Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

nature.com

31–40 of 282 posts

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#31
post #8

Note, the power output was about 1/3 the power needed to sustain the reaction. > JET’s latest experiment sustained a Q of 0.33 for 5 seconds, says Rimini. JET is a scaled-down version of ITER, at one-tenth of the volume — a bathtub compared to a swimming pool, says Proll. It loses heat more easily than ITER, so it was never expected to hit breakeven. If engineers applied the same conditions and physics approach to IT…

Q=10 is still not enough if you actually measure the whole experimental setup. Don't forget that to goal is to make a power plant where the whole building produces more energy than it consumes, and does it economically.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#32

Excellent news, we need this so badly, especially now in Europe with Germany shutting down its nuclear (fission) plants and NS2 being cancelled. It's astonishing to me that the world isn't pulling out all the stops on fusion development, something like the space race or Manhattan project. Unfortunately, last I heard ITER building has halted: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/02/21/french-regulator-h...

Even if fusion succeeds in net positive energy (which is still a ways off - even ITER, planned to finish in 2030, will not actually generate energy, they didn't even add a turbine to try), there are huge hurdles to scanning it up. It's impossible for fusion to be a significant source of energy in the time left to avert catastrophic global warming. Even with the most optimistic estimates, we will at best have a handfu…

The catastrophic global warming you mention is not a boolean. It can always get worse, with the planet becoming more and more inhospitable, up to the point where mankind can't survive (wet bulb temperature permanently above 35c --> everyone dies without air conditioning) - and beyond.

Even if it's too late to avoid it completely, it still makes very much sense to work on not making it even worse.

Suggesting to abandon efforts in something because it will anyway not be ready in time, or to stop restrictions because "anyway it's too late" is just the next step in the strategy of the deniers - or, rather, their agitators, motivated by immense profit.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion will not solve any energy problems we have today, and is unconnected to them. Fusion will have to, maybe, compete with solar/wind/storage in 20-30 years, and beat the prices for that 20-30 years from now. With solar+storage being cheaper than many fossil fuels today, fusion is going to have to be extremely cheap to be able to be a competitive terrestrial energy source with 20-30 years more of solar and storage…

I agree that solar/wind price points have massively gone down but how is storage a solved problem? I have only seen research projects in this field, is there anyone who has commercially deployed an energy storage solution? (other than hydro projects)

These look almost there (I know, I know, "almost"):

https://ambri.com/ (liquid metal battery)

https://www.hydrostor.ca/ (compressed air)

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if fusion succeeds in net positive energy (which is still a ways off - even ITER, planned to finish in 2030, will not actually generate energy, they didn't even add a turbine to try), there are huge hurdles to scanning it up. It's impossible for fusion to be a significant source of energy in the time left to avert catastrophic global warming. Even with the most optimistic estimates, we will at best have a handfu…

This is a really common kind of comment to this issue, but I think it's extremely short-sighted. At this point, because we're probably well past the point that anything we can practically do is likely to get us to net zero carbon before catastrophe (it's already here, really), we're at a point where we're probably going to need to go extremely negative even once we do get there. We're (ironically) going to need a lot…

The point isn't that people don't think some green energy source is needed, but that fusion energy has been 'two decades away' for three quarters of a century.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion will not solve any energy problems we have today, and is unconnected to them. Fusion will have to, maybe, compete with solar/wind/storage in 20-30 years, and beat the prices for that 20-30 years from now. With solar+storage being cheaper than many fossil fuels today, fusion is going to have to be extremely cheap to be able to be a competitive terrestrial energy source with 20-30 years more of solar and storage…

I agree that solar/wind price points have massively gone down but how is storage a solved problem? I have only seen research projects in this field, is there anyone who has commercially deployed an energy storage solution? (other than hydro projects)

This short read should answer your questions:

https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-...

It seems that we are at the turning point.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#38
post #17

As much as I enjoy reading this news. It is feels heavily sensationalized. "Smashes" the energy record. We're talking about a fusion generator here, that after 25 years of work, now manages to output 'double' the energy, to 59 MJ in 5s -like 20 MW- while requiring 180 MJ input power. Somewhere hidden in the article is the news that this could mean a input/output ratio of 10 in a full scale reactor, but that's also so…

They are forever smashing this or that record, on the verge of break-even, on track to producing free energy without nasty radionuclides. But it is always a con. If they ever do get Q high enough to make energy production conceivable -- it will need Q > 100, when said and done -- a Tokamak reactor will cost 10x much as the equal-grade fission reactor, and cost >10x as much to operate. As fission reactors are today not competitive, and get less competitive by the day, power from Tokamak fusion will not ever be lighting up your house. That is not a bad thing: solar and wind are wholly up to the task, and just need building out. The more there is, the cheaper it gets.

The only reliable product of the hot-neutron fusion research industry is dishonesty.

There is also aneutronic fusion, that might actually have a future, even if only in space: If we are ever to operate in the outer solar system, something of the sort will be needed. Unfortunately it gets almost no money.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#39

Excellent news, we need this so badly, especially now in Europe with Germany shutting down its nuclear (fission) plants and NS2 being cancelled. It's astonishing to me that the world isn't pulling out all the stops on fusion development, something like the space race or Manhattan project. Unfortunately, last I heard ITER building has halted: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/02/21/french-regulator-h...

In the same timeframe, much more success has been found in improving the efficiency of renewable power solutions which are functional out of the box, easier to maintain/update, cheaper, and an easier sell.

I agree that fusion is important to research, but comparing it to the Manhattan Project or the Space Race is to forget that the world was at war when the atomic bomb was delivered from theory to reality in, what, 27 months?

The world was locked in the grip of paranoia about nuclear armageddon and the US/Russia both felt the same existential need to establish a space presence to avoid losing ground or giving so much as a hint that either side might be technologically less capable of catastrophically second striking the other.

Fusion is a notion that has been actively researched and experimented with in a time of relative peace. There's less pressure on the world because no one sees climate change in the same light as nuclear war.

The world still has conflicts, but in the minds of the West, the nations that are in conflict are always in conflict, it's just how it is out there. Obviously this view is absolutely ethnocentric and absurd, but that's the mindset.

War's just something to report on, something people almost expect to see on breakfast TV when they go to work. It would almost be eerie for them not to see or read about a war somewhere.

Thus, I would argue in the absence of existential crisis, and in the presence of the climate change narrative where words like "renewable" and "green" are easily distinguished over "less waste than fission", fusion power ultimately just lost as a business prospect to renewable energy.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion will not solve any energy problems we have today, and is unconnected to them. Fusion will have to, maybe, compete with solar/wind/storage in 20-30 years, and beat the prices for that 20-30 years from now. With solar+storage being cheaper than many fossil fuels today, fusion is going to have to be extremely cheap to be able to be a competitive terrestrial energy source with 20-30 years more of solar and storage…

The issue with solar is the land area usage in densely populated countries, less of a problem in the US but here in the UK the is a lot of push back against building solar farms on agricultural land. There is a convincing argument that we need to discourage the practice in order to maintain domestic food production. Obviously there are alternative locations such a roofs of commercial buildings and over the top of car…

There is absolutely no problem with land area for solar and wind.

First, the amount of land used for fossil fuel extraction today is less than the total needed to park all the power generation equipment we will need. All of that land will soon be unused.

Second, putting up solar over existing farm and pasture land increases yield and reduces water needs. Solar over canals and reservoirs cuts evaporation loss. Solar over parking lots keeps off sun and rain, making cars last longer. There is no need to devote any land exclusively to energy production.

Finally, wind also coexists nicely with agriculture. A wind turbine not connected to the grid can be synthesizing ammonia whenever the wind blows, for local use as both fertilizer and fuel, much more cheaply than central industrial production that then must be trucked in.

Post reply on HN