Fusion ignition achieved
- Thread starter iroboto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- prepare your crowbar
hoom
Veteran
I guess someone desperate for a funding boost/desperate for a happy story to run 
The lasers used 322MJ of energy to deliver 2.05MJ to the target and got 3.15MJ out (presumably as heat not electricity).
Don't get me wrong I'm all for commercial Fusion being a thing but this doesn't really seem like a bfd to me.
The lasers used 322MJ of energy to deliver 2.05MJ to the target and got 3.15MJ out (presumably as heat not electricity).
Don't get me wrong I'm all for commercial Fusion being a thing but this doesn't really seem like a bfd to me.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
If I understand correctly the fusion reaction generated more energy than the lasers consumed while starting the reaction but does not include the magnets and all other ancillary systems? On top of that I guess there would also be a considerable loss when converting to fusion reaction to usable energy?
Great they see progress is being made but looks like they are still a way off from a reactor that comes even close to generating more energy than it consumes.
Great they see progress is being made but looks like they are still a way off from a reactor that comes even close to generating more energy than it consumes.
This is step 1 of very, very many steps before we get near to producing useful power from fusion. Not that you would know this from the breathless media reportage. It will still be decades before it comes to fruition, even if everything goes to plan.
Meanwhile, we continue to burn huge quantities of gas and other fossil fuels instead of using existing and proven fission technology to produce our energy. Safety isn't an issue with modern fission designs, the waste is less of an issue than the anti-Nuke crowd would have you believe, proliferation an absolute non-starter and it is only over-regulation which has led to sky-rocketing costs. Despite this, I'd argue that the cost issue is worth bearing if we're going to keep climate change in check.
I don't disagree with the efforts being made to develop fusion technology, incidentally, I just think we should go all-in with fission now. Alongside build out of renewables, of course, and continued development of energy storage technology.
We're in the middle of a cold snap here in the UK. Not super cold as in some countries, but cold enough that we're burning a lot of gas to stay warm and produce electricity - due to the weather conditions, generation from wind is very low at present. I'd be a lot happier if the baseload was provided by fission rather than gas, that's for sure. It would require a massive investment in power fission power stations, renewables and, as most UK housing is heated by gas, a massive retro-fit of housing with better insulation and heatpumps, but in the longer-term, it would be better for everyone, both as a climate mitigation and leaving us less at the mercy of the market for gas.
Meanwhile, we continue to burn huge quantities of gas and other fossil fuels instead of using existing and proven fission technology to produce our energy. Safety isn't an issue with modern fission designs, the waste is less of an issue than the anti-Nuke crowd would have you believe, proliferation an absolute non-starter and it is only over-regulation which has led to sky-rocketing costs. Despite this, I'd argue that the cost issue is worth bearing if we're going to keep climate change in check.
I don't disagree with the efforts being made to develop fusion technology, incidentally, I just think we should go all-in with fission now. Alongside build out of renewables, of course, and continued development of energy storage technology.
We're in the middle of a cold snap here in the UK. Not super cold as in some countries, but cold enough that we're burning a lot of gas to stay warm and produce electricity - due to the weather conditions, generation from wind is very low at present. I'd be a lot happier if the baseload was provided by fission rather than gas, that's for sure. It would require a massive investment in power fission power stations, renewables and, as most UK housing is heated by gas, a massive retro-fit of housing with better insulation and heatpumps, but in the longer-term, it would be better for everyone, both as a climate mitigation and leaving us less at the mercy of the market for gas.
cheapchips
Veteran
Agree on your points about fission. Shame we can't do it at a reasonable price. :\
NIF's results aren't really a first step. More of a milestone? Most projects / companies are pursuing magnetic fusion. Does this mean anything for them at all, other than making funders more excitable?
For those pursuing inertial fusion, it's a helpful confirmation of physics that aren't as well verified as the plasma based stuff.
NIF's results aren't really a first step. More of a milestone? Most projects / companies are pursuing magnetic fusion. Does this mean anything for them at all, other than making funders more excitable?
For those pursuing inertial fusion, it's a helpful confirmation of physics that aren't as well verified as the plasma based stuff.
I still don't understand how that relates to america's national security.
hoom
Veteran
OK so a decompress of my mind process there:
- Wat? Fusion ignition has been going on since like the '60s or something -> Initial scepticism but engage desire to know more mode.
- Oh more electricity out than in? Thats actually huge -> desire to know more mode intensifies.
- Wait, they didn't say electricity they said energy & that 2nd video says its just a single inertial fusion capsule? -> engage Full Skepticism mode, I wanna see some numbers.
- "used 322MJ of energy to deliver 2.05MJ to the target and got 3.15MJ out" is numbers on Wiki, couldn't find the specific 322MJ number (presume its on the paywalled article) but other sources have un-numbered confirmation that the 192 lasers use several hundred MJ of electricity & that the '2MJ in' was just the energy delivered to the target, nothing at all suggesting that the 3MJ out is actual electricity -> Scepticism validated. Also the Tokamaks have been putting out some much bigger numbers eg the ITER predecessor JET put out 59MJ sustained fusion this year.
- So why are they making a big deal about it? Well they're scientists so I guess there is a funding round coming up? But she referenced a Biden speech so maybe its a political need for a happy story -> post 1.
- After post: Wait what's that about defense, what did they say about that? -> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=WTFBBQ she just said the quiet bit out loud and directly stated US Govt policy is to bypass the CBTB to make 'better' nukes under the sham PR of commercial fusion development -> post 2.
I see. So this is just a political game. Its a poorly disguised reference to nukes by design. They only want to pretend to be trying to be subtle, but really its a veiled warning to foreign adversaries.
Nothing like war to spark more scientific funding...
ok if no one uses fission reactors there is no source of plutonium with which they can make nuclear weapons, also there is no creation of lower level radioactive material with which a bad actor could create a dirty bomb
I see. So what it does is it removes a possible cover-up for manufacturing nuclear bombs. It still can be done, but if oke gets caught, nuclear energy is not a plausible excuse anymore...
The material used to make nuclear weapons is never produced in commercial, energy-generating reactors. Well, at least not in the west. The military establishment have their own specialised reactors which are designed to generate the material with the right specifications to make the weapons. The idea that commercial reactors are promoted to help the production of weapons is one of the myths about nuclear power.
