So How Close Are We Now to Nuclear Fusion Energy? (theguardian.com) 180
For a fraction of a second, 10 quadrillion watts of fusion power were produced this month by researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The author of The Star Builders: Nuclear Fusion and the Race to Power the Planet explains what might happen next: The aim of these experiments is — for now — to show proof of principle only: that energy can be generated. The team behind the success are very close to achieving this: they have managed a more than 1,000-fold improvement in energy release between 2011 and today. Prof Jeremy Chittenden, co-director of the Centre for Inertial Fusion Studies at Imperial College London, said last month that "The pace of improvement in energy output has been rapid, suggesting we may soon reach more energy milestones, such as exceeding the energy input from the lasers used to kickstart the process...."
Many recent advances have been made with a different type of fusion device, the tokamak: a doughnut-shaped machine that uses a tube of magnetic fields to confine its fuel for as long as possible. China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (East) set another world record in May by keeping fuel stable for 100 seconds at a temperature of 120m degrees celsius — eight times hotter than the sun's core. The world's largest ever magnetic fusion machine, Iter, is under construction in the south of France and many experts think it will have the scale needed to reach net energy gain. The UK-based Joint European Torus (Jet), which holds the current magnetic fusion record for power of 67%, is about to attempt to produce the largest total amount of energy of any fusion machine in history. Alternative designs are also being explored: the UK government has announced plans for an advanced tokamak with an innovative spherical geometry, and "stellarators", a type of fusion device that had been consigned to the history books, are enjoying a revival having been enabled by new technologies such as superconducting magnets.
This is a lot of progress, but it's not even the biggest change: that would be the emergence of private sector fusion firms. The recently formed Fusion Industry Association estimates that more than $2bn of investment has flooded into fusion startups. The construction of experimental reactors by these firms is proceeding at a phenomenal rate: Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which has its origins in MIT research, has begun building a demonstration reactor in Massachusetts; TAE Technologies has just raised $280m to build its next device; and Canadian-based General Fusion has opted to house its new $400m plant in the UK. This will be constructed in Oxfordshire, an emerging hotspot for the industry that is home to private ventures First Light Fusion and Tokamak Energy as well as the publicly funded Jet and Mast (Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak) Upgrade devices run by the UK Atomic Energy Authority...
For now, publicly funded labs are producing results a long way ahead of the private firms — but this could change.
"Whether commercial fusion energy is ready in time to help with global warming or not depends on us as a society and how badly we want — no, need — star power on our side," the author concludes.
He also calls fusion energy "the only feasible way we can explore space beyond Earth's immediate vicinity."
The author of The Star Builders: Nuclear Fusion and the Race to Power the Planet explains what might happen next: The aim of these experiments is — for now — to show proof of principle only: that energy can be generated. The team behind the success are very close to achieving this: they have managed a more than 1,000-fold improvement in energy release between 2011 and today. Prof Jeremy Chittenden, co-director of the Centre for Inertial Fusion Studies at Imperial College London, said last month that "The pace of improvement in energy output has been rapid, suggesting we may soon reach more energy milestones, such as exceeding the energy input from the lasers used to kickstart the process...."
Many recent advances have been made with a different type of fusion device, the tokamak: a doughnut-shaped machine that uses a tube of magnetic fields to confine its fuel for as long as possible. China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (East) set another world record in May by keeping fuel stable for 100 seconds at a temperature of 120m degrees celsius — eight times hotter than the sun's core. The world's largest ever magnetic fusion machine, Iter, is under construction in the south of France and many experts think it will have the scale needed to reach net energy gain. The UK-based Joint European Torus (Jet), which holds the current magnetic fusion record for power of 67%, is about to attempt to produce the largest total amount of energy of any fusion machine in history. Alternative designs are also being explored: the UK government has announced plans for an advanced tokamak with an innovative spherical geometry, and "stellarators", a type of fusion device that had been consigned to the history books, are enjoying a revival having been enabled by new technologies such as superconducting magnets.
This is a lot of progress, but it's not even the biggest change: that would be the emergence of private sector fusion firms. The recently formed Fusion Industry Association estimates that more than $2bn of investment has flooded into fusion startups. The construction of experimental reactors by these firms is proceeding at a phenomenal rate: Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which has its origins in MIT research, has begun building a demonstration reactor in Massachusetts; TAE Technologies has just raised $280m to build its next device; and Canadian-based General Fusion has opted to house its new $400m plant in the UK. This will be constructed in Oxfordshire, an emerging hotspot for the industry that is home to private ventures First Light Fusion and Tokamak Energy as well as the publicly funded Jet and Mast (Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak) Upgrade devices run by the UK Atomic Energy Authority...
For now, publicly funded labs are producing results a long way ahead of the private firms — but this could change.
"Whether commercial fusion energy is ready in time to help with global warming or not depends on us as a society and how badly we want — no, need — star power on our side," the author concludes.
He also calls fusion energy "the only feasible way we can explore space beyond Earth's immediate vicinity."
50, still (Score:4, Funny)
fifty years, just like we've been for the last fifty years
Re: (Score:2)
damn you beat me to it
And I've run out of mod points ;-)
Re: 50, still (Score:2)
Re:50, still (Score:4, Insightful)
fifty years, just like we've been for the last fifty years
I was pretty sure we were 150M kilometers away.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd suggest we're incrementally closer to performing deuterium tritium fusion in a a way that would more energy than it consumes to arrange. That doesn't demonstrate that it will ever break even, nor does it solve the fuel problem. Tritium is unstable, dangerous, normally harvested from fission plants, and there is no demonstrated ability to generate it from a fusion plant, although there are never tested, never functioning proposals to use neutrons from the fusion reaction to trigger lithium-6 an generate
Re: 50, still (Score:2)
What I heard from actual scientists... (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember hearing something from actual nuclear scientists, that we're actually mostly just treading on fusion, mostly due to lack of funding.
By which I mean: We lose knowledge every year due to scientists and engineers just not working on the stuff, ending up retiring and such, due to lack of funding. There aren't enough of them to keep the knowledge alive. By the way, we're definitely piling up more data, but data isn't the same as knowledge. Information collected and not understood is just data. Information collected and understood is knowledge.
As such, due to lack of funding, we're barely advancing, and often that's more from sympathetic development in other fields. Like computer power increases and developments in simulation technology helping stellarators along.
It's why, for example, if we shut down a production line - planes, tanks, cars, etc... It doesn't take long, even if the equipment was preserved, before you encounter serious increases in expenses in trying to restart said line, because the knowledge of how to operate the line and equipment will have been lost, and manuals aren't the same as real knowledge from a person, so you have to repay that learning curve(expensive). Stop producing F-22s for half a decade? Might as well design a new plane rather than try to build more, your current stocks are all you're going to get.
We're 10 years away if we put manhattan project levels of resources into it. Because that would be enough financing to hurry things along. Consider the Covid-19 vaccines. We tossed "sufficient" funding at them and we were able to get vaccines out decades faster than it normally takes. In the end, I don't even know that it wouldn't add up to being cheaper than the "fund over decades" method, where significant percentages of people who started work on the vaccine are retiring before the vaccine is approved.
But as we drop the amount of resources, the time required expands rapidly - because you always have that overhead to work with.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was 10years like we've been saying the last 10 years
Well, now we're up to 50 years, which saves the advocates from having to revise their estimate every 10 years. Now they only have to revise it every 50 years, and if they time it right they can just die in a timely manner and avoid having to revise it at all.
Re:50, still (Score:5, Informative)
False. We have been making progress. And that is in spite of the fact that budgets have been cut. If it was 50 years and no progress, then you might have a point .. but we have a lot of progress to show. So stop being cynical.
Re: (Score:2)
After just a few more of these fifty year periods it will probably be down to 40 years!
After a few more of these "fifty year periods" we'll all be dead and won't give a shit any more.
Re:Have some optimism! (Score:5, Funny)
After just a few more of these fifty year periods it will probably be down to 40 years!
you skeptics will be very embarrassed to be proven wrong in another 35 years
Re: Have some optimism! (Score:2)
harnessing 1,000,000C heat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: harnessing 1,000,000C heat (Score:2)
Re:harnessing 1,000,000C heat (Score:5, Interesting)
how do you efficiently extract heat from a 1,000,000C heat source.
DT fusion releases 17.6 MeV. About 3.5 MeV is a charged alpha particle that can remain in the plasma. But about 14 MeV is carried away by a fast neutron that can't be contained since it has no charge.
The neutron will exit the plasma and be absorbed by a lithium blanket, either as metallic lithium or ceramic plates. The lithium will heat up while also breeding tritium to continue the reaction. The heat is then used to generate steam and run a generator.
Re: (Score:2)
The lithium will never be hot enough to generate steam.
Energy production is "envisioned" to be done via MHD effects from the plasma.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to contact Samsung because those Samsung Note 7's sure could have made a lot of steam, they may have inadvertently invented fusion, but didn't know it, and tossed it in the garbage. ;-)
Hehe
Re: (Score:3)
The lithium will heat up while also breeding tritium to continue the reaction. The heat is then used to generate steam and run a generator.
Is that before or after the lithium boils and the pipes carrying the water melt? If you reduce the heat to something we can handle (say 3000C at the extreme upper end), you are likely losing most of your energy. So even after you make a fusion reaction you can contain and it makes more energy than it consumes, you are losing most of your energy though heat losses. Also, how much Lithium is going to be in this blanket? Lithium boils at 180.5C so you would need a huge amount to be able to absorb the heat
Re:harnessing 1,000,000C heat (Score:4, Interesting)
The lithium will heat up while also breeding tritium to continue the reaction. The heat is then used to generate steam and run a generator.
Is that before or after the lithium boils and the pipes carrying the water melt? If you reduce the heat to something we can handle (say 3000C at the extreme upper end), you are likely losing most of your energy. So even after you make a fusion reaction you can contain and it makes more energy than it consumes, you are losing most of your energy though heat losses.
Oh, the parasitic losses will be immense. As far as I know, we haven't even figured out what they will be overall.
Also, how much Lithium is going to be in this blanket? Lithium boils at 180.5C so you would need a huge amount to be able to absorb the heat on an ongoing basis.
From what I hear, a 1 metre thick sphere of Molten Lithium is the trick. One does not approach a1 meter thick sphere of Lithium with anything but deep respect - and a good dose of fear can help as well. Ceramic plates as neitron absorbers will become rather radioactive I believe.
There is a lot of hand waving being done here. This smacks of pure fusion research masquerading as practical energy research. Also, you are describing one of the easier types of fusion but also one that makes radiation. One of the big selling points of fusion is no radiation which is why none of the commercial fusion startups use DT-T fusion. So your point is probably moot anyway, however issues around handling and extracting energy from 1,000,000C still stand.
Yeah, pretty much this. Anyone who thinks this will be remotely easy, if even practical, has just extrapolated these fractions of seconds into 24/7/365 continuous operation.
My money is on the whole thing failing by not being remotely practical.
Re: harnessing 1,000,000C heat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> You better go tell all the folks at ITER they're wasting their lives in futile pursuit
I believe they're aware of this already.
It has been widely commented on in the field that the ITER path will never result in a usable design. Studies by Euratom suggest that even in 2100 given massive improvements, fusion will cost twice as much as fission and some five times that of alternatives.
Bob Hirsch ran the US fusion program during the 1970s when it made its most rapid progress (PLT, TFTR, etc.). Here is his s
Re: (Score:3)
If you reduce the heat to something we can handle (say 3000C at the extreme upper end), you are likely losing most of your energy.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Reducing the temperature does not require "throwing away" energy.
Lithium boils at 180.5C
Lithium melts at 180C. Lithium boils at 1330C and can be kept as a liquid at much higher temperatures by either putting it under pressure or converting it to a molten salt.
Of course, you can also build the lithium blanket with helium-cooled ceramics.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't.
You use the magnetic field from the plasma to generate electricity.
Re:harnessing 1,000,000C heat (Score:4, Informative)
You use the magnetic field from the plasma to generate electricity.
No, this is nonsense.
The magnetic field consumes power while confining the plasma.
The plasma does not create the magnetic field, and the magnetic field is not an energy source.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF,
open a book of physics, or simply read/google up on how a fusion plant is supposed to work.
The plasma is a high electric current: obviously it produces its own magnetic field. (* faceplam *)
Re: (Score:2)
The plasma is a high electric current: obviously it produces its own magnetic field. (* faceplam *)
No, that is not how Tokamaks work.
Here is the Wiki page: Tokamak [wikipedia.org].
Here is the first sentence: "A tokamak is a device which uses a powerful magnetic field to confine plasma in the shape of a torus."
The magnetic field confines the plasma. It consumes energy. It is not a source of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also possible to convert the motion of charged particles into electricity via induction however this isn't feasible in a tokamak.
Indeed. Most energy in D-T fusion is carried by neutrons with are not charged particles.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if i got it correctly, you want to abolish physics as a research topic and teaching topic in universities?
To bad that idiots like you can vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! We need more financial managers and, uh, managers in general.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear it's tremendously difficult to get heat out of very hot things. Why, plasmas are so good at retaining their heat that you just look at them funny and they heat up hotter than the core of the sun and stay that way all by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I think the fusion is a problem. The big problem is the easier fusion reactions they've been working on produce most of their energy in the form of (currently) useless neutrons. That makes "break even" an academic point; sure you produce more energy than you put in, but most of that for now can't be captured and used to sustain the reaction.
And people absolutely are working on this problem. ITER is trying to capture neutrons in a lithium blanket and use the heat generated for power generation. Ano
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is false. The reactor walls heat up and the blankets have water running in them. We already have non-breakeven fusion reactors that run hot .. it’s not a problem. Not sure where your abs speculation comes from, it is categorically false.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with fusion has nothing to do with fusion. It is how do you efficiently extract heat from a 1,000,000C heat source. This isn't even being worked on. These are just physicists who are trying to get funding for pure research. I wish we lived in a world where that wasn't necessary but it seems like we do. Or we just graduate 10X more physicists than there are jobs after graduation for that specialty and this funding seeking for clearly unworkable energy solutions might be the results of that. Either way, someone is going to lose money and valuable resources that could be put towards realistic and useful energy sources will be squandered.
It's not the only problem with fusion. The "fusion capsule" will become intensely radioactive and need replaced eventually. And there will be a lot of fusion neutrons to deal with, which can be pretty destructive. I understand that about a metre of molten Lithium surrounding the fusion capsule might alleviate that issue, but brings it's own.
Molten lithium is an interesting element. It loves to react with a lot of things. It's not quite as explosive as Sodium, but once it starts burning, it's no fun to e
Re:harnessing 1,000,000C heat (Score:4, Informative)
tritium is normally harvested from fission reactors.
Once you get em' bootstrapped, fusion reactors generate their own tritium.
D + T => He + N
N + Li6 => He + T
N + Li7 => He + T + N
We're already there (Score:4, Interesting)
Almost all life and activity on earth has been fueled by fusion activity ever since it cooled into a planet.
Aside from the volcanic and geothermal energy that still supports life in some remote areas, our sun (that great big fusion reactor just down the road at the center of the solar system) has been providing clean, virtually inexhaustible energy for billions of years... and will continue to do so for billions more.
Why waste all this money trying to recreate nuclear fusion here on Earth when all we need to do is keep capturing energy from that big natural reactor that passes over our heads every day?
Even the wind (often harnessed for electricity generation) is the result of the energy delivered by our sun.
Just throw up some more solar arrays, more wind generators, a few tidal generators and then focus more on how we can efficiently and effectively *store* the often intermittently generated energy they produce -- so as to fill in the gaps.
The idea of building our own fusion reactors may be super-cool and nerdy... but pragmatism would suggest that there's really little need to reinvent the wheel and that trying to do so is a waste of valuable financial and other resources.
Or I could just be playing devil's advocate -- after all, this *is* Slashdot :-)
Re: We're already there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar mirrors in orbit can triansmit the power to Earth-based receiving stations. Any power station of any sort needs a way to deliver power to the interior of buildings, so that's a limitation of all power systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We're already there (Score:2)
Re: We're already there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
new technologies, wtf? (Score:2)
"(Stellarators ...) are enjoying a revival having been enabled by new technologies such as superconducting magnets"
WTF? All fusion approaches based on magnetic confinement, including the tokamaks of course, use, and have used for basically ever, superconducting coils to create the necessary fields. How is that "new technologies?"
If anything stellarators, their magnetic fields being a lot more complex, rely on powerful simulation methods and control systems. Abundant computing power certainly helps with
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? All fusion approaches based on magnetic confinement, including the tokamaks of course, use, and have used for basically ever, superconducting coils to create the necessary fields. How is that "new technologies?"
There have been major recent advancements in HTS enabling much higher field strengths.
If anything stellarators, their magnetic fields being a lot more complex, rely on powerful simulation methods and control systems.
Stellarators depend on their shape rather than an electric field making them easier than tokomaks to keep in a steady state.
Or we just use Geonuclear energy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If we want fission, we don't need to research fusion.
Re: Or we just use Geonuclear energy (Score:2)
Re: Or we just use Geonuclear energy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Or we just use Geonuclear energy (Score:5, Informative)
just to add to this.
the average rare Earth metal mine currently produces about 5000 tons of Thorium as a "waste" product every year. That is enough to provide the entire world's energy needs for a year. From each mine.
Also, 100% of that mined Thorium is usable as a fuel. No enrichment needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the opposite. [livescience.com]
It's the 41st most abundant element in the crust, about 3 times more common than Uranium. In addition, while U-235 is just a fraction of the amount of Uranium, ALL thorium is fissile in breeding. So you don't need to enrich it.
There are actually deposits of other minerals that we don't mine because Thorium is considered a hazardous waste(it is mildly radioactive) and they'd produce too much of it for the current market, making the deposit not economical to process for the other minerals
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, while U-235 is just a fraction of the amount of Uranium, ALL thorium is fissile in breeding.
False. Thorium is fertile, not fissile, the same as U-238. In both cases you need a breeder, to transmute U-238 to Pu-239, or Th-232 to U-233, by neutron capture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, did you happen to notice that I mentioned breeding in the post? I know it needs a breeder reactor.
Any time soon, its gonna become viable.... (Score:2, Informative)
The UK-based Joint European Torus (Jet), which holds the current magnetic fusion record for power of 67%, is about to attempt to produce the largest total amount of energy of any fusion machine in history.
This mangled sentence actually means:
JET set the record for the closest approach to scientific breakeven, reaching Q = 0.67 in 1997, producing 16 MW of fusion power while injecting 24 MW of thermal power to heat the fuel.[2]
Excellent, 67% efficiency. Great! Wow!! Anytime now it should be surparssed, 1000 fold improvement and what not. It is time to estimate time remaining in months or weeks, not decades, Very good very. Lets start with when we achieved 67% Q factor.
It was also decided to add a diverter design to JET, which occurred between 1991 and 1993. Performance was significantly improved, and in 1997 JET set the record for the closest approach to scientific break even, reaching Q = 0.67 in 1997, producing 16 MW of fusion power while injecting 24 MW of thermal power to heat the fuel.[2]
24 years since reaching 67% efficiency? OK OK. Tone down the enthu, Watson. So back to years and decades. Another decade to break even. Two more decades to make it run for hours instead of milli seconds. A few more decades to m
Re: (Score:2)
Net output -- if and when it ever occurs -- won't impress me much. When one of these multi-billion, twitchy wonders run by nuclear scientists beats an acre of solar cells I'll quit laughing hysterically.
Mostly an economic issue - but that is critical (Score:5, Interesting)
Modern lasers could operate with wall plug efficiencies in the ~25% range (diode pumped Yb:YAG) - but a mega-joule and GW average power diode pumped laser is pretty insanely expensive.
Similarly a scaled up ITER (like DEMO or larger) is likely to generate practical amount of power - but would also be insanely expensive.
Fusion has to both generate energy AND be economically competitive. The first looks doable, the second much trickier.
Many of the small companies trying new fusion machines are VERY FAR from a practical system and are mostly living off hype and marketing. I'm not aware of any that are close scientific breakeven (more fusion energy out than energy in) with current designs. Many promise breakeven with their *next* design, if only someone will give them lots of investment money. I haven't seen any yet that look convincing. (hint - look at their achieved pressure * time numbers and compare to Lawsen criteria, many that claim to be "close" are 6 order of magnitude away!) . If anyone knows of an exception to this, I'm interested
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I think someone is going to get better than breakeven in the next 5-10 years, not just in theory but with a system that has a pathway to commercial viability. Three things have me more hopeful on fusion than I was a decade ago:
First, between knowledge gleaned from the existing test reactors and the incredible advances in computational ability, the models for things like extreme plasma physics have gotten insanely better. For decades we'd postulate what a plasma would do in a certain geometry, spen
Re: (Score:2)
A group I know about at SLAC was doing plasma accelerator simulations with OSIRIS. I understand that that simulating one bunch of electrons passing through about 1 c
How close? (Score:5, Funny)
So How Close Are We Now to Nuclear Fusion Energy?
About 93 million miles (150 million kilometers) -- 1 AU.
(Oh... Well, either way, it's not walking distance.)
Space? Fission works (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
With that plan, how do you keep the inhabitants from dying?
Re: (Score:2)
Both fission and fusion reactors generate a lot of ne
Re: (Score:3)
same way we keep everyone from dying from radiation poisoning around the nuclear power plants on the ground.
Shielding.
Doesn't take much, even a 20ft column of water/ice will actually drop the radiation from an active fission core to something far safer than the cosmic rays that would be coming in from everywhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
For a spaceship engine you either need new physics - some people are researching that - or some mass to spit out of the engine.
And a fission reactor has no such mass, it uses a simple fuel it can heat.
A fusion reactor can exhaust the fuel it is using to conduct fusion > much more efficient and powerful.
Actually there is a lady at JPL, which is convinced she can modify a Vasimir style plasma engine into a fusion engine, during next few years.
That would not only be a revolution in Space faring, but also in
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe there is even a way to have the fission fragments directly focused as exahust - but there is no obvious way to do that.
In near future rockets, the fission or fusion reactor is just a power source - only interesting when too far fro
Linux on the desktop is so close! (Score:4, Funny)
I predict that the year of Linux on the desktop will co-inside with fusion reactors coming online to power our cities! Any day now...
Re: (Score:2)
By in large, I could care less how you spell things. Irregardless, it gives me piece of mind to correct obvious mistakes. You could of tried spelling "coincide" correctly, but for all intensive purposes, it's a doggy dog world and it didn't take me TOO long to figure out what you were trying to say.
Re: Linux on the desktop is so close! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good, otherwise I'd continue making that mistake.
works (Score:3)
Typical Slashdot with its old news. I bought one of those E-Cat things from some Italian guy, Rossi. Its been making free power in the basement for years. This thing is smaller than the water heater but doesn't get hot enough to heat water. Pretty much just sits there, no magnetic sharks with laser beams required. I tried to buy another one but apparently there is some hold up with the chip shortage and all.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to buy another one but apparently there is some hold up with the chip shortage and all.
Have you tried Home Depot?
Re: (Score:2)
Backordered.
https://e-catworld.com/2021/08... [e-catworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, that is SUPER old news. My preferred product is a full 12 letters more advanced already: the Q-Cat [wikipedia.org].
Too late (Score:2)
"Whether commercial fusion energy is ready in time to help with global warming or not depends on us as a society and how badly we want -- no, need -- star power on our side," the author concludes.
Wrong. To be ready in time to help with global warming, it would need to be ready right now. Actually, it should have been ready several years ago so we could already have reactors under construction. Even if one of the experimental research centers managed to achieve break even tomorrow (which it won't), we would still need to figure out how to scale the design down to something economically viable, then design and build a prototype for a commercial reactor, then demonstrate that it works in practice, t
Re: (Score:2)
"or we'll be in really serious trouble."
Some might say we already are, and it's really just about 'how much' mitigation we're capable of at this point.
Swords, Not Plowshares (Score:2)
The National Ignition Facility does not study fusion for energy production. They study inertial confinement fusion to better understand the working of thermonuclear bombs. The way they generate fusion will never lead to a power generating reactor. That's not even their goal. The reason they get brought up a lot when talking about fusion power is they're the only facility that's crossed the breakeven point. That doesn't mean they've generated power. It means the fusion reaction itself let off more total ener
Our next form (Score:2)
Look, "the only feasible way we can explore space beyond Earth's immediate vicinity" is to advance to our next form not involving fallible meat. We also need to adjust our time frame to the realities of relativity. Maybe slow the clock down to a tick per week, that should fairly efficient for intragalactic exploration. What's the hurry?
W7X in 2022 (Score:3)
Re: W7X in 2022 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The W7X is almost fully operational. In 2022 it will almost certainly succeed in sustained stable nuclear fusion for 30 minutes at a time
There is no chance in hell of this occurring. It is expected to sustain plasma in a steady state for long periods of time however 7X will NEVER ignite plasma. It is neither built nor intended for that.
Re: W7X in 2022 (Score:2)
https://www.ipp.mpg.de/16931/e... [ipp.mpg.de]
about 8 and a third minutes (Score:2)
at the speed of light
We don't deserve it. (Score:2)
I am pointing fingers at the scientific community. Instead of being supportive they are all detractors. All greedy for research funding for their toys. All trying to be we were right.
That is easy to quanify (Score:3)
"So How Close Are We Now to Nuclear Fusion Energy?"
NIF's record shot produced 1.3 MJ of fusion output.
That was produced after being compressed by 1.9 MJ of UV laser energy.
That UV was created by parametric upconversion of 4.1 MJ of IR laser energy.
That 4.1 MJ of IR was created by ~422 MJ of electricity from a large capacitor bank.
So, 422 / 1.3 ~= 325 times more fusion is required to breakeven on electricity. Another factor of about 3 is required to make up for losses in downstream electrical generation. So we should expect to require about 1000 times more performance before this device can produce fusion energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I could make it happen if I wanted to (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. To summon rain you instead need an ancient Druidic ritual where a bunch of people dressed in white prances about a field in front of a crowd of onlooker. It follows a series of obscure rules involving spheres and wooden sticks, and some obscure math. The original name is lost to antiquity, but the modern name for the practice is "Cricket".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, Murphy's Law doesn't work in reverse. You can't wash your car to make it rain, hehe.
[citation needed]
Re: I could make it happen if I wanted to (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it usually is achieved via a global conflict, though. And I'd rather try for a different solution.
Re: Green Energy? (Score:2)
lol (Score:2)
Facts are overrated on today's Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion is better than solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it only consumes energy and tax dollars and decades of time?
Meanwhile, solar power is fusion and it works. It will work for over four billion years.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar will never work at night. Not even theoretically.
Fusion will.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the article? The last 10 years has gotten us a LOT closer to workable fusion. Several orders of magnitude closer. And there aren't all
Re: (Score:2)
Containment for any noticeable length of time is a goal that will grow asymptotically more difficult, and might just fly off to infinity before true breakeven with power output reached.. We're no closer to what a commercial power plant would need than in the 1970s, we've only ridiculous things that can't be made into commercial power plant. this articles array of lasers is such a ridiculous thing, and the only thing more ridiculous would be array that could work (can't be built).
This is a farce and waste
Re: (Score:2)
This "success" story in the news is with absurd amount of lasers and doesn't generate one watt of usable power even subtracting off the electricity put into it. We're no closer to commercial fusion power than we were 30 years ago, and it may well be technically impossible.
It's time to stop the distractions for a while, and spend the money on abundant solar energy.
NIF has never given a flying fuck about fusion power or related research. The one and only point of NIF is making sure stockpiles of oppenheimer's deadly toys remain in working order.
Re: (Score:2)