Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 827 posts

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#41

Post by candiodari »

axg11 wrote: post #37

What is stopping one of the major western governments from printing $50B of their own currency and investing it all in an intensive fusion programme? There doesn’t seem to be much to lose (these economies are already unreasonably inflated) but so much to gain from viable fusion.

Well, they do:

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.2018041...

The latest ITER budget update puts the cost at $65 billion dollar.

And, yes, there's 1 million, 10 million, 100 million and so on grants for smaller scale efforts too, JET being one example.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#42

Post by kristaps »

oxfordmale wrote: post #32
spuz wrote: post #6

> The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power). > This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997. > It's not a massive energy output - only enough to boil about 60 kettles' worth of water. But the significance is that it validates design choices that have been made for an even bigger fusion reactor now being constructed in France. I thought this…

Of course this is great news, however, it is worth taking into account it took them 25 years just to double the energy output. They are also nowhere near long sustained operation of such reactors. It really requires an order of magnitude increase before nuclear fusion becomes a realistic prospect in two decades. I understand this just to validate design choices and it is a good step forward. However, it doesn't make…

From the article I gathered that this run was mostly about validating some design choices for ITER, not about pushing output limits.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#44

Post by prohobo »

vcdimension wrote: post #35

They're still a very long way from getting a net gain in energy: https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY

Sadge. But I think this is the best bet for sustainable and clean energy, so why not put all the enthusiasm we can into it?

A breakthrough is a breakthrough, and that's good news.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#45

Post by DrBazza »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #21
unfocussed_mike wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can read that as a pro-Brexit comment, then the Brexit project succeeded beyond its instigators' wildest dreams. It's not ambiguous at all. Everything in the UK going on right now -- everything -- has a "some of this is unclear or worse because Brexit has destroyed agreements or because proposed, nearly impossible agreements have not been struck" subplot. Brexit has set fire to every kind of international comp…

You do realise that countries can work together without being part of the same trading block? ... If I understand your nonsensical ramblings correctly.

And 2 seconds of googling:

"The UK will remain part of Iter"

https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3551

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#46

Post by spuz »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #13
spuz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be read as an either pro or anti-brexit comment but the fact that it is ambiguous makes it kind of pointless.

If you can read that as a pro-Brexit comment, then the Brexit project succeeded beyond its instigators' wildest dreams. It's not ambiguous at all. Everything in the UK going on right now -- everything -- has a "some of this is unclear or worse because Brexit has destroyed agreements or because proposed, nearly impossible agreements have not been struck" subplot. Brexit has set fire to every kind of international comp…

Thank you for clarifying. The confusion is because your comment could easily be interpreted as a criticism of lazy reporting (everything negative that occurs must be because of brexit) rather than actual criticism due to a real issue beyond how it is reported.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#47

Post by unfocussed_mike »

DrBazza wrote: post #45
CodeGlitch wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise that countries can work together without being part of the same trading block? ... If I understand your nonsensical ramblings correctly.

And 2 seconds of googling: "The UK will remain part of Iter" https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3551

Your googling would also show that the article dates from more than a year ago.

A lot changed.

Basically, fundamental disagreements with Europe over predicate treaties mean that the thing we committed to do (remain part of ITER) is under threat, because other things we committed to do (uphold transition agreements regarding Northern Ireland) are in default.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-euro...

In this case, the EU is saying, sorry, you possibly can't stay a member of our science club because you promised you'd do certain things that underpin an internationally agreed peace process and you are undoing them.

It's a completely legitimate political bargaining point that would not be an issue at all without Brexit.

The intent to remain members of ITER and Horizon 2020 is genuinely at risk.

All of this underpins my point: everything is more complex because of Brexit -- even staying in things we've said we really really want to stay in.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#48

Post by AitchEmArsey »

mannykannot wrote: post #24
ginko wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In fact, it takes 4,184 joules to raise the temperature of 1kg of water by 1 degree. Or 313800 joules to raise 1kg of water by 75 degrees. That means JET could have boiled about 188 kg of water. This is missing the heat of vaporization[1] needed to actually boil the water though, i.e. to turn 100C liquid water to 100C steam. That's another 2250kJ/kg on top of the 313.8kJ/kg you've mentioned. It's why steam is such a…

> I guess you could argue that you wouldn't evaporate all water in the kettle... One does not have to argue for that interpretation - raising the temperature to boiling point, not boiling it dry, is indisputably the accepted and intended meaning of the phrase wherever English is spoken... though it would fit with a certain stereotype of scientists if a bunch of plasma physicists did not know how to make a pot of tea!

Start by assuming a spherical teapot in a vacuum...

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#49

Post by oxfordmale »

kristaps wrote: post #42
oxfordmale wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course this is great news, however, it is worth taking into account it took them 25 years just to double the energy output. They are also nowhere near long sustained operation of such reactors. It really requires an order of magnitude increase before nuclear fusion becomes a realistic prospect in two decades. I understand this just to validate design choices and it is a good step forward. However, it doesn't make…

From the article I gathered that this run was mostly about validating some design choices for ITER, not about pushing output limits.

Yes in that sense it is a great achievement, however, it only put us a tiny baby step closer to fusion power.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#50

Post by causi »

mannykannot wrote: post #24
ginko wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In fact, it takes 4,184 joules to raise the temperature of 1kg of water by 1 degree. Or 313800 joules to raise 1kg of water by 75 degrees. That means JET could have boiled about 188 kg of water. This is missing the heat of vaporization[1] needed to actually boil the water though, i.e. to turn 100C liquid water to 100C steam. That's another 2250kJ/kg on top of the 313.8kJ/kg you've mentioned. It's why steam is such a…

> I guess you could argue that you wouldn't evaporate all water in the kettle... One does not have to argue for that interpretation - raising the temperature to boiling point, not boiling it dry, is indisputably the accepted and intended meaning of the phrase wherever English is spoken... though it would fit with a certain stereotype of scientists if a bunch of plasma physicists did not know how to make a pot of tea!

indisputably the accepted and intended meaning of the phrase wherever English is spoken

Not exactly. In American English "bring a pot to a boil" is much more common. When I read "enough energy to boil 60 kettles of water" I thought "vaporize".

Post reply on HN