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

221–230 of 827 posts

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#221

Post by arlort »

reacharavindh wrote: post #107

As an uneducated observer to nuclear physics, I could not tell the significance of this achievement. Did we finally learn how to extract more energy from a fusion rector than we supplied to operate it? Could anyone more in the know here explain in simpler and more practical terms please?

> Results fully in line with predictions, strengthening the case for ITER

This is the main take away for me, JET is not a standalone project, it's part of the whole ITER project which is supposed to go like this:

+ JET as a scaled down model provides testing and data for + ITER which I believe is a full scale model and is supposed to generate net gain (heat in vs heat out, not net electricity) and provide information to + DEMO which is supposed to produce net electricity (though not at market rate costs)

So the fact that it worked as predicted is a good sign (or at least as good as we can get) that ITER will work which will be a good sign for DEMO etc

Also not an expert though

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#222

Post by einpoklum »

dangom wrote: post #130
IceHegel wrote: post #120

Not to be an asshole, but I think the fusion crowd could go for more of an under promise, over deliver mentality.

No one will get funded with that mentality in such a high-risk high-reward area like fusion. But indeed after so many headlines I agree with you that no one gets excited about these news anymore.

My very limited exposure to the EU research funding world suggests that it is customary (at least in applied CS) to massively overstate the potential benefits and scope of your project, and it is understood/accepted that you will backtrack when reporting progress (or even already in the detailed description of what work will be done). Unfortunate, but it probably means that your comment is valid.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#223

Post by [deleted] »

spuz wrote: post #142
cnasc wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you live in a smallish, not-so-sunny country like the UK. How much of your land area do you have to cover with solar panels in order to completely rid the nation of fossil fuels?

Apparently, about 12% of the land or 29,690 sq km in order to meet current energy demands (electricity, petrol, oil and gas). Apparently, only 6% of the country is currently built on which suggests that for any country of a similar latitude, you can estimate a land total of double that currently used per person. This does not take into account energy storage and assumes no energy is generated at night. https://www.fi…

[deleted]

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#225

Post by ggrrhh_ta »

oakwhiz wrote: post #135
limaoscarjuliet wrote: post #109

According to Sabine Hossenfelder, published numbers are frequently mis-stated on purpose. When you look at frequently reported Q Plasma (or plasma efficiency) we are not that far from it being > 1. However, we should look at Q Total (total efficiency), which is still way below https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY For years, I was hoping fusion is close. After watching Sabine's video, I'm not so optimistic anym…

Why would any experimenters optimize for Q total if Q plasma is a prerequisite to get anywhere?

Well, because it makes no sense to try to increase Q plasma; to what end? As pointed by others, you can increase Q plasma at the expense of Q total, thus precisely optimizing for the wrong objective (fusion can be produced and studied without looking at Q plasma or Q total; although reporting Q plasma along with the time that the reaction was sustained is helpful). I give you an analogy: let's make the most power-efficient floating point unit; but let's focus on Q_float, instead of Q_total; at the end we would end with a simple very wide adder; if we want to multiply two numbers, the system will convert them to their logarithms, add them, and then use exponentiation. Yes, the floating point unit consumed very little power Q_float was great. Well, I guess you get the point.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#226

Post by Wiseacre »

khafra wrote: post #182
ambrozk wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very dumb meme that people use to avoid learning anything about the actual hurdles that are currently being faced by fusion researchers. At some point, fusion will be much less than 30 years away, and at that point, I guarantee you that lazy people will still be repeating this joke, because it is literaly the only thing they know about the subject.

"Fusion is always 30 years away" is a heuristic that almost always works. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost...

We haven't even been splitting atoms for a full century yet. Give science some goddamn time to work.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#227

Post by kimbernator »

dymk wrote: post #172
ComradePhil wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Fusion is completely different from solar. It can provide steady energy without going down for years. Solar goes down multiple times a day.

Name a single fusion plant that has been running uninterrupted for years. Meanwhile Australia has retooled for 10% Solar and batteries in a matter of years, that number is rapidly increasing, and is turning off their coal plants.

the sun

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#229

Post by j245 »

pulse7 wrote: post #218

59 megajoules (MJ) = 16.4 kWh. For comparison: Tesla Model 3 (Standard Range) has 60 kWh battery. So they made about 1/4 of the full Tesla Model 3 battery.

> So they made about 1/4 of the full Tesla Model 3 battery.

Focusing on absolute numbers is pretty irrelevant, wouldn’t you say ?

We know once we get a working prototype it can be scaled up relatively easily.

Strange to see a storage mechanism (battery) compared to a generation mechanism (fusion plant)

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#230

Post by dymk »

kimbernator wrote: post #227
dymk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name a single fusion plant that has been running uninterrupted for years. Meanwhile Australia has retooled for 10% Solar and batteries in a matter of years, that number is rapidly increasing, and is turning off their coal plants.

the sun

This is a great example, we should try to make use of all that sun (is there another word for that?) energy!
Post reply on HN