Submitted by FarmhouseFan t3_zmk8gt in Futurology
saltyhasp t1_j0bmhko wrote
Reply to comment by FarmhouseFan in Nuclear fusion breakthrough: A physicist answers three vital questions by FarmhouseFan
Finally an article that admits that yes we are at least 2 orders of magnitude and probably more from anything close to true break even in the energy generation sense. So hard to find any article that admits that.
Until one gets to break even in the holistic sense this is just a curiosity. 2 to 3 orders of magnitude is a long way to go.
whtevn t1_j0bngoa wrote
"celebrating 50 years of being 10 years away"
FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0byiec wrote
Used to always be 50 years away. This is a great leap forward.
TwoSoonOrNah t1_j0cn1pi wrote
Now we're only 49 years away.
Champagne for all, we did it folks!
FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0cn5rs wrote
What's it like being a doomer?
TwoSoonOrNah t1_j0cq0m3 wrote
Fusion Researchers and Meteorologists
The only jobs where it doesn't matter if you're wrong or right, you'll never lose your job.
[deleted] t1_j0cq8jt wrote
[removed]
TwoSoonOrNah t1_j0cs8g0 wrote
I'm only 50 years away from replying to you. Hold please.
thecowintheroom t1_j0bsi6p wrote
It’s still dope don’t be a dope.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0bycjz wrote
It's good to have realistic expectations, but I saw a lot of people shooting this breakthrough down right away. No, we will not have commercialized fusion power in 5 or 10 years but it's coming. I was surprised to learn that the facility is using somewhat outdated tech and am excited for more advancements and investments in the infrastructure of the facility, which is justified by this pretty big step forward.
TouchCommercial5022 t1_j0cptu3 wrote
What I find interesting is that we get so pessimistic when it takes longer than we would like to solve big problems in fusion technology. We have been working on fusion for about 60 years and we are convinced that we cannot immediately emulate and master the forces that occur in the core of a star.
We do not become cynical when it has taken more than a century to cure cancer. Fusion is the only technology I see where people joke that it will never happen despite constant improvements.
every time merger comes up, people just dismiss it as impossible and say it's a waste of time and money and we should invest in solar and wind power.
Humans are myopic. They forget that not long ago reaching space was impossible. Going at the speed of sound was impossible etc..
This is probably because fusion is basically useless until you get really, really good at it. People don't see steady progress over the decades.
Once you have a clear plan for getting your tritium, I'll be interested. Operating breeder reactors have been decreasing in number and it is not as easy to extract from the environment as it is with deuterium. There's a lot to be gained from a net positive fusion scheme when your fuel is limited by fission output.
in my opinion I feel that this undermines the discovery too much. Humanity is much more efficient at improving things than at creating things. It was only 60 years after we achieved the flight before landing on the moon. Half that time passed between the first CGI on screen and the first photorealistic film created entirely on a computer.
If this discovery is true, it will only be a matter of time before we figure out how to prolong the effect and make it more stable.
it's like saying humans would never use heavier-than-air planes for anything more than a novelty because the Wright brothers only flew for a few seconds
OF COURSE.. They do not claim that this is going to happen today or even in this decade. New technologies are developed in small steps. Without this demonstration, the merger would never be possible; heck, like you said, it still could never be possible. As a scientist, it's frustrating to hear cynicism about breakthroughs because the results aren't here today. Much of that blame falls on lazy science journalism. But this article does not claim that the merger is about to happen. It only highlights an interesting and important scientific achievement. Can't we be excited about that?
It was only about 5 years ago that we had a stable merger for the first time.
With all the reactors now working on the problem, I think things are looking pretty good.
That would be a complete game changer. After reading a few articles last year about the merger, it seemed like they were incredibly far from getting self-sustaining reactions, let alone getting a net energy gain.
I hope they can figure this out as much as possible, then refine it, reduce it, etc. etc.
Mastering fusion is a must to unlock true future technology, reducing energy tensions will also make the world more geopolitically stable.
Science is all about incremental progress. No one is going to build a perfect fusion reactor from scratch
We still have a long way to go towards economic viability, and it is unlikely that something like the NIF will ever lead to commercial reactors, but hopefully it will show that it is possible to reject public and private investment in nuclear fusion in its set.
This could be the momentum needed to get to the end of the race.
dillrepair t1_j0ez1rv wrote
Seriously. If we put the effort where the effort is needed … fusion… cancer… antibiotics… education etc… we could do more. We have to stop allowing technological advances to be mostly under the control of people whose main goal is to make a profit. People who would just as soon spoon feed us pieces of advancement instead of allowing large leaps in societal well-being and freedom from want.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0cqi7j wrote
Thanks for this input!! Wonderful comment.
chasonreddit t1_j0ea706 wrote
> Humans are myopic. They forget that not long ago reaching space was impossible. Going at the speed of sound was impossible etc..
While I agree with the sentiment, it's not really universally applicable.
The time between the first human flight, the Wright Bros. and the first lunar landing was 66 years. The first human initiated fusion reaction was over 70 years ago. ie. Space flight is doable. We know that.
I'm pretty old, I'm a science geek and have been reading my entire life that fusion is 20-30 years away. It is with luck. It may always be. It's more than just an engineering problem, I firmly believe it will take a fundamental breakthrough to solve if it is possible at all.
What I always have to ask is why? There is a huge fusion reactor not that far away, but far enough that it poses only minimal danger to us here. All we need to do is to collect the energy. Why re-invent the sun wheel?
The fuel is plentiful you say. All it needs is Hydrogen. Well really Deuterium. Well in this case Tritium which is much more rare than uranium. So even if we spend the billions trillions to build fusion plants we face an energy shortage.
I realize I am a Debbie Downer on /r/Futurology . But let's focus on what we can realistically do. There is power a plenty right out there. A very small fragment hits earth, yet that is what we are pinning a lot of hopes on right now. We should throw resources into space launch, SPSS, who know what else. We are limited to Earth resources, but not technically limited to Earth.
As I believe Jerry Pournelle once wrote: "It's raining soup out there and we are using spoons to catch it."
dillrepair t1_j0ez93o wrote
Yeah… it would seem a good plan to continue to push for fusion energy hard … but solar energy harvesting harder.
Nimeroni t1_j0gutaf wrote
> What I always have to ask is why? There is a huge fusion reactor not that far away, but far enough that it poses only minimal danger to us here. All we need to do is to collect the energy. Why re-invent the sun wheel?
-
Most of the Sun's energy is lost due to the atmosphere
-
Solar panel don't work during night
chasonreddit t1_j0h4m1a wrote
To both of those: only on Earth. Put it in orbit (SPSS I guess the preferred acronym now is SBSP) and no atmosphere, no night.
Nimeroni t1_j0h4xvb wrote
Bringing anything up there is hideously expensive.
chasonreddit t1_j0h6w3z wrote
Yes. It's a capital investment and bootstrap problem. But once you build enough infrastructure, you can build from materials already up there. Kind of like the proposed Mars missions. Lifting out of Earth's gravity well is a huge problem.
My point is solvable with current technology. Land based fusion is simply not at this point. Not after Trillions in investment in research units which will never produce power. You can throw a lot of stuff into space for that money. Unless you know of materials that can resist 15M degrees Celsius.
saltyhasp t1_j0cappd wrote
If you think laser fusion is anything more then science, then maybe worthwhile. Personally I doubt that it is. There are a lot of other approaches that seem more sane.
[deleted] t1_j0cbydi wrote
[removed]
throwawayfghtyu t1_j0bzpnv wrote
More than that, the NIF is for weapons research and will never produce electricity and is never planned to. And if we were to break even with energy in/out, our current best way to turn it into electricity is to use the heat to boil water and spin a turbine, which is at most about 33% efficient. So if this reactor meant to break even with electricity it'd need about a 300x improvement. For actual usable electricity at the end, even more.
It's an improvement for sure but the headlines are for bringing in money and generating hype. We are still a good distance away from making fusion viable.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0c45zp wrote
Read the article.
throwawayfghtyu t1_j0c94qi wrote
I did already... Now can you please explain the point you're making?
FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0c9f2t wrote
Facility produced this ignition with outdated tech. The goal was not efficiency but simply an ignition. Does that help?
throwawayfghtyu t1_j0caoze wrote
Is up-to-date tech anywhere near the 300x efficiency needed in comparison to break even? And because this experiment has the most return on input so far, are electricity-geared reactors even further off considering this one is purely for weapons research? I still don't understand the point you're making, is this supposed to be an optimistic viewpoint you're proposing?
FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0cbs4o wrote
Are you making assumptions about the viability of advancements based on tech you know nothing about? Seems like a bad bet. You also think that this type of advancement can't be used in conjunction with other fusion tech to provide power? Another bad bet. I'm so sorry you hate progress. Have a day.
throwawayfghtyu t1_j0ccgk7 wrote
I just saw you've had this argument with others and use the same "read the article again" approach and general dismissive attitude toward anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion. Look, you can be optimistic and proud of progress all you want, I think fusion research is great. But you can't buy into the hype train either. We've got a long way to go, and we'll get there a lot sooner if people can actually work together and not be dicks to each other about the actual state of progress thus far. Have a good day.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_j0ccwhi wrote
Just read the article next time.
throwawayfghtyu t1_j0cd3a7 wrote
Ugh, such a disappointment. You've really got blinders up for anything other than your own thoughts. I was hoping you might have a sliver of maturity. Oh well.
ItsAConspiracy t1_j0cogb1 wrote
The article does not say we're 2 to 3 orders of magnitude away. It does mention that we have much better lasers now.
NIF's lasers date back to the 1990s and are only 0.5% efficient. We have NIF-class lasers now that are over 20% efficient. That drops the input power to the lasers by a factor of 40.
So if NIF manages to increase the fusion output by a factor of ten, we can substitute modern lasers and have enough extra power to be net positive after running a turbine.
saltyhasp t1_j0crlto wrote
Using the numbers the article gave the current closed loop gain is about 1/357. Third laser efficiency is about 0.67%. Go to 20% laser efficiency is 30X. This brings the closed loop gain to 1/10.5. Improving the energy generated by 10X. You get to a closed loop gain just short of 1 at 0.95. So you need more then 10x. This assumes a 30% output to electricity conversion.
ItsAConspiracy t1_j0cv8bb wrote
The link I posted puts NIF laser efficiency at 0.5%. Either way, roughly one order of magnitude gets us over practical breakeven. Get to 20X and we've got a solid margin. Two orders of magnitude would be around 100X but we don't need to go near that far.
erics75218 t1_j0bwahk wrote
I thought I read that this order of mag...was a HUGE jump from the previous. This poster was staring this as an indicator of faster advancements over time.
So like 10 years to .2 then 5 to 1....2 to 2....1 to 3...?? The dream I guess
netz_pirat t1_j0cmmf4 wrote
ITER is aiming for a q>10, first plasma expected EO 2025
saltyhasp t1_j0cp303 wrote
This is the one to watch.
netz_pirat t1_j0cmg6o wrote
as far as I know, ITER has the goal to crack the next order of Magnitude, a Q>10
First Plasma expected in EO 2025... we'll see.
ItsAConspiracy t1_j0cowep wrote
First plasma at ITER got delayed several years because a big crack developed in something important. After first plasma it'll be a decade before they make their net power attempt with D-T fuel.
Luckily, CFS is building a much smaller reactor that should do the same thing, because they're using modern superconductors that support stronger magnetic fields. They actually should have it up and running in 2025, and don't plan to wait long before attempting net power.
saltyhasp t1_j0cvtvv wrote
Is CFS one of the venture capital companies? I am very interested what will come out of some of these.
ItsAConspiracy t1_j0d2tel wrote
Yep, they spun off from MIT and got a bunch of funding.
Oh_ffs_seriously t1_j0e8qgr wrote
There's a little issue with CFS' reactor, namely, they source their superconducting magnets from Russia: https://www.axios.com/2022/03/21/sanctions-threaten-commonwealth-supply-chain
ItsAConspiracy t1_j0eb4ti wrote
Russia isn't the only producer though. Your link says it's not even the only supplier CFS is using.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments