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | TLDR is there isn't nearly enough tritium, but fusion | reactors can make more (while still generating energy) | ngcc_hk wrote: | Can you collect them easily in the reactor ? | yonaguska wrote: | Tritium is very popular on gun sights as well- as it's a | glow in the dark sight that doesn't need to be charged. | I'm now questioning the practice of appendix carrying | with tritium sights. | ars wrote: | Tritium decays by beta-decay (an electron). The electron | can not travel very far in air (1/4 inch), and is stopped | by even the thinnest piece of metal. It's even stopped by | the dead outer layer of your skin. | | i.e. it's completely harmless unless you eat it. | XorNot wrote: | Not quite: beta decay will penetrate the skin enough to | damage living tissue - beta burns are what caused the | fatalities of the Chernobyl first responder fire | fighters. | | They spent a few hours covered in dust on their coats, | and did a bunch of subsurface skin damage which | manifested as third degree burns. Sepsis, not radiation | poisoning, generally killed them. | dublin wrote: | Well, it lasts for several years, but considerably less | than even a human lifetime: Tritium's half-life is only | about 11 years, so gun sights, dark-proof glow-in-the- | dark signage (usually reserved for critical industrial | plants, ships and offshore platforms due to expense), | etc, will become seriously degraded in just a few years. | (Since the glow is directly proportional to the remaining | low-level beta radioactivity, which can barely penetrate | the glass envelope in the first place - you'd get more | radiation (from radium) living in a brick house than | carrying 24-7.) | | FWIW, tritium and a phosphor granule encapsulated in | glass microspheres have been developed for self- | illuminating runway paint, but again, no one really uses | it because tritium is stupid expensive, and again, it' | loses half its brightness in only a decade. | | On the other hand, I've been told that Trijicon will | replace their tritium gun sights for the lifetime of the | original owner. I plan to live long enough to cost them | money... | S04dKHzrKT wrote: | Real Engineering recently made a video that covers fuel | needs. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzK0ydOF0oU | phtrivier wrote: | And the (otherwise excellent) channel is supposed to soon | post an adv... I mean informer... I mean "exclusive | documentary" about "repeat after me we're totally not a | scam - we just play one on YouTube" fusion startup | Helion. | | Which I'm going to watch, because even though everything | I hear about this company gives me insane Theranos | vibes... Well, if they pull it off... They might light a | bulb with fusion in my lifetime. | twic wrote: | Take spullara's numbers: | | 2.01410177811 u = 3.34449439340696e-24 g deuterium | | 3.01604928 u = 5.008267217094e-24 g tritium | | 17.6 MeV = 7.832863e-19 kWh energy | | Divide through, and you will see that you need 4.27 | ug/kWh of deuterium, and 6.39 ug/kWh of tritium. | | A random source [1] says that New York will use 50.6 TWh | per year by 2027. That would require ~216 kg/yr of | deuterium and ~323/yr kg of tritium. | | This is all assuming 100% efficiency. A quick read | suggests 50% efficiency might be practical, so double | those quantities. | | Also, i could easily have messed up that calculation | somewhere, so please do check it! | | [1] https://www.buildingcongress.com/advocacy-and- | reports/report... | BadBadJellyBean wrote: | I wonder if that is much or not. I have no idea how hard | this is to produce. Do you have an idea about that? | mbauman wrote: | Oooof, looks like the primary way of creating it is | through... fission reactors. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Production | | And there's not much of it: | | > According to a 1996 report from Institute for Energy | and Environmental Research on the US Department of | Energy, only 225 kg (496 lb) of tritium had been produced | in the United States from 1955 to 1996.[a] Since it | continually decays into helium-3, the total amount | remaining was about 75 kg (165 lb) at the time of the | report. | davidklemke wrote: | The concentration of deuterium in the ocean is about | 150-160 parts per million and with 1233.91 quintillion | liters covering the earth we have approximately | 8.2260667e+12kg worth of it to extract, so we've got a | bit to work through! | | Tritium however is far more rare with only trace amounts | of it being available within nature and barely more than | a kg produced per year. Producing the 100s of kgs | required per year still seems to be an unsolved problem, | although my quick searching shows there's a couple viable | solutions for it. | mlyle wrote: | The solution is that fusion power plants can breed | tritium and become net producers of it... | | Though in practice enough will be lost that probably | they'll still be somewhat net consumers-- just not nearly | to the extent predicted by a simple thermodynamic model. | | Still, even if fusion becomes a net producer of tritium, | the whole tritium-is-hard-to-get problem will likely be a | constraint that we'll be fighting as we ramp up use of | fusion power in the future. | w0mbat wrote: | Tritium is also used in gun sights. | riemannzeta wrote: | Great comment. But you meant 2 helium atoms and 1 neutron | in the second equation, correct? | spullara wrote: | Nope. Helium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Here is an | image that shows the reaction: | | https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_ar | tic... | benevol wrote: | [deleted] | nkrisc wrote: | Mass and energy are equivalent. You're using X energy to | reduce the mass of your fuel and converting that mass into Y | energy. When X < Y you have useful energy production at the | cost of the mass of your fuel. Energy is conserved. | | The reason nuclear fusion is such a desirable goal is because | it only takes a relatively small amount of mass to convert | into a relatively large amount of useful energy, and the mass | (the fuel) is relatively easy to obtain. | | Like all energy generation, it's converting one type of | energy into another, more convenient type, to do useful work. | Like a hydroelectric dam converting the potential energy of | water into more useful electrical energy. Energy is conserved | when water spins a turbine, it's just that electrical energy | is more _useful for work_ than the potential energy of the | water. Of course you can still use the potential (or kinetic) | energy of the water directly, such as with a water mill. But | the energy to work ratio is worse in that form (especially if | the work to be done is far away from the watermill). | | Whenever you build a fire you need to input some amount of | energy to begin the chemical reaction that releases energy. | In this instance we get not electrical energy, but energy in | the form of infrared and visible light, to heat our home and | light our way. Yet the total energy released by the fire far | surpasses the energy you used to start the reaction, but | because the wood's mass is consumed, energy is ultimately | conserved. You have converted wood (not useful for heating | your home) into infrared light (useful for heating your | home). | lr1970 wrote: | > Mass and energy are equivalent. | | Mass is energy at rest, hence equivalence with exception of | massless particles like photons that have zero mass and | non-zero energy. Also, photons travel with the speed of | light in vacuum and cannot be found at rest in any frame of | reference. Modern physics is fun, isn't it? | | P.S. Neutrinos were thought to have zero mass as well, but | according to the Standard model they have mass. | nkrisc wrote: | Yeah, my explanation is very much simplified. | jperras wrote: | Energy is released when two atomic nuclei combine to form a | larger atomic nuclei. | | There's a threshold of energy required to attain this fusion | reaction (otherwise there would be no light nuclei in the | universe), and once the nuclei combine there's energy that is | released, similar to how some chemical reactions can be | exothermic in nature. | delaaxe wrote: | Latest xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2710/ | tekla wrote: | You have a piece of wood. You ignite it with a match. This | causes a self sustaining reaction in the form of fire that | releases far more energy than the match could ever create. | | This is effectively what is happening with any energy | generator. | [deleted] | syngrog66 wrote: | E = mc^2 | | the "extra" comes from the mass | karpierz wrote: | You take a lighter and light gasoline on fire, using X | energy. Then once the gasoline catches on fire, it'll burn on | its own, releasing Y energy. | | Same principle, different means. | dsfyu404ed wrote: | You know how when you burn something you release the energy | in the chemical bonds? | | Fusion and fission are like that but for atoms instead of | molecules. | jameshart wrote: | Except... chemical bonds don't 'store' energy. Molecules | are a _low energy configuration_. It takes energy to rip | them apart! | | But, O2 molecules, with their double bond, don't take much | energy to break apart. If they do, and then pair up with | say a bunch of Hydrogen and Carbon atoms that were nearby | in some long chain or something, they form bonds that are | stronger - that take more energy to break - and you end up | with some leftover energy. Water and CO2 molecules are an | even lower energy configuration. | | but the extra energy you get wasn't exactly 'in' the oxygen | bond though - any more than when you have a ball at the top | of a hill it has potential energy 'in' it. | dsfyu404ed wrote: | There's a fundamental tradeoff between technical | precision and explaining things in a way that's relatable | to simpler stuff. Deal. With. It. | davrosthedalek wrote: | Not if the original description is exactly the opposite | of what happens. You get energy out by making stronger | bonds. | 867-5309 wrote: | equally confusing is the BBC article which mentions the | energy used for the reaction does not include the energy | needed to power the lasers, which renders it a net loss | rmbyrro wrote: | Nothing is being actually "created", just converted. | a-priori wrote: | It's not "creating" energy, it's _releasing_ energy. | | The original atoms (exactly which atoms depends on the | reactor, but let's assume it's deuterium and tritium) have a | certain starting energy. When you fuse them together the | resulting atom (helium-4, if you start with deuterium and | tritium) moves it into a _lower_ energy state. | | Since the fused atom has lower energy than the input atoms, | the fusion reaction releases the difference in energy, which | you can then capture. | dpacmittal wrote: | Same way you use spark plug to get the engine going in an ICE | car | wodenokoto wrote: | I think you should think of it as "this lumber only needs 1 | match to light it on fire while that lumber requires 10 | matches to get started." | steve76 wrote: | paxys wrote: | The input energy X is used to create the conditions of high | temperature and pressure that are needed for fusion to take | place. | | When fusion happens, two hydrogen atoms fuse together into | one, losing a bit of mass in the process. The mass difference | is converted into energy Y (using E=mc2). | | In this case, Y was greater than X, so there was a net gain | in useful energy. | emmelaich wrote: | The answers you got are excellent but a short response might | just say you don't start with just X energy. | | In a sense it's no more mysterious (conservation of energy- | wise) than adding the energy of a spark results in the energy | of the wood fire. | | i.e. energy is transformed, not created as you quite | accurately write. | ihaveajob wrote: | A daily life parallel: You can use a lighter to put a small | amount of energy into a bunch of wood to extract more energy | than you put it. In the case of fusion, this energy is coming | from fusing hydrogen atoms, rather than a chemical reaction. | [deleted] | anigbrowl wrote: | Y is the energy that was holding some hydrogen atoms together | which you have liberated (while destroying the atoms in | question but that's OK cause it's abundant). | Sporktacular wrote: | The Y comes from the mass of matter converted in to energy. | The mass of the material before the reaction is greater than | the mass of its products. | | The law you're referring to might be the conservation of | energy, but that applies to non-nuclear reactions and is more | accurately called the law of conservation of mass-energy. In | this case the energy in times the mass at the start is still | equal to the energy out times the mass at the end. For the | energy to increase, the mass must decrease to produce the Y | in your equation. | jackmott wrote: | sergiotapia wrote: | The future just got a whole lot brighter for my children. This is | going to save our planet, not funky wind farms. | loeg wrote: | This a commercially viable power source ain't. | adamvalve wrote: | No need to pit them against each other. This achievement wasn't | certain. Multiple paths towards a more sustainable future is | better for everyone. | lostmsu wrote: | > Multiple paths towards a more sustainable future is better | for everyone. | | That is debatable. | einpoklum wrote: | US DOE: Excessive uncritical media hype achieved. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | Huge! | | So much left to do. Capture that output energy. Streamline the | machinery that produced the result. Do it at scale and | efficiently. | | But that's just engineering, as they say. Which is one thing we | are pretty good at!! | e1g wrote: | Recently discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33945863 | [740 comments] | trilobyte wrote: | Am I reading it correctly that they achieved a ~53% output of | energy over input? | gjsman-1000 wrote: | 2.05 MJ in, 3.15 MJ out. | | That's amazing. | eastbound wrote: | Minus the laser power supply, is it correct? | maria2 wrote: | Yes. The lasers are supplied with 400 megajoules, but it's | a start. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Press release states: "meaning it produced more energy from | fusion than the laser energy used to drive it." | | The 2.05 MJ put into the reaction includes the laser power | supply then, it would seem, unless they are bad at press | releases. But 2.05 MJ is not a lot of power. | prewett wrote: | If I remember from the article/discussion from yesterday, | "laser energy" is the energy in the laser beam, but | creating that 2 MJ laser beam required 200 MJ. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _creating that 2 MJ laser beam required 200 MJ_ | | NIF uses notoriously inefficient lasers. They lase fine. | Just not efficiently. From what I've seen, that 200 MJ | would be closer to 20 MJ with modern equipment. | | Still a gap! And there is still making the fuel, making | and replacing the reactor as well as collection losses. | But we're within two orders of magnitude of system break | even, which is closer than we've ever been. | sidibe wrote: | 2.05 MJ is what made it into the system from the laser. | It took a lot more to power the laser. | trilobyte wrote: | That's what I was trying to figure out. So is it still a | net-negative overall? | anfilt wrote: | Yea very curious as well would need to dig a little | deeper. If it's the beam energy it means we need more | efficient lasers or to scale larger to overcome the | energy losses from making a laser beam. | | Still even if it's just the beam we are at an energy | positive which is still great news because it mean the | fundamentals are working. | | Still other issues though, the biggest in my opinion are | an effective way to produce Tritium and energy | extraction. | trilobyte wrote: | Looks like the Nature article | (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7) is | more clear about it still being a net loss. Still an | important step forward, but it's important to | contextualize it. | pelorat wrote: | It's a net negative with a factor of 400 or so. This | breakthrough is not really a breakthrough, it's just | marketed as such because NIF needs to justify their | funding. Compressing pellets of fusion fuel using lasers | has no chance of ever forming the basis of a nuclear | reactor. | | It's scientifically interesting because a self-sustaining | reaction (until the fuel was consumed that is) was | achieved in a lab setting (as opposed to in a hydrogen | bomb). There might be fusion plasma data in there that | are of importance to more serious attempts at actually | building fusion reactors. | trynewideas wrote: | If it was net-positive today they'd already be plugging | it into the grid. | [deleted] | phkahler wrote: | >>:Am I reading it correctly that they achieved a ~53% output | of energy over input? | | Let's add some words. The output energy is electromagnetic | radiation and heat. When they do make a conversion to usable | energy (electricity) there will be conversion losses. | | On the input side, they are measuring laser energy. The lasers | are not very efficient so this overlooks a bunch of losses on | the input side as well. | | They are probably 100x away from real energy gain, and the | facility isn't even designed to be used that way. | | Never the less, it is a milestone along the way. | Kukumber wrote: | Every breakthroughs starts from government (people) funded | initiatives, congrats to everyone involved, a future without the | need to generate selfish profit is at reach! | coliveira wrote: | Well, they'll clearly give the government-backed science to | some "visionary" who will promptly monopolize the tech and hail | himself as super-genius who brought energy to the masses! | hardnose wrote: | Every breakthrough starts from government funded initiatives? | Wilbur and Orville Wright disagree. | Kukumber wrote: | Without the accessibility of their public library, and public | workers to guide them, they would have never been able to | acquire the required knowledge in aeronautics | hardnose wrote: | Isn't that a bit like saying that every innovation depends | upon milk? I guess, technically, every innovation does | begin with a baby drinking milk, but it seems like a | stretch to attribute the innovation to the milk, rather | than to the mind of the individual who may or may not have | been fueled by milk? | Kukumber wrote: | > it seems like a stretch to attribute the innovation to | the milk, rather than to the mind of the individual who | may or may not have been fueled by milk? | | What ever it been fueled with, knowledge wasn't created | at an individual's birth, it's an accumulation of a | collective and shared effort | | The point i was trying to make in my post is; it always | starts from the people, for the people to continue, for | the people to achieve a civilizational ascension | | If we build the means to generate infinite energy for | free, then we'll have to ask ourselves if giving that | much power to the individual a safe endeavor, or if we | should make sure the prospect is for the collective to | ascend | | Thanks to this achievement, many will learn from it and | acquire knowledge to pursue that goal, would it be the | case if it was a solo for profit effort? i doubt it | greatly | | The open source tech industry thrives because it's a | collective and shared effort, funding issue persists but | that's due to us, individuals, living civilization's | transition, it'll be a solved problem shortly | stonogo wrote: | I don't think they do, since they started with research done | by the Smithsonian Institution. | hardnose wrote: | Do you have any source information for this? As far as I | understood, the Wright brothers started out by building | hobbyist gliders in consultation with fellow aviation | pioneer Octave Chanute. | | I checked the Wikipedia entry, but the only reference it | maintains for the Smithsonian having helped the Wright | brothers is that they apparently gave Wilbur an award in | 1910, after having tried unsuccessfully _to steal credit | from him for building the first heavier than air flyer_. | Somehow I doubt that 's the kind of government contribution | to innovation to which the previous poster intended to | refer. | stonogo wrote: | https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright- | brothers/onlin... | | Wilbur Wright asked for the Smithsonian's aeronautical | research. They still have the letter. The very Wikipedia | article you're referencing, in the exact paragraph you're | talking about, contains the words "Orville Wright, whose | brother had received help from the Smithsonian when | beginning his own quest for flight." https://en.wikipedia | .org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Smithsonian_fe... | | Sure, the Smithsonian people were assholes about it. That | doesn't negate their contribution to the Wright brother's | work. Incedentally, in modern timesif you visit the Air | and Space Museum you can see the exhibit where they own | up to the shabby attempt to promote their late leader | over the Wrights. They cover the feud pretty thoroughly | -- including having both aircraft. | typeofhuman wrote: | How much of the funded research is actually a breakthrough? | ralusek wrote: | Some breakthroughs. | xyst wrote: | One more step towards getting away from dirty fossil fuels. | | I just hope we have enough time to see it implemented at scale | (ie, powering entire states/cities/towns/municipalities, swapping | infra in place). | | I also hope the O&G industry doesn't attempt to block this with | fake science (ie, decades of climate denial, greenwashing via | "recycling" campaigns). | daxfohl wrote: | My pessimistic self feels like the short-term effect is that it | sets a deadline by which oil companies know they have to extract | and sell all the existing oil on the planet, and a doubling down | on increased emissions now because fusion will solve it | eventually. | chrisco255 wrote: | There are hundreds of years worth of oil deposits (possibly | more) even at current usage rates. "Selling all the oil" isn't | in the realm of possibility. | daxfohl wrote: | Still, as much as possible before the party is over. | chrisco255 wrote: | As much as necessary, sure. Oil it turns out is pretty | useful in many different industries and contributes to | higher standards of living for the vast majority of the | world. It isn't some inherently evil technology or | resource. Still, it's going to take decades to transition | to electric regardless of any breakthroughs in the | meantime. | panosfilianos wrote: | I tried to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on what this | means in regards to energy costs being saved, because I couldn't | find a direct source (maybe GPT could help actually). | | Anyway, based on ITER [1] to equate the energy production of a | 1000MW coal plant you would need 2.7t of coal for that plant or | 250kg of deuterium and tritium for the fusion reactor (split | equally). Based on [2] deuetrium costs about ~$15k a kg. But | tritium is ridiculously expensive, at $30k per gram (!) [3]. | | This leads to a calculation of ~$700M for the coal plant and | ~$3.75B for the fusion plant (of which only ~$1.5M is deuterium) | | I have a few questions and I wonder if any can help: | | 1. Is the above fusion fuel correct? | | 2. What measures are expected to bring these prices down to price | efficiency? | | Of course, I am not calculating the cost it would take for the | reactor, storage, delivery etc. | | Nevertheless, this is an absolutely incredible development and | the people working for this progress should be definitely proud | of their work. My generation and the ones following will hail | this as a breakthrough moment. Thanks! | | [1]: https://www.iter.org/sci/FusionFuels | | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_of_chemical_elements | | [3]: https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may- | run... | gene-h wrote: | [0] provides economic analysis for this type of power plant. | They conclude it would not be unreasonable to get levelized | cost of energy could get as low as $25/MWh. For this one really | needs a high gain of 1000, although gains of 400 are a bit more | reasonable, and a gain of around 100 may be economically | competitive in some cases. | | While the gain NIF achieved was about 1.5, there is good reason | to expect it can be scaled up. Ignition is a runaway process, | so small changes in the input can result in large changes in | the output. Hydrogen bombs, which also use a burning plasma as | was demonstrated here, also suggest that the gain and yield may | be scaled up. | | [0]https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2020.005 | ... | cpleppert wrote: | >> Ignition is a runaway process, so small changes in the | input can result in large changes in the output. Hydrogen | bombs, which also use a burning plasma as was demonstrated | here, also suggest that the gain and yield may be scaled up. | | Hydrogen bombs are driven by indirect implosion by a nuclear | primary. It isn't a runaway process; the yield of a secondary | is limited by the implosion achieved by the primary. Most | hypothetical designs for an inertial fusion power plant | achieve similar energy gains. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | I think capital costs & construction times are going to be | _extremely_ important. | | I think the biggest reason nuclear energy stopped being built | is it takes too long to get political wins. | | NuScale and other SMNRs might be able to help with that. | | However, the capital costs & construction time for Fusion | Energy should theoretically be much lower than nuclear | reactors. | | But are we too far away from it being a reality that anyone | is predicting how much? | gene-h wrote: | It will be quite difficult to make fusion cheaper than | present day fission. Fusion reactors are new so significant | research work will need to be done. There are difficult | engineering challenges related to breeding fuel, which | involves moving hot, radioactive, and water reactive molten | lithium around. Fusion reactors need to be built to high | tolerances and will need to be refurbished occasionally due | to radiation/heat and in the case of NIF style fusion, | explosion damage. | | And one still has to deal with many of the same radiation | challenges fission plants must deal with. A large quantity | or radioactive tritium must be kept on site and neutrons | from the fusion reaction will make the reactor radioactive. | In fact, fusion produces more neutrons than fission per | unit energy. Even so called 'aneutronic' fusion would have | side reactions which would produce quite a lot of neutrons. | | Fusion is a lot more complicated than using special rocks | to boil water. | | The main advantage of fusion is a political one. It | politically nigh impossible to build a fission reactor in a | suburban industrial park, but Commonwealth Fusion Systems | is doing exactly that with a fusion reactor[0]. And there | is also the slim possibility this type of reactor could | explode. Said reactor uses superconducting magnets which | store a lot of energy and if something goes wrong, it would | be possible for them to release that energy fast. | | But, the NRC hasn't made laws for regulating fusion power | yet, so they are able to do this. | | [0]https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/commonwealth-fusion- | system... | panick21_ wrote: | > However, the capital costs & construction time for Fusion | Energy should theoretically be much lower than nuclear | reactors. | | Maybe then current Gen3+ reactors. | | But there is no way they will win economically against | GenIV Fission reactors. That are already solving most of | the issues with Gen3+ reactors. | | They already are much smaller, and therefore much lower | CapX. Fuel cost are even cheaper because of better | utilization of the fuel. Modern plants operating cost are | also less because they are even more automated and need to | be refueled less. | | There is no practical way fusion can compete in my opinion. | panosfilianos wrote: | Thanks a ton for that! $25/MWh is great but not the 10x | economic impact I expected. Especially since [1] we see PV at | $50/MWh currently. | | [1]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source | devmor wrote: | The economic impact doesn't just come from the fuel to | energy ratio. One of the biggest differences is also in the | space required. Nuclear fusion reactors could eventually | end up being very small - like smaller than an SUV. | | Imagine the cost savings in miniaturizing electrical grids. | panosfilianos wrote: | This seems interesting but not especially impactful. | | For me, the question here is: can we get our energy to | cost 90% less than it did? | | Don't get me wrong, I recognise that this is still a huge | win (especially environmentally) and that it can have | huge runway effects (eg. much more effective | decentralization etc.) but it's quite interesting on how | we can get these billions of people out of poverty first | (or during). | nebolo wrote: | While not 90%, transmission and distribution are around | 40% of the cost of retail electricity, so lowering those | substantially would go a long way. | panick21_ wrote: | Yeah but are you beating fission, something like: | | https://www.moltexflex.com/flex-reactor/ | | A small fission reactor can do almost everything a fusion | reactor can. Fusion fuel is higher density, but fission | density is already not an issue. | | Fusion still needs to heat water, that's where much of | the cost comes from. | DesiLurker wrote: | if they can be that small then they might find unexpected | use in long range spacecrafts or lunar colonies. you'd | still have to build and lift the reactor out of earths | gravity well. | devmor wrote: | Here on earth we could see them used to power container | ships as well, which are some of the biggest contributors | to greenhouse emissions as far as vehicles go. | jboy55 wrote: | This isn't for power plants, this is to model the efficiency of | the second stage of a stored h-bomb in place of periodically | exploding them, which we can't do anymore due to the test-ban | treaty. | pohl wrote: | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _tritium is ridiculously expensive, at $30k per gram_ | | D-T fusion almost always breeds tritium in the blanket. | panosfilianos wrote: | Would that mean that you wouldn't need titium to start with? | Or that tritium deposits would replenish? | | How would it affect the rough calculations above? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Would that mean that you wouldn 't need titium to start | with?_ | | Tritium decays in a decade. To start, you'd need the | expensive stuff harvested from the heavy water of spent | fuel pools. After that, you'd let your neutrons breed it in | lithium (or boron, if you're fancy). | panosfilianos wrote: | So, the approach here would be that it would just be a | much more efficient process. | wernercd wrote: | I would also wonder if Titium is that expensive... and it | generates titium... would that be part of the "break even" | equation? Creating something rare to sell? | ceejayoz wrote: | Current demand is a couple hundred grams per year. We | just don't need that much of it. The cost per gram would | go down a lot if we needed to mass-produce it. | panosfilianos wrote: | I think what I'm alluding to is, how much can the cost go | down. In the case of fossil fuels there value is strongly | based on their physical scarcity and cost of | extraction/delivery etc. | | How much do these things ring true in this case and what | are ideas of improvement? | Kubuxu wrote: | It is so rare because tritium is not found in nature in | any significant quantity. The amount on the market comes | from water recovered from water pools used for spent | nuclear material storage. | | There also is no enormous market for tritium. So in | short, fusion reactors exist on both sides of the tritium | market, by becoming the primary producers and consumers | of it, which should lead to significant drop in price of | tritium. | creato wrote: | Your calculations don't mention energy (J), only power (MW | in your post). Fuel supply and cost correlate with energy | produced, not power. | | Parent post suggests that tritium is a fixed cost, more | like a construction cost than a fuel cost. We can't answer | this question without a lot more information. We'd need to | know how much tritium is needed to reach the point the | reactor breeds more than it consumes, if at all. | trillic wrote: | I'd imagine commodity tritium breeders would be a part of the | infrastructure build out and that it will be a highly | competitive space as fusion-to-the-home nears reality. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | What is fusion-to-the-home? | LegitShady wrote: | probably one of those mr fusion units from back to the | future. | aliqot wrote: | Power derived from a fusion power plant delivered through | conventional powerlines leading to the consumer. | sbussard wrote: | Scientists spend their whole lives researching a particular | topic, but as soon as there's a breakthrough the politicians take | credit. Unbelievable!! | | Excellent milestone for humanity nonetheless | spencerchubb wrote: | The most surprising thing I've learned from this is we're only | allocating $624 million / year to this program. We really need | better mechanisms for deciding how to allocate taxes. | jboy55 wrote: | Its actually pretty good, since this is primarily weapons | testing. The real money is being spent in the EU, where there | is at least a chance of getting a sustainable fusion reaction. | davrosthedalek wrote: | It's, depending what calculation you believe, around 20 | billion for ITER. Started in 2013, first plasma in 2025, | first full fusion in 2035. So about a billion per year. Of | course, costs are calculated differently, and I'm not sure on | what time scale the 600 million are, but it's not that | drastically different. | | Research wise, it's a pretty big chunk of money. But yeah, | more money in research would be nice. (Disclaimer: I am a | scientist with grants.) | jboy55 wrote: | Yes, I think more research towards eventual power | generation, rather than weapon testing, would be better. | ZeKK14 wrote: | ITER is built in France, but is financed by many countries | outside of EU, including the USA. It's not a huge cost per- | country. | | > the ITER Members China, the European Union, India, Japan, | Korea, Russia and the United States | | See https://www.iter.org/proj/Countries | jasonhansel wrote: | Not really. IIRC the NIF needs to _pretend_ that it 's about | nuclear weapons to secure DoE funding; they (like us) know | that it's really about developing fusion as an energy source. | yrgulation wrote: | Would you rather the us takes second place in researching space | and energy tech? | twarge wrote: | Remarkable. It's still nuclear energy, and the sobering part for | me is that fusion neutrons are an order of magnitude more | energetic than fission neutrons. Add the fact that fusion plants | are an order of magnitude larger, and you get orders of magnitude | more nuclear waste with order of magnitude higher | activation/radioactivity. | | If you don't like nuclear for these reasons, you'll probably hate | fusion. | fastneutron wrote: | Activation products are of a different nature than the fission | products and minor actinides you get in fission reactors, and | are not necessarily as fearsome to handle, nor is the total | activity comparable at all to what you get in spent fuel. | | However, those high energy neutrons do a ridiculous amount of | damage to the structural materials, and if there are constant | outages to swap and repair components, I don't see an easy way | of making energy economically. | floxy wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion | kahrl wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect | twarge wrote: | I have a PhD plasma physics, I think I am qualified to make | these statements without this sort of dismissal! | [deleted] | blackbear_ wrote: | Furthermore, fusion does not produce highly radioactive, long | lived nuclear waste. "Fusion produces only low level | radioactive waste -- more than fission does -- but this low | level waste does not pose any serious danger," said Gonzalez de | Vicente. Contaminated items, such as protective clothing, | cleaning supplies and even medical tubes or swabs, are short | lived, low level radioactive waste that can be safely handled | with basic precautions. | | From https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/safety-in-fusion | twarge wrote: | Perhaps Dr. dr Vicente is talking about ITER, but surely not | a real fusion reactor. | | Here's something talking about an actual fusion reactor: | | "While the radioactivity level per kilogram of waste would be | much smaller than for fission-reactor wastes, the volume and | mass of wastes would be many times larger." | | and | | "To reduce the radiation exposure of plant workers, | biological shielding is needed even when the reactor is not | operating. In the intensely radioactive environment, remote | handling equipment and robots would be required for all | maintenance work on reactor components as well as for their | replacement because of radiation damage, particle erosion, or | melting." | | https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what- | the... | bookingtrolley6 wrote: | busyant wrote: | I'm sure this has been considered, but I haven't ready anything | about the "geo-political" effects of virtually unlimited energy | from fusion. | | I imagine that power dynamics would change drastically, but I | have no clue, really. | | I understand that's still far away, but are there any | articles/discussions on how large scale fusion-generated energy | would change the world? | josho wrote: | Oh it will be interesting. Assuming it is possible to | commercialize this at scale then relatively overnight we'll | some some of the following: | | * The middle-east no longer becomes a strategic region. Wealthy | regimes see their income disappear. The US has supported Israel | as a strategic check in the region, but with oil losing its | value the US no longer needs to fund Israeli security. We are | likely to see skirmishes if not major wars, but this time it's | over empires in decline, rather than empires with strategic | resources. | | * Texas' GDP declines substantially creating significant | unemployment. Will government scape goat immigration and create | further social problems, or invest in leading the transition | creating a new wave of energy industries. | | * Developing countries swiftly raise their standard of living | as cheap energy is brought online. No idea what this | ramification would be. | psychoslave wrote: | Is that a different approach than the Tokamak, some piece to make | it works, or some other relationship? What does it mean for | existing projects such as ITER? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER | readams wrote: | This works in a totally different way, by heating a tiny target | fuel pellet with a laser to cause it to collapse and trigger | fusion through basically heating and squeezing: more like how a | bomb works. It's not easy to see a direct path from this | approach to a power plant, but it might involve lining up a | steady stream of fuel targets and doing this in a sort of | pulsed mode. | | Other approaches attempt to create a continuous plasma where | fusion can occur confined in a powerful magnetic field, and | heated by radio waves to get it going. So there's always fusion | happening rather than in short bursts. | lostmsu wrote: | In principle inertial confinement is not much different from | internal combustion engines where piston compresses the mix, | and the explosion energy is harvested. Here lasers compress | the mix, and the explosion energy is not yet harvested (but | measured). | | Tokamaks (the other approach) are more like jet engines in | that they sustain burning. But currently the burning in | tokamaks requires more energy than it generates. | jasonhansel wrote: | Could it be argued that we should invest more in ICF and | less in tokamaks, given this result? I don't know enough | about the field to say. | blablabla123 wrote: | For the Fusion the particles need to get close - but not to | close. So the particles in the Tokamak get heated up to reach | that. Also it's designed to run continuously but the challenge | is the magnetic field so the particles won't hit the wall. (And | cool down very quickly) | | The Inertia based fusion works by providing the heat/energy | with lasers, so the fuel would have to be replaced | continuously. | teeray wrote: | Can someone ELI5 why this is significant over previous fusion | experiments? | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Previous Fusion experiments, even though we could get Fusion | reactions to occur, required more energy to start and sustain | the reaction than was generated from it. For the first time, | more was generated from the reaction than put in. | micromacrofoot wrote: | Note that while this is important progress, it's a bit of | specific accounting. The entire system still requires more | energy input than output, but this isolated piece can now | output a little more than input. | | > This is indeed a promising and exciting result, but we need | to remember that this does not take into account the energy | required to run the lasers that confine the reaction and | other inefficiencies and losses. | | https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to- | fusion... | | It's still entirely possible that we will not see a fusion | reactor in production within our lifetimes. | sigmar wrote: | Their goal was to produce a fusion reaction not to improve | laser efficiency. That's a bit like complaining they didn't | account for the energy used to structure the fuel. I don't | think it's 'specific accounting' when (output/input)>1 was | their goal from the start | micromacrofoot wrote: | The goal in the eyes of the layman is to produce a stable | fusion reaction that outputs more than input. | | While this is great progress, I feel that it's important | to have the full picture. There's a lot of "fusion | reaction breakthrough fatigue" stemming from the | misunderstanding that fusion power isn't a technology | that requires a singular breakthrough. | | There are many breakthroughs required to get to fusion | powered energy, and this is an important one (worth | celebrating) on a long road ahead. | supergirl wrote: | yeah but why is that a worthy goal? does anyone know how | to make the lasers 100x more efficient? or did we shift | the problem from one impossibility (efficient fusion) to | another (efficient lasers) | govg wrote: | Because their mandate is to study a different part of the | puzzle from what the laser researchers do. The NIF uses | really old laser tech, and in parallel the world has | moved onto 20x more efficient lasers. The NIF just wanted | to prove they could get a laser (bad one) to hit a pellet | and the pellet would send out more energy than the laser | put on it. Improving the laser, improving the pellet | materials, improving transfer from pellet to usable | energy are all different problems being solved by | different people. | prvc wrote: | Since there will necessarily be overhead in any kind of | finished design, this "threshold" is an arbitrary one to | pass, no more significant that 90% or 125%, or any other | round number. | Ancapistani wrote: | Sort of. | | We don't have a commercially viable technology here yet, | but we've proven that it's at least viable for the part | that needs to produce energy _actually can_ produce | energy. | | As I understand it, now we start down the road of | improving the ratio and optimizing the process. | | FWIW, from my lay perspective it seems like the research | NIF is doing is significantly smaller scale than the work | being done elsewhere. That's a _good_ thing in this case, | because the output:input ration - the Q - seems to | increase exponentially relative to input power. | supergirl wrote: | sounds more like someone tells you "hey, I finally found | how to do fusion, I just need one more thing, a super | efficient laser that no one has built before" | malfist wrote: | No other fusion experiment has achieve greater outputs than | inputs. | | So this is the first time that a fusion reactor has been net | positive for energy production | leephillips wrote: | Neither did this one. This is not a net positive. That's what | they told journalists to start the current cycle of hype, but | note that announcements direct from DOE don't use that | language. | wnevets wrote: | I know this is from the DOE but is this real real or this is | wormhole "real"? | aetherson wrote: | It's not like the "wormhole" thing where what was produced | isn't really what can plausibly be described as a wormhole. In | this case, fusion really did happen, and the amount of energy | produced by the fusion reaction was about half again what the | energy put into the fusion reaction was. | | That said, there are two pretty important caveats about how big | a deal it is macroscopically: | | 1. In order to have useful fusion power, we'd need at least | another order-of-magnitude or so energy out compared to energy | in. Maybe, depending on how optimistic you are about the | ability to capture that energy and efficiently feed energy in, | closer to two orders of magnitude. | | 2. This is from an inertial confinement approach to fusion. | Unlike the magnetic confinement approaches that we often hear | about, this approach doesn't really create a continuously hot, | spatially constrained bit of plasma that can then be used to | heat things up -- it produces more like a small but intense | explosion. There are real doubts about whether you can, even | with very favorable energy-out ratios, industrialize that into | an actual power plant. It's more challenging to harvest energy | from an explosion than it is to harvest energy from a bunch of | plasma flowing in a circle. | wnevets wrote: | > 2. This is from an inertial confinement approach to fusion. | Unlike the magnetic confinement approaches that we often hear | about, this approach doesn't really create a continuously | hot, spatially constrained bit of plasma that can then be | used to heat things up -- it produces more like a small but | intense explosion. There are real doubts about whether you | can, even with very favorable energy-out ratios, | industrialize that into an actual power plant. It's more | challenging to harvest energy from an explosion than it is to | harvest energy from a bunch of plasma flowing in a circle. | | Thank you, that is the kind of caveat I was expecting. | lostmsu wrote: | > Thank you, that is the kind of caveat I was expecting. | | The caveat on caveat is that historically explosions | (piston internal combustion engines) were developed before | continuous burning (jet turbines). | leephillips wrote: | More real than the wormhole. Real enough to get Chuck Shumer to | increase next year's budget, which is why you're hearing about | this at all. | UltraViolence wrote: | I thought we had passed this mark a long time ago, but only | during short stints. | | However, the way they're realizing it by shooting a fuel pellet | with lasers is unsustainable and impractical IMHO. | simiones wrote: | If only they were shooting a fuel pellet: they are instead | shooting a hohlraum, a precision-engineered piece of gold and | that, in turn, shoots the fuel pellet with X-Rays, acting as a | kind of aiming/synchronization device. The hohlraum is | destroyed in the process, and currently costs millions of | dollars to build a new one. | philipkglass wrote: | _The hohlraum is destroyed in the process, and currently | costs millions of dollars to build a new one._ | | Hohlraums are expensive but not millions of dollars. This | 2004 report puts the cost at about $2500 each (still far too | expensive for a power plant of course) while examining ways | to get them under $1 each. | | "Cost-Effective Target Fabrication For Inertial Fusion | Energy" | | https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/828518 | bulbosaur123 wrote: | TL:DR please, how big of a deal is this and when can we | approximately expect cheap or costless energy? And is it sort of | like perpetual energy generator? And if yes, doesn't that break | law of physics? And if not, why not? | | So many questions. Pardon my ignorance. | mustacheemperor wrote: | I don't know about everyone else, but I'm taking this particular | moment just to swell with pride and excitement for this | achievement by science and forget about the details of how much | more needs to be done to create the first power plant. I'm | remembering when I first learned about fusion energy development, | how distant and unfeasible it seemed, and regardless of how long | the road ahead still is it's incredible how far we've come. | | Happy Ignition Day everyone. I can hardly believe we really made | it here. | Buttons840 wrote: | What about this: | https://www.newscientist.com/article/2333346-ignition-confir... | | Allegedly ignition was achieved a year ago. How is this | different? | ceejayoz wrote: | https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7 | | > In August 2021, NIF scientists announced that they had used | their high-powered laser device to achieve a record reaction | that crossed a critical threshold on the path to ignition, | but efforts to replicate that experiment, or shot, in the | following months fell short. | | Fluke or measurement error, it seems. | ericmay wrote: | A better question to ask yourself is if this isn't any | different, why are the entire scientific community, the | Lawrence Livermore lab, the DOE, and others so excited about | it? | | If these are the same thing, why didn't they make a big deal | about it before? What's the material difference? | moloch-hai wrote: | The hype machine is fully engaged, and may lead to an | influx of budget, something of deadly seriousness to DoE. | They have had trouble getting funding increases for this | kind of weapons work when it was represented as weapons | work. Pretend it's not, and people fall all over themselves | to praise it. | | But it is weapons work, first, last, and always. | [deleted] | jbverschoor wrote: | ceejayoz wrote: | The B-21 isn't unmanned, the nuclear-capable B-2 already | existed, and we've had fusion bombs since the 1950s. | dotnet00 wrote: | The B-21 is stated to be capable of uncrewed operation. | ceejayoz wrote: | It's capable of _maybe_ later on being _made_ uncrewed. | | https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/12/03/air-force- | rev... | | > The service has not fully delivered on, or explained | what, that unmanned concept or capability would look | like. Defense experts told Military.com prior to the | rollout that it is unlikely we'd see a fully autonomous | bomber anywhere in the near future. | | They also canceled the drone wingman: | | > In 2021, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall publicly | discussed the idea of having a drone counterpart to the | B-21 that would essentially act as a wingman alongside | the bomber. But Kendall later backtracked, telling | Breaking Defense in July that the concept was not as | "cost-effective" and "less attractive" than previously | thought. | p1esk wrote: | I thought they said it could fly unmanned. | ceejayoz wrote: | They've said it might, someday, be modified to do so. The | current iteration of it requires a manned crew. | tmccrary55 wrote: | Russia has pretty conclusively shown that they aren't even | close to the same league as the US in terms of warfare. | | Like comparing an amateur pickup basketball team to the | Chicago Bulls. | maybelsyrup wrote: | Uh what US warfare have you been watching? Your analogy | only works if it's the like the 2000-200 Bulls (15-67). | ceejayoz wrote: | > Uh what US warfare have you been watching? | | Russia is struggling with _Ukraine_ and the NATO weaponry | they 've been gifted. 100 mile supply lines proved too | much, and they failed entirely to achieve air | superiority. | | There's zero reason to think they'd do _better_ against | the US more directly. | Firmwarrior wrote: | Let's take a step back and remember something: If Russia | and the USA had a "war" it would consist of reducing each | other to the Stone Age in a couple of hours, then | struggling not to starve to death | mustacheemperor wrote: | Let's check our assumptions. The bulletin of atomic | scientists first published in 2017 [0] that they felt the | modernized US nuclear arsenal is likely sufficient to | execute a devastatingly successful first-strike against | the Russian arsenal and nuclear command and control, | because the new 'super-fuze' in the submarine arsenal | significantly upgrades the hard-target kill capability of | the warheads. The risk they communicate in this article | is that Russia will misinterpret a false positive from | their early warning system (which offers only half the | warning time of the US') and launch a "retaliatory" | strike against the US on a false alarm, because they do | not expect to have that capability after a US strike. The | modernization program has continued since 2017 and | extended to the minuteman arsenal. | | [0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force- | moderni... | | >the United States would be able to target huge portions | of its nuclear force against non-hardened targets, the | destruction of which would be crucial to a "successful" | first strike...The garrisons and their support facilities | would probably be destroyed quickly, and some of the | dispersed road-mobile launchers would also be quickly | destroyed as they were in the process of dispersing. To | destroy or expose the remaining launchers...Just 125 US | Minuteman III warheads could set fire to some 8,000 | square miles of forest area where the road-mobile | missiles are most likely to be deployed. This would be | the equivalent of a circular area with a diameter of 100 | miles. | | >Many of the nearly 300 remaining deployed W76 warheads | could be used to attack all command posts associated with | Russian ICBMs. | eitland wrote: | Why do you think a country that isn't capable of properly | maintaining tanks is capable of maintaining nukes? I | mean, ICBMs are literally rocket science with nuclear | physics on top of them. | | How can a country that cannot even prevent theft of | electronics from their "doomsday plane" in front of the | 9th of May parade keep a fleet of ICBMs operative? | | In a normal year Russia has a total military budget that | is smaller than the part of the US military budged | allocated to nuke maintenance. How do you think they keep | their nukes ready? | | All this is before we start talking about corruption. | There is a reason why some Russian military leaders have | yachts and/or palaces and US military leaders doesn't | have them. | | In all fairness, maybe most of the yachts are made of | missing winter uniforms (I recently saw Russians wearing | Tyvek suits as "winter uniforms"). But if they steal so | openly from things that was supposed to be used - why | wouldn't they steal even more from things that were never | meant to be used? | | Before I round up, some hearsay: Some journalist that | claimed he traveled throught the former Soviet Union | shortly after the collapse (I have forgotten the name and | I am in no position to verify it anyway) said that he saw | missile silos full of rainwater. And when he asked people | said it had already been like that for a few years before | the collapse in 1991. | | Do I think we don't have to care? Absolutely not. They | might very well have a few functional nukes, maintained | by enthusiastic crews, sailing around on subs somewhere I | don't know (I don't follow the space to closely). | | But I am not worried that they will send US back to the | stone age at all. | ceejayoz wrote: | A nuclear arsenal where only 100 of the 6,000 warheads | are actually maintained and functional is still a useful | one, though. Less so if 100/6,000 tanks work. | Firmwarrior wrote: | Do you remember when there was a tiny blip in production | for COVID, and suddenly the shelves were empty? What do | you think is going to happen if 100 nukes go off and wipe | out strategic chunks of the USA? | ceejayoz wrote: | The idea that any armed conflict between the two is | guaranteed to escalate to nuclear weapons is widespread, | but certainly not proven. A US _invasion_ of Russia seems | likely to result in nuclear war, but an engagement | between conventional forces over a third-party nation | like Ukraine seems quite unlikely to. Neither side is | suicidal at the leadership level. | | US and Russian aviators directly engaged in Vietnam | without nuclear holocaust. | davrosthedalek wrote: | I hope you are right, but I am not convinced in Putin's | case. | ceejayoz wrote: | If Putin had a big red button that ran wirelessly and | automatically, I'd be concerned. | | Human beings have to actually implement the order. I | think a first-strike order on the US without a serious | and _immediate_ existential threat to the Russian state | and people winds up with someone offing him with their | sidearm. | | The Russians have plenty of precedent for this (both | offing the leadership, and more generally "oops, he fell | out of a window" as a solution), and we've a number of | historical examples of lower-level folks going "I don't | wanna" in false-alarm situations, like Stanislav Petrov. | davrosthedalek wrote: | I agree, a first strike order is very unlikely. But what | if he fires off a nuke over Ukraine? Maybe in a way that | it's not 100% clear whether it's a Russian nuke, or a | power plant blowing up, or somebody else? | | Or he orders to detonate a bomb over the open sea to | demonstrate the capability? | | But certainly, if I would be Putin, I'd be nervous | drinking tea, or walking close to a window. That doesn't | make him more stable though. | ceejayoz wrote: | You can't make a nuke look like a power plant explosion; | they're simply too different. No nuclear power station | can explode in that fashion. | | A bomb over the ocean wouldn't demonstrate any new | capacity, and would be seen as the bluff it would almost | certainly be. | | A nuke on Ukranian soil would further open the floodgates | of Western aid, expand sanctions, and push more nations | firmly into the EU/NATO fold as Finland and Sweden | already have been. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | A nuke on Ukrainian soil also has the problem of the | prevailing wind direction being from west to east. | Detonating a nuke on Ukraine looks a lot like detonating | a (smaller) dirty bomb on Russia. | baseballdork wrote: | Probably the warfare that involved invading and occupying | 2 states thousands of miles away for 20 years with | complete air dominance and suffering under 10,000 KIA. | Russia has suffered 20,000 deaths in under a year on its | boarder. | adventured wrote: | > Uh what US warfare have you been watching? | | The one where the US tends to perform well against its | adversaries. True in the Civil War. True in WW1. True in | WW2. True in Korea. True in Vietnam. True in the Gulf | War. True in Afghanistan. True in Iraq. | | And now just a smidgen of its old weapons are helping | Ukraine humiliate Russia. | | The US was in Afghanistan for two decades with 1,932 | soldiers killed by hostile action. | | Russia lost 15,000+ soldiers in Afghanistan in ten years | (probably far higher given the information available and | how we've seen Russia lie so dramatically about its | losses in Ukraine). It's going to lose 100,000 soldiers | in Ukraine in a little over a year. | | The US could have held Afghanistan perpetually with | 15,000-20,000 soldiers on the ground. The Taliban is a | joke of a fighting force, they never competed well with | the US; but they have replacement numbers, and guerrilla | wars are very time consuming to fight and require massive | troop deployments to actually win (you have to suffocate | every corner of the enemy presence, like battling an | infestation). It wasn't worth it and voters decided that, | it had begun to become an unpopular nation building | exercise despite the very low losses for the US. | trhr wrote: | smegger001 wrote: | > True in the Civil War. | | >You think so? Ya'll lost 200,000 men to Southern fever, | steel, and shot. Next time it'll be 20 million. Know your | limits, yankee, and stay north of Dallas. | | The south started with a treasonous surprise attack and | had most of the the infantry that wasn't stationed in | isolated western frontier territory or along the us- | canada border, the countries war college at westpoint and | many of the countries highest generals, once the north | got its act together it started to burn the south to the | ground. There is a reason the south still dreads the name | Sherman. | | You got set on fire once when you started the fight with | sucker punch, and you want to try to pick fight again? | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Nit: The south did _not_ start out with West Point. It 's | in New York. | BuckRogers wrote: | Well put. For our international observers I would note | that the War of Southern Aggression that began with the | treasonous attack on Fort Sumter is nearly identical to | the behavior we're seeing out of similar origins today. | New US states were increasingly free rather than slave | states, and thus when democracy wasn't going the way of | those who wanted to maintain slavery, they attacked their | own government. | | The terrorist attack on January 6th was the exact same | root cause, democracy not going the way some want it. | Leading them to embrace terrorism and violence. After the | Civil War, the KKK was created, which continued the | terrorism of our citizenry for decades. Yet in that case, | the KKK came after the failed attempt at succession, | today MAGA came before the attempt. | | I describe myself as a 'pre-MAGA Republican who supports | labor unions', but there's a rotten seed in American | discourse today that was always there and it's largely | the same people then as now. | | The south would have no chance in Round 2. Most of their | money and manpower actually comes from 'Yankees'. Which | historically when someone is called that, it's the easy | indicator to who is loyal and true to the United States, | a real American patriot. Whether spoken spoken by a Brit | or Johnny Reb, you definitely want to be called a Yankee | as it's a badge of honor that you are loyal to your | nation. | | Those that are moving south are whose ancestors' | allegiance was to the United States of America in the | Civil War, and they still maintain that allegiance to | this day in those families. They are not loyal to the | defunct Confederacy and would not die for their Lost | Cause. | baq wrote: | You misspelled 'China' | Rebelgecko wrote: | What unmanned nuclear bomber? | jbverschoor wrote: | The fancy black triangle of like a week ago | dogma1138 wrote: | Because now it's reproducible, controllable and consistently | net positive in terms of energy output. | | It's not a fluke anymore and I assume the engineering behind | this is now understood well enough to develop it further and | scale it up. | | Fusion for the most part isn't a physics problem it's an | engineering problem the difficulty was always in how to | implement it in the real world rather than in math at ideal | white paper conditions. | jeffbee wrote: | What information available to the public suggests this is | reproducible and consistent? They do hundreds of shots | every year. Why do we think that this energetic shot wasn't | just a result of getting luckier this time than they did a | few years ago? | dogma1138 wrote: | Because the press release stated that they've ramped up | the reaction and got higher energy output and the scaling | wasn't linear in a good way. | Robotbeat wrote: | Because they've been able to do it multiple times, which | is better than the zero or one times before. | civilized wrote: | Curious where you found this? I skimmed the press release | for a minute and didn't immediately see discussion of the | repeatability. | willis936 wrote: | I listened to the two hour press conference. NIF leadership | made it clear that energy research is not what Ignition Day is | about, why the NIF was made, or why the NIF is operated. | anon291 wrote: | Yeah... this is a great breakthrough and an historic day for | physics and engineering and humanity. Every American should | swell with pride. | Balgair wrote: | I agree. This is a _Big_ deal. Like, first-lightbulb big, or | polio-vaccine big. | | My kids are likely to spend the majority of their lives living | a world where energy is clean, cheap, and available to | everyone. Climate change is something that is not only going to | be stopped, but can be reversed for them. Energy grids can be | made to be smaller and mutually supporting, lessening the | impacts of disasters. Oil dependency and all the political | problems that come with it are going to be gone by the time | they are grandparents. Nations like Nigeria and East Timor can | have power generation like everyone else. The deserts and | oceans and tundra of their lives will be places dotted with | little greenhouses and fresh vegetables. If they get this down | to the size of a car, then everything opens up for travel and | recreation. The only real baseline I have to use here is Star | Trek. | | Of course, there is a long way to go. There is a lot of work | and show-stoppers still out there. And the ideas that I see as | their future are just _sooooo_ tiny compared to their reality. | I 'm thinking of faster horses and they're going to live in a | world of supersonic jets. That kind of difference and small | thinking of mine. | | I'm so happy that, assuming the best with fusion, they are | going to live such better lives. | opportune wrote: | I agree. I am thinking of my future children or myself into | my old age. Even if we don't get commercial fusion until the | 2040s, imagine nearly limitless energy (of course we still | need to pay for likely massive capex, R&D, and transmission) | and its repercussions! | | At the very least we can likely pull carbon out of the air | faster than we put it in. No more destructive hydropower, no | need for fission plants, radically reduced costs for | industrial manufacturing. Cheap energy could make raw | resource extraction much cheaper and more easily automated. | Fast transportation, vertical farming. With the concurrent | innovations in battery tech, robotics/automation, and | electric vehicles and ships, the future is looking incredibly | bright | BoGoToTo wrote: | > My kids are likely to spend the majority of their lives | living a world where energy is clean, cheap, and available to | everyone. | | Unless you're in your early teens and don't plan on having | kids until you're in your 30's this proba | whycome wrote: | I guess December 5th was Ignition Day and we didn't know it? | mixmastamyk wrote: | Also Repeal Day for those who want to get lit. | petilon wrote: | When you consider that they laser they used consumed 300 | megajoules from the wall plug, in order to send 1.8 megajoules | to the target, the fact that they got 2.5 megajoules out looks | puny in comparison. Even newer lasers only have 20% wall plug | efficiency according to the press conference. | | So the important point here is, there was no net energy gain. | They spent 300 megajoules to get 2.5 out. The scientists only | talk about the 1.8 megajoules of laser energy sent to the | target, not about the 300 megajoules of electricity needed to | send 1.8 megajoules to the target. | whimsicalism wrote: | Energy is conserved in the universe so there is never any net | energy gain. | | See how pedantic and not helpful that is? | sweezyjeezy wrote: | Power plants add energy to an electrical grid by converting | external (chemical/nuclear/kinetic) energy into more | electricity than they consume. There's no loss of | energy/mass overall, but the amount of available | electricity goes up. Since the laser would use electricity | from the grid, that should be taken into account. | OJFord wrote: | The point is to get some of it from somewhere cheaper/free | - mass, or outside air as in heat pumps. | | You can't run your laser on mass or air, if you need a coal | firing power plant to run your fusion reactor, from which | you get less than you consumed from the coal plant... | | It's great progress, it's just not as close to viable as it | might sound like - more breakthroughs needed. | whimsicalism wrote: | I have yet to find someone saying it sounds like fusion | power reactors are right around the corner, but I have | found lots of people shadowboxing these people and | attacking the scientists for misleading press releases. | | Seems like an overcorrection to something I haven't even | seen anyone here say. | OJFord wrote: | I think to a lot of the technically minded, but non | nuclear physicists here, it initially sounded like less | (paid for/electricity) energy was used than was put out. | That's extremely exciting, and the actual news is still | fantastic, it's just that 'actually, we needed to pay for | over 100x more energy than we counted as the "input" | energy [and it's possible to do 10x but not 100x better | than that]' is quite a massive caveat on a 3:2 or | whatever yield. | | I'm not saying they've claimed anything wrong or | deliberately misleading, it's just a | misunderstanding/misalignment and possibly made worse by | the PR teams in the middle. | | In other words, I don't think it's an angry 'well | actually' type correction so much as it is disappointment | - it initially sounded even greater. | MichaelZuo wrote: | That's a non sequitur. The laser ignition facility is not a | smaller version of the entire universe. | petilon wrote: | In nuclear fusion, mass is converted into energy according | to the famous equation E = mc^2, where E is energy, m is | mass, and c is the speed of light. | wahern wrote: | Mass _is_ energy. Add energy (in any form, such as heat) | to a system and you increase its mass. Thus, in the NIF | reaction, the mass lost from the pellet is mass imparted | on the surrounding environment. Immediately after the | fusion reaction, before the energy can dissipate further | as heat, etc, the reaction chamber system has the same | mass as before the ignition. | | There are some nuances regarding the distinction between | rest mass vs relativistic mass, but they're not really | relevant in this context. | | I think what trips people up here is confusing mass with | matter. Matter is also subject to mass-energy | equivalence, of course, but AFAIU in most common types of | nuclear reactions little if any matter, per se, is | transformed. | whimsicalism wrote: | Fair enough. To be extra pedantic, mass-energy is | conserved in a fixed inertial frame of reference. | TeeMassive wrote: | As was pointed out in other comments, their lasers and | electrical equipment were not efficient as it was not | necessary to get the scientific knowledge. | petilon wrote: | In the press conference they mentioned that modern lasers | have "20% wall plug efficiency". That means fusion has to | generate 5x more energy than this experiment did, for you | to get more energy out than you put in. | snowwrestler wrote: | The NIF is not intended to be a power plant, and inertial | containment in general is probably not a great design for | producing power. | | This is scientific breakthrough. The best point of comparison | is probably a fusion bomb, which requires an initial fission | detonation to create enough pressure and free neutrons to | force a net-positive fusion reaction. But at the NIF they do | it using only lasers... incredible. | _a_a_a_ wrote: | Maybe I missed it but it's not a net positive output. From the | article, the implication it is: | | "LLNL's experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering | 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 | MJ of fusion energy output" | | From newscientist, the same info followed by a rider: | | "generated a power output of 3.15 megajoules from a laser power | output of 2.05 megajoules - a gain of around 150 per cent. | However, this is far outweighed by the roughly 300 megajoules | drawn from the electrical grid to power the lasers in the first | place" | belval wrote: | This was explained by another commenter yesterday, but this is | not an issue. The 3.15:2.05 ratio is the news as it is the part | that was difficult to achieve. The 300MJ accounts for | significant laser inefficiencies in much the same way that the | 3.15MJ of output won't convert to 3.15MJ of electricity as the | conversion is not loss less. | | In other words: it's a net-positive output for that reaction, | not the whole process, there is still a lot of work to be done | before you and I exchange comments on a server powered by | fusion energy in homes powered by fusion energy. | _a_a_a_ wrote: | Granted... | | > in much the same way that the 3.15MJ of output won't | convert to 3.15MJ of electricity as the conversion is not | loss less | | ...and very much touche! That's a good point. But I do feel | the overall loss should have been made clear and distinct | from the gain in one part of the whole. Gross vs net perhaps? | jasonhansel wrote: | IIRC part of the issue is that NIF's lasers are very old | and much less efficient than more modern ones. So the 300 | MJ needed to power the lasers is higher than would be | expected if this were commercialized. | empiricus wrote: | I still don't understand why we waste time and money with fusion. | Fision so much easier. Should focus on it. Fusion is ok, but 100 | years into the future when we are bored. | empiricus wrote: | Actually just a rhetorical question. We are so irational that | fusion makes perfect sense. | gfodor wrote: | Another good time to remind everyone that the inventor of the | maser (which led to the laser), Charles Townes, was discouraged | by his department chair (allegedly): "Look, you should stop the | work you are doing. It isn't going to work. You know it's not | going to work, we know it's not going to work. You're wasting | money, Just stop!" A few months later, it worked. [1] | | [1] | https://www.theregister.com/2015/01/29/charles_townes_nobel_... | nielsbot wrote: | "If we'd known it was impossible, we never would have | succeeded!" | sam0x17 wrote: | Early in my career I had the pleasure of interning at LLNL | (ironically, working on a completely open source compiler | project) but I was able to go on a number of tours of NIF. It was | extremely cool. They have a whole team of software engineers | writing software just to keep all the mirrors calibrated and | things like that. In person it is much bigger than it seems in | pictures. | dsign wrote: | HN people has three orders of magnitude more technical background | and education than politicians, yet when it's about fusion, | fision, renewables and climate warming, we only manage to output | a miserable 0.01 % consensus and the rest dissipates in waste | argument. | | It comes to reason, the politicians are going to produce only | 0.00001% of consensus. | | Conclusion: things are looking rather bad. We are not going to | achieve Civilization Survival, much less Singularity Ignition. | | My suggestion: highly educated Homo Sapiens may not be the right | course. There is a proven way of saving the planet which, by | virtue of its remarkably sustainable intellect, we should be | investing more on: koalas. | jmyeet wrote: | I hope commercial fusion power generation becomes a reality but | I'm far from convinced that's the case. What we see here is just | solving one problem with many more to go. | | Energy output exceeding energy input produces a surplus of | energy. That's a must and that's the breakthrough LLNL is | announcing but le tme list the some of the known barriers to | producing electricity: | | 1. How stable is the reaction? What failure modes does it have? | While fusion doesn't have the same failure modes as fission does | (eg Chernobyl) it could still result in significant damage to the | container or even the facility; | | 2. What's the relationship between capex ("capital expendiutre"), | lifetime, maintenance and power generation. An extreme example is | if your power plant costs $50B with annual mainteance of $2B and | a life of 30 years but only produces 100MW of power then even | though the fuel is free it's not economical because those capex | and operational costs have to be amortized over the life of the | plant; | | 3. How available are the fuels? Of course hydrogen is abundant | but most of it is protium (H1), which is not useful for current | fusion research. Most of it is DT fusion, meaning deuterium (H2) | - tritium (H3). Deuterium is naturally occuring (IIRC ~1ppm). | Tritium is not. It needs to be bred. | | 4. What about neutrons? Neutrons create two problems. The first | is energy loss. High speed neutrons are energy loss from your | system. Inertial confinement (ie this result) tries to capture | neutrons with a "shell". Older designs (eg ITER) use a tokamak, | which is magnetic containment of a superheated plasma. Magnetic | fields are great for containing electrons and hydrogen nucei | because they're positively charged. Neutrons obviously have no | electric charge so just escape. The second problem is the damage | these neutrons cause (ie "neutron embrittlement"). | | 5. How do you convert that energy into power? Nuclear fission, | for example, heats water into steam that turns a turbine that | generates electricity. This isn't particularly efficient and | greatly adds to the costs. It's another system that needs to be | maintained. "Direct energy conversion" would be the holy grail | here but that's all very theoretical at this point. | | Once you start adding up efficiencies in the different stages of | electricity generation you have to do significanlty better than | simply exceeding power input. | | It's a notable achievement but as the release says, viable power | generation is still a long way away (ie decades). | pelorat wrote: | This experiment was never intended to/or form the basis of a | nuclear fusion reactor. | typon wrote: | This makes me feel America is back. This is a big achievement and | should not be underplayed whatsoever. Whichever country achieves | practical fusion is going to be dominant in the next century. | drumhead wrote: | America never went away. The major scientific and tecnological | achievements of the the last 30 years are virtually all | American. | padjo wrote: | I'm pretty sure this heavily politicised press release is | designed to make you think America is back. | supergirl wrote: | everyone should watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY | to put this into perspective. | | for some reason, all the news articles are extremely misleading. | | previous output ratio for this fusion method was something like | 70%, now it is 150%. it's a useful improvement, but not a major | breakthrough. the whole system still consumes 100x more energy | than it produces. 100MJ of energy is needed to power the laser. | the laser generates only 2MJ of energy that powers fusion. fusion | generates 3MJ of output energy. so all the articles are saying | "they put 2MJ energy and got 3MJ energy back". no, they put 102MJ | and got 3MJ. | maerF0x0 wrote: | > "We have had a theoretical understanding of fusion for over a | century, but the journey from knowing to doing can be long and | arduous. Today's milestone shows what we can do with | perseverance," said Dr. Arati Prabhakar, the President's Chief | Advisor for Science and Technology and Director of the White | House Office of Science and Technology Policy. | | This part gives me so much hope as we have understandings of what | is theoretically possible, and in due time humanity reaches them. | This gives me a lot of hope especially in the fields of curing | major diseases and in longevity! | logical_ferry wrote: | On a scale of 1 to invention of | fire/wheel/smelting/electricity/computers, how relevant is this? | I have trouble comprehending the historical impact. | lostmsu wrote: | It is less of inventing and more of engineering. But I would | put it along with ARPANET. | low_tech_punk wrote: | wright brothers first flight? | snshn wrote: | I like how over 60 years after the nuclear boom, it somehow just | happened to happen today. Just when the world is ready to | transition to electric vehicles on a global scale, just when oil | companies aren't able to make as much money from oil as they used | to, just when one of the major suppliers of fossil fuels (Russia) | is at war with the West, it has somehow magically happened. What | a coinky-dink. | | Throw lots of money at something when you need it to happen and | then it will happen. Or have control over the technology and | don't let it see the light of day until it benefits you | financially and makes your enemies lose their main stream of | income. I truly applaud this timing and will err on the side of | conspiracy rather than coincidence reading more about this | "breakthrough". | Alifatisk wrote: | You're right when I think about it, the timing is amazing | LarryMullins wrote: | > _I like how over 60 years after the nuclear boom, it somehow | just happened to happen today. Just when the world is ready to | transition to electric vehicles on a global scale, just when | oil companies aren 't able to make as much money from oil as | they used to, just when one of the major suppliers of fossil | fuels (Russia) is at war with the West, it has somehow | magically happened. What a coinky-dink._ | | It would be coincidental timing, if the most breathless | headlines were actually true. But in reality we're still | decades away from commercially viable fusion power generation. | A fusion energy gain factor of Q=1 is little more than a | psychological hurdle. Imagine you have a process that consumes | 1 gigawatt of power and produces 1 gigawatt + one additional | watt of power; that's Q=1. And it's certainly not commercially | viable. | johnlk wrote: | "...a game-changer for efforts to achieve President Biden's goal | of a net-zero carbon economy". | | That's the best outcome you can think of as a result of possible | free energy? | seanw444 wrote: | Thank you, Saint Biden, for doing the bare minimum for the | ability to slap your name on it. | typeofhuman wrote: | 10% for the Big Guy. | randomsearch wrote: | This is a really hard question to answer, but do you think in | peacetime 1930s if you'd asked someone how long it would take to | build the bomb, they'd say "we're only a few decades away with | proper funding"? | | The pay off achieved by accelerating fusion development seems to | justify almost any amount of spending. Is it worth going for it? | | The most important subquestion for me: is there a sufficiently | brilliant living scientist who has the technical ability, | managerial skills, and integrity to be trusted to deliver? I | wonder if this is the reason we haven't already done it. | sergiomattei wrote: | Science is a collaborative achievement. There isn't one | scientist that can deliver at this scale and complexity. | endisneigh wrote: | I'd love to hear the pros and cons of fusion vs micro molten salt | fission reactors. | loeg wrote: | Both are decades away from being viable power plant technology, | which is either a con or a pro depending on your point of view. | thehappypm wrote: | Fission requires material that can be used in nuclear weapons. | | Fission can always melt down. | tibbydudeza wrote: | Congrats Doc Ok. | tommica wrote: | Gratz to the scientists, seems like an impressive achievement! | kobalsky wrote: | ELI5 level question. | | Please correct me if I'm saying something stupid. | | If you toss a solar mass of water into the sun it just becomes | fuel. | | So, could a fusion reactor, when efficiency is improved, use | water as fuel? | ArtificialAI wrote: | Yes, that's generally correct. If you were to toss a solar mass | of water into the sun, it would become fuel for the sun's | fusion reactions. Fusion reactors work in a similar way, but on | a much smaller scale. They use fuel, typically hydrogen or a | mixture of hydrogen and helium, and use intense heat and | pressure to fuse the atoms together, releasing a large amount | of energy in the process. | yuvalkarmi wrote: | Tangential, but fun: the following is NOT what this post says. | The following is the response to a the ChatGPT prompt "write the | press release by an imagined body called the Department of Energy | announcing the achievement of fusion ignition." Mind you, ChatGPT | training data ends in 2021, so it's definitely not aware of this | news: | | "The Department of Energy is pleased to announce the successful | achievement of fusion ignition in our latest experiment. This | breakthrough marks a major milestone in our pursuit of clean, | limitless energy. | | Fusion, the process by which atomic nuclei combine to release | vast amounts of energy, has long been considered the Holy Grail | of energy production. It has the potential to provide an | virtually limitless supply of clean, safe energy, without the | harmful greenhouse gas emissions or dangerous waste products of | other forms of energy production. | | For decades, scientists and engineers have been working to unlock | the secrets of fusion and harness its power. This has been a | challenging and complex endeavor, but we are now closer than ever | to achieving our goal. The successful fusion ignition in our | experiment marks the first time that this process has been | achieved outside of the core of a star. This is a significant | step forward in our efforts to harness the power of fusion and | bring it to practical use. | | We believe that fusion has the potential to revolutionize the way | we produce energy, and we are committed to pursuing this | technology with all of the resources at our disposal. In the | coming years, we will continue to conduct experiments and | research, with the goal of developing a fusion reactor that can | provide a stable, reliable source of energy. | | We are extremely proud of this achievement, and we will continue | to work tirelessly to develop this technology and bring it to the | world. This is an exciting time for energy production, and we are | confident that fusion will play a major role in our collective | future. We are grateful for the support of our colleagues and | partners in this effort, and we look forward to continuing to | push the boundaries of what is possible." | lukeplato wrote: | What does this mean for ITER and magnetic confinement fusion? | Palpatineli wrote: | Calling this fusion ignition is stupid. Laser fusion is unlike | other fusion devices in that the efficiency of laser is extremely | low. It is true that the reaction created 3MJ when the laser | energy input INTO THE REACTION CHAMBER is 2MJ. But the whole | laser system took 300MJ to run for this one shot. Thus the real Q | value is extremely low compared to other fusion methods. | pmarreck wrote: | I'm not sure I understand your criticism | leephillips wrote: | Note that the announcements refer to laser energy supplied to | the target, not laser energy entering the chamber. The former | is a fraction of the latter, and the basis for the term | "scientific gain". The actual target gain may be < 1. | devmor wrote: | This is some of the most incredible and inspiring scientific news | in my lifetime. I am overcome with excitement right now. | cm2187 wrote: | It's a weird scientific annoncement, punctuated with quotes from | politicians... | bioemerl wrote: | Here's your most exciting paragraph | | > LLNL's experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering | 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 | MJ of fusion energy output, demonstrating for the first time a | most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE). | Many advanced science and technology developments are still | needed to achieve simple, affordable IFE to power homes and | businesses, and DOE is currently restarting a broad-based, | coordinated IFE program in the United States. Combined with | private-sector investment, there is a lot of momentum to drive | rapid progress toward fusion commercialization. | | It's fusion Manhattan project time. | jpeter wrote: | Imagine if Musk spend 44 Billion fusion | adventured wrote: | Given it's Musk and his stated primary life goal, the most | ridiculous aspect of the Twitter debacle for him, is: not | only of course did he overpay for Twitter by at least 2x; not | only is his net worth going to contract as Tesla's stock | compresses (such that the poor Twitter decision is going to | be that much more painful in relation to his overall wealth); | but the $40x billion could have probably paid for getting | Starship to Mars. He's not going to be as rich in the future | as he was in that moment, and he'll be relentlessly mocked | for the context as his ship takes on water (eg when he's | worth $60-$80 billion and spent $44 billion buying Twitter | and SpaceX needs $10+ billion infused into it to keep | pursuing Mars). | p_j_w wrote: | >the $40x billion could have probably paid for getting | Starship to Mars. | | Maybe he doesn't actually believe in Starship. | panick21_ wrote: | Or maybe he expected Twitter to actually make money, or | at least not lose money. | | And this could still be true. | | People here act like he bought Twitter and then deleted | the website. This isn't the case. | | Did he overpay, yes, but its still a business that is | worth something. | zizee wrote: | Are you suggesting it's all an elaborate scheme? | | I know it is popular/easy to hate on the man right now, | but this is a really strange take. | | Given that Musk has been talking about mars since at | least 2001, many years before he had the resources he has | now, and almost went bankrupt funding spacex's first | orbital rocket, it's hard to believe he's pretending. | | People seem happy to believe all negative things they | hear about him, but discount anything that doesn't gel | with this negative image. It's like how the same people | who put all missteps of Tesla/SpaceX at Elons feet, will | also discount any of the successes and say he has nothing | to do with them. | asdff wrote: | The boring company was literally an elaborate scheme on | the other hand. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me, you | can't get fooled again. | adventured wrote: | It appears to be working/progressing properly so far (and | quite rapidly compared to norms in the industry), | including the Raptor engines. I doubt that's it. | | Musk has very obviously poor impulse control. Someone | more contained, patient, less impulsive, would have | waited and taken a more strategic approach to acquiring | Twitter (which would have left an opening to let the | stock implode with the rest of the tech market, after | which one could have pounced and grabbed it for far | cheaper). On the flip side, that less impulsive person | probably wouldn't have started SpaceX in the first place | (given the suicidal fiscal task involved and context at | the time in the industry), or wouldn't have gone to the | financial extremes required to make it succeed (betting | essentially all of his wealth on Tesla and SpaceX). | DesiLurker wrote: | Imagine if we've spent 10% of the current military budget | ($600B+) on renewables & fusion. We wouldn't have to fight | those wars for resources. | [deleted] | simiones wrote: | That's a very apt analogy, as both this and Manhattan are | weapons research programs. | | I'm not very excited in hearing we'll get even more powerful | thermo-nuclear bombs. | ceejayoz wrote: | Do more powerful bombs really make any difference? Seems a | bit like worrying about the impact of climate-driven ocean | rise on the pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. | jerf wrote: | Fusion bombs have existed since the early 1950s. Technology | rapidly developed to the point that they can essentially be | built to be arbitrarily large, far beyond any practical war | purpose. There is no need for any larger bomb than what was | built many decades ago. None of this research is necessary | for bombs. All of the difficult problems fusion power | generation faces with long-term plasma confinement go away | when you're just trying to squeeze as hard as you can and are | willing to use fission bombs to do it in an otherwise | uncontrolled manner. | jboy55 wrote: | It is necessary since they banned the testing of nuclear | weapons. Before they would do this kind of research by | imploding a cylinder of uranium encasing a hydrogen core | with X-rays produced by a "Fat Man" style bomb. Now they | implode a cylindrical casing full of hydrogen by x-rays | caused by a laser vaporizing an outer layer. | | "It's a big milestone, but NIF is not a fusion-energy | device," says Dave Hammer, a nuclear engineer at Cornell | University in Ithaca, New York. | | Herrmann acknowledges as much, saying that there are many | steps on the path to laser fusion energy. "NIF was not | designed to be efficient," he says. "It was designed to be | the biggest laser we could possibly build to give us the | data we need for the [nuclear] stockpile research | programme." | | https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7 | exmadscientist wrote: | > None of this research is necessary for bombs. | | And yet that's exactly why the NIF was actually built. They | do plenty of weapons research: | https://wci.llnl.gov/facilities/nif I'm told the building | was even built to switch over between civilian and | classified use unusually quickly, but I'm having trouble | turning up a citation for that right now with just my phone | and 2022-Google. | | > All of the difficult problems fusion power generation | faces with long-term plasma confinement go away when you're | just trying to squeeze as hard as you can and are willing | to use fission bombs to do it in an otherwise uncontrolled | manner. | | Not if you want them to fit in a submarine warhead. This | sort of work is _not_ easy to do well. | ceejayoz wrote: | > And yet that's exactly why the NIF was actually built. | | You're both half-right. | | The NIF is the replacement for nuclear tests. It's | necessary to maintain the arsenal in a working fashion, | as the warheads degrade over time and have to be replaced | with new ones. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story. | php?storyId=655921... | | The NIF is not for _more powerful_ nuclear weapons, as | that 's entirely unnecessary. If anything, most interest | these days is in _less_ powerful weapons for potential | battlefield use. | Robotbeat wrote: | That isn't what this would be used for. In fact, yields for | the largest deployed H-bombs today I think are smaller than | they once were (due to better targeting capabilities). | tetha wrote: | This is true. The issue is that already a relatively small | nuclear weapon is perfectly sufficient to wipe out most to | all civilian structures. However, it does so in a roughly | circular area, and you need to increase the initial | explosion a royal lot to increase the devastated area by a | bit. And as you increase the overall spherical blast of the | weapon in order to increase the circle of doom on the | ground, more and more explosive power just vaporizes air. | | That's why MIRV was introduced. One ICBM delivering 10 - 20 | small warheads result in much greater devastation than an | equally heavy warhead in one package, because less power is | wasted on air and space. | | It's morbid math, but it makes sense. | simiones wrote: | What do you think the US nuclear weapons research lab will | use their research for? | | You're right that increasing the yield was a bad example | from my side, but the purpose is to improve the weapons, | nothing else. | hwillis wrote: | The B53 bomb was built in 1961 and it released 38 PJ or | 10 BILLION times more energy than this experiment. Data | gathered about plasma and fusion at NIF temperatures and | pressures is not helpful for the insanely different | environment of a nuclear bomb. | | > What do you think the US nuclear weapons research lab | will use their research for? | | Why do you think that _fusion_ is not enough? Complete | strategic energy independence for the US, and dominance | in the electricity sector? That 's so, SO much more | valuable than better nuclear weapons. | Robotbeat wrote: | The purpose of NIF, and it's not hidden, is to maintain | the existing US nuclear stockpile since we can no longer | rely on using underground nuclear weapon testing to | ensure they still work. There's a very big supercomputing | capability funded under the same effort. Instead of | testing the weapons by exploding them underground, we use | computer modeling with the modeling validated (ie backed | up) by experiment (at NIF) to make sure the stockpile | works and can maintain its strategic deterrent. The | euphemistic name for this is "stockpile stewardship." | badrabbit wrote: | You should be very excited because we live on a planet with | independent competing countries and well... you don't want to | live in the US or Europe with China or other not so friendly | countries building a bigger more powerful nuke. If a weapon | can be built, it will be built. How, when and if it can be | used are things you can control not whether someone somewhere | will develop it. Especially in war time, all bets are off. | | Although, it would be interesting to see fusion reactors on | planes and ships powering other types of weapons like lasers | and more powerful railguns or faster icbms. | lizknope wrote: | Soviet Union built this and it wasn't really practical and | ended up leading to test ban treaties | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba | rllearneratwork wrote: | I would love to see "fusion Manhattan project", this planet is | well overdue for new gigantic R&D projects such as Manhattan | and Apollo. | Victerius wrote: | Who are our modern J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, | Richard Feynman, Edward Teller, John Von Neumann, and | Stanislaw Ulam? | rllearneratwork wrote: | off-topic, but related. Ulam's "Adventures of a | Mathematician" is an excellent and very inspiring book. | bioemerl wrote: | Hiding behind the names of institutions that got smart | enough to not give the peons fame or recognition. | StevenNunez wrote: | Elon Musk ::ducks:: | chasd00 wrote: | > Who are our modern J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, | Richard Feynman, Edward Teller, John Von Neumann, and | Stanislaw Ulam? | | they're working on getting you to click on an ad | [deleted] | rllearneratwork wrote: | yeah. But some are apparently working at Livermore Nat. | Lab still. Also, I feel like there is a bunch at SpaceX, | Tesla, NASA, DeepMind and OpenAI | Firmwarrior wrote: | Yeah, I think we have a lot of sleeper geniuses out there | | I'm a pretty smart dude. I'm no big deal on HackerNews or | in Silicon Valley, but I look easily 10x as smart as most | of the normal people I come across in the real world. And | I regularly come across people so much smarter than me, | they have to explain things to me the same way I talk to | a toddler | | I'll bet a lot of geniuses are congregating in cool orgs | like those where they can make a real difference in the | world. | euix wrote: | Hear hear! | phtrivier wrote: | They can't exist any more for structural reason. | | This generation was classically educated, without TV or | social media in their childhood. They spent the time | we're wasting on HN reading _books_ and following the | discipline their elders learned in WWI. They had plenty | of occasions to tinker. | | I claim the brains of those generation was structurally | different from ours, and we're talking about the best | minds of this generation. | | It's a trope to say that our "best minds are working on | ads" - the reality is that, no, we webshits are not the | "best minds". | antonfire wrote: | > It's a trope to say that our "best minds are working on | ads". | | "The last generation was better because they read _books_ | and had _discipline_ and didn't waste their time on | frivolous garbage" is also a trope. | govg wrote: | I mean, sure. But at the same time they were constrained | by the tools of their time, had no internet for instant | information access and spread, and scientific | collaboration has never been at a higher level than it is | now. There's no reason to believe that people who grow up | with instant lookup and massive computational power will | somehow be less capable than people whose only tools were | pen and pencil. What is possible now couldn't even be | dreamed of back then. | adventured wrote: | > they're working on getting you to click on an ad | | They're not, and there's zero evidence to back that | frequently floated premise up. That's a particularly | laughable myth created by those same industry people to | feel better about their terrible life choices. If you | can't do something meaningful, at least you can pretend | to be a genius doing nothing meaningful. It turns out | that both things are false, they're not brilliant and | they're wasting their lives. | | No, the brilliant people are working at TSMC, Intel, AMD, | nVidia, Applied Materials, ASML, Illumina, ARM, TI, et | al. | | They're working on CRISPR. They're working on mRNA | vaccines. They're working on stem cells. They're trying | to cure HIV just as the same type of people cured | hepatitis C. They're working for Moderna, Pfizer, | BioNTech, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, | Gilead, Merck, Glaxo, et al. They're trying to figure out | how to roll back or cure Alzheimer's. They're dedicating | a lifetime of work into exploring the human genome, so | that future generations have a much better, much more | useful map. | | They're working on robotics at Intuitive Surgical or | Boston Dynamics. They're working on self-driving tech. | They've been building out the massive, global cloud | infrastructure. They're at NASA, or SpaceX, or ESA and | they're doing the work to get us a base on the moon or to | Mars. They just got done building rockets that can land | upright. They're building a massive, extraordinary, | global satellite system in Starlink. | | They're working on fusion. | | And so on and so forth. | | Ad clicks? Yeah right. They're not even in the room. | whiplash451 wrote: | Wow. That was long overdue. Thank you! | antipotoad wrote: | Thank you for this, sincerely. | tootie wrote: | There are already funded commercial fusion projects underway. | No idea which will bring a product to market first or at all, | but they suddenly seem a lot more plausible. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/technology/commonwealth-f... | dleslie wrote: | The question on my mind is: where do I sign up to join this | effort?! | | Edit: I'm Canadian, the question is rhetorical. | brianyu8 wrote: | Assuming you have experience in software, then | https://www.llnl.gov/join-our-team/careers/find-your- | job/0d6... | [deleted] | lostmsu wrote: | Aren't they required to post salary ranges by some | Californian law? | donquixote25 wrote: | Law goes into effect next year. | lostmsu wrote: | BTW, they don't seem to have software roles at NIF: | https://www.llnl.gov/join-our-team/careers/find-your- | job/liv... | arbuge wrote: | https://www.llnl.gov/join-our-team/careers | wedn3sday wrote: | Former LLNL employee here, they hire a LOT of foreign | nationals. Several people that I worked with there were | Canadian. | [deleted] | lizknope wrote: | Google "national ignition facility careers" and this is the | first link | | https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/careers | opportune wrote: | 100% agree. We should be dumping as much as we can in getting | fusion up and running ASAP. It could be a silver bullet to stop | climate change alone, and by driving energy costs lower, enable | huge innovations in AI/automation and increasing material | wealth. | | $1T to move fusion forward just 5 years from eg 2040 to 2035 | could alone have a huge ROI in terms of climate mitigation and | decarbonization | markasoftware wrote: | Will not be a silver bullet, electricity production | contributes less than half of global CO2 emissions. Still | need other solutions for transport, industrial processes, | agriculture, etc. | | Further, it's possible that fusion plants might be | prohibitively expensive to build and maintain, even if their | fuel is cheap. | opportune wrote: | I'm not thinking about just replacing grid energy, but | carbon removal. If we can get fusion scaled up and | efficient it should be no sweat to use it to just remove | carbon from the air | | In fact carbon removal might be a great way to subsidize | fusion at the outset so that it can be overprovisioned/have | a guaranteed minimum price | mytailorisrich wrote: | Most of the funding for the Manhattan project went into the | industrial infrastructure required to produce plutonium and | enriched uranium. | | It will be time to unleash resources once they have a working | fusion reactor design in order to build fusion power plants and | the industrial infrastructure required to supply them. | | Until then they should of course get the resources they need | but I don't think throwing money at them will necessarily speed | things up. | aidenn0 wrote: | A uranium-gun bomb has a very simple theoretical basis, but | enriching uranium is very expensive (and was even more | expensive in the 1940s. Producing enough enriched uranium was | the only hard problem in making that bomb; in fact they did | not even test the bomb before dropping it on Hiroshima | because they were fairly sure it was going to work and | wouldn't have enough enriched uranium for a second bomb on | the timelines involved. | | Plutonium was significantly more easy to produce, but it did | require some novel engineering for the implosion lens. They | weren't sure it was going to work and did, in fact, test the | bomb before dropping it on Nagasaki. | | I think the Manhattan project is a great example of where | more funds can help; if the funds were more restricted, it's | entirely possible they would have gone with the "sure thing" | of the uranium bomb instead of spending resources on the less | sure plutonium bomb. Trying out multiple ideas in parallel | often "wastes" money since if you try ideas in tandem, you | will always try the high-percentage ideas first. | mlindner wrote: | The design of the National Ignition Facility was never intended | to study commercially viable fusion power. It's exclusively a | physics testing facility with origins for testing the physics of | thermonuclear fusion weapons for better bomb design. | | Nothing that happens at the NIF is very useful in heading towards | commercially viable fusion. The design of the testing apparatus | is also similarly incompatible with making a sustained fusion | device as there is no way to continuously feed in fuel into the | device, nor methods of extracting the energy. | seandoe wrote: | Swaying public perception in an optimistic direction is enough | of an effect to justify the cost and effort of this | achievement. | EamonnMR wrote: | Those sound like problems less complicated than a huge array of | laser beams, but the devil's in ths details I suppose. | brianyu8 wrote: | What an amazing achievement. I was curious, so I looked up the | open software roles at LLNL[0]. I'm very curious how the salary | compares to your average bay area tech salary. | | [0]: https://www.llnl.gov/join-our-team/careers/find-your- | job/0d6... | pdonis wrote: | Calling this "ignition" is a misnomer. The correct term, as given | in the article (as opposed to the headline) is exceeding | breakeven: more fusion energy output than energy input to the | target. | | "Ignition" means the reaction becomes self-sustaining and does | not require any further input of energy to continue. | donquixote25 wrote: | No, this is ignition. However, the reason why this is a big | deal is because it is scientific break-even. | | The first time they achieved ignition was in August of 2021. | See paper below: | | https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12... | Robotbeat wrote: | They actually achieved both ignition and scientific breakeven. | The resultant fusion heat helped produced significantly more | fusion, not just relying on external energy (ie from the laser | implosion). | dogma1138 wrote: | And it was just that the after the initial laser pulse that | triggered ignition there was no need to sustain it to continue | to heat up the fuel to induce fusion. | | The fact that this indeed was ignition was one of the main | reasons why the fusion reaction itself was net positive. | pdonis wrote: | _> it was just that the after the initial laser pulse that | triggered ignition there was no need to sustain it to | continue to heat up the fuel to induce fusion_ | | I don't see this anywhere in the article. Is there a better | reference for what actually happened during the experiment? | lostmsu wrote: | > the reaction becomes self-sustaining | | This is applicable only to continuously running reactions like | in jet engines. | pdonis wrote: | Which would also include any other method currently being | pursued to achieve fusion, besides laser confinement. I'm | guessing that the laser confinement community had to invent | another meaning for "ignition" since the usual one would not | be applicable to them. | apienx wrote: | Exciting! Is this work published somewhere? I'm curious to hear | more about the setup and other experimental conditions. | TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: | Thank you, Biden! | dqpb wrote: | > maintaining a nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing | | What is meant by this? | s_dev wrote: | Christopher Nolan couldn't have timed the release of Oppenheimer | better. | falcor84 wrote: | Well, it would have been better if the release date was this | week, no? (I see it's currently scheduled for 2023-07-21) | ck2 wrote: | This was for a few seconds using radioactive "fuel" correct? | | So perpetually 10-25 years away at all times? | | https://m.xkcd.com/678/ | | Beware science packaged as press-releases. | JaggerFoo wrote: | Ok, so how long do I have to wait to get a coffee-can sized | device to power my house? | JohnBerea wrote: | Let's say this all works out and over the next few decades fusion | replaces all other electricity generation, and we're past the | point where all the initial infrastructure costs have been paid | for. | | How much will my electric bill be reduced? | Ancalagon wrote: | Initial investment cost to build reactors would in all | likelihood be very high just by the nature of these being some | of the most complex machines on the planet. It seems unlikely | any sort of fast manufacturing line could be created to build | these, and they'd all likely be built one at a time like | fission reactors. | | Running costs and maintenance would also be high, the fuel | alone is expensive (right now), and I've heard that wear and | tear on parts of the reactors can be high so much of the | housing for the reactor would need to be replaced with time. | | You've probably also got a small army of engineers running each | one of these reactors you've got to pay. | | All that said, the energy produced via fusion is EXTREMELY | abundant. I imagine with later reactor iterations (after supply | chains have been setup and electrical transportation routes | upgrades) electricity could become very cheap even relative to | renewables. | drusenko wrote: | If you live in California, even if electricity generation cost | nothing at all it would still only lower your bill by ~15%. | Transmission & distribution of electricity is the expensive | part not generating it. It doesn't _need_ to be expensive, yet | here we are. | happyopossum wrote: | This is kind of a silly question given the time horizons and | other potential factors that can crop up in 30 years, but my | electric bill has separate charges for generation and delivery. | Even if generation drops by 90%, it'd still only cut my bill in | half. | chasd00 wrote: | i doubt your electric bill would be reduced at all. It would | probably increase at a more constant rate instead of dramatic | ups and downs though. So there's that.. | dotancohen wrote: | > How much will my electric bill be reduced? | | Your bill will be the same, or higher. But you'll be doing so | much more with electricity. Push a button, and your clothes are | clean in seconds. Push a button, and your beard is shaved in | seconds. Push a button, and four of your five senses are | entertained for hours. | raydiatian wrote: | > achieve President Biden's goal | | This seems unnecessarily partisan to mention | alexose wrote: | The full quote is | | > This historic, first-of-its kind achievement will provide | unprecedented capability to support NNSA's Stockpile | Stewardship Program and will provide invaluable insights into | the prospects of clean fusion energy, which would be a game- | changer for efforts to achieve President Biden's goal of a net- | zero carbon economy. | | That is his administration's goal, and it's the directive that | DoE is working under during his presidency. | | Unless you have another party in mind that's been vocally | championing a net-zero carbon economy? | raydiatian wrote: | Thank you for educating me. I was unaware Joe Biden invented | the concept of bringing down CO2 emissions. It's important | that we're calling him out by name so that we can illustrate | the sixty years of effort put forth by the hard working men | and women in nuclear physics. It is, after all, his money | that is funding this research effort. | | Sincerely, a Biden voter | anon291 wrote: | The GOP has been pro-nuclear for a long time. | SoftTalker wrote: | This work is the result of decades of effort under many | administrations. This PR piece makes it sound like it all | happened in the last two years under Biden-Harris and a set | of Senators and Representatives who all happen to be from one | party. I had to stop reading to get the vomit taste out of my | mouth. | johnp271 wrote: | Wow so all this was accomplished starting from scratch in | January 2021. Given another year or two and a second Biden | term we should be finished. | desertlounger wrote: | Sure ain't a Reptilian goal. | raydiatian wrote: | If they could, literal reptiles would absolutely be in | support of this. | | Because Godzilla. | valine wrote: | I am okay with any amount of partisanship if it means more | funding for fusion research. | mFixman wrote: | Widespread energy generation nuclear fission is politically | impossible in most Western countries. | | Why are people optimistic that fusion won't have the same kind of | problems, such as new plants being too expensive to build and old | obsolete plants being too useful to decommission? | fullstackchris wrote: | I'm sure they said the same thing about coal plants before any | of them ever existed | dontwearitout wrote: | Fission's amazing potentially is nerfed by three main things: | proliferation risk, meltdown risk, and waste handling. These | are all solved problems but dramatically raise the cost (you | need armed guards, and the reactor has to be built to withstand | a 747 strike, etc etc). The fuel cost is a very small fraction | of the price of nuclear. | | If you can eliminate or reduce the need for armed guards and | mountains of red tape, this has the potential to solve many of | fission's problems while providing the same benefits (unlimited | zero carbon power with dirt cheap fuel). | risyachka wrote: | The main backlash for fission is not cost but danger. | | Fusion removes it. | BudaDude wrote: | I'm a bit more optimistic about this. This technology will be | more important for space exploration than it will be | (currently) on the ground. | DoughnutHole wrote: | > such as new plants being too expensive to build and old | obsolete plants being too useful to decommission? | | There's no guarantee that these issues will be surmountable. | | _But_ fusion largely avoids the fear association with past | fission disasters and fears about nuclear waste. This is a non- | trivial political problem in many parts of the world, | especially much of Europe. If fusion becomes economical (big | if) and the differences between it and fission are well | communicated it might be easier for the world to swallow. | | I think visions of a 100% fusion world are fairly pie in the | sky. Most of our energy most of the time will probably come | from already viable renewables. But renewables cannot offer | consistent baseline power all day, year-round, in every part of | the world. We need either huge breakthroughs in storage, or | carbon-free baseline generation. Economical fusion if it were | achieved _could_ offer that without some of the most | politically difficult drawbacks of fission. | | I'd probably still bet the farm on renewables + storage though, | at least for my lifetime. | BeetleB wrote: | IIUC, there is no concern about radioactivity with fusion. | kzrdude wrote: | It is already widespread, being used for 10-20% of US energy, | isn't it? And 30-40% in several European countries. I think | it's definitely possible since it's already in place, we just | need to talk about it more. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-13 23:00 UTC)