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

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

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 282 posts

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

#41

Post by roenxi »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #36
stormbrew wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unthinkable quantities of fossil fuel energy was within reach for 10,000 years of human history had anyone put 20 years of effort in to reach for it. 75 years without success when trying to tap into a new energy source isn't that disheartening.

It is well worth keeping focus on fusion energy, especially if there are theoretical reasons to think it works.

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

#42

Post by danuker »

gmueckl wrote: post #24
markvdb wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary: myself. In the short and medium term, it's obvious that wind and solar are going to help us avoid the worst of the climate crisis. In the long term, we might need something more to reverse climate change. Existing nuclear fission energy capacity might be a short term stopgap. It's just clearly not sustainable because inherently too risky: - military/terror/nuclear proliferat…

The German green party had made it part of their program to stop all research into all kinds of "nuclear" technologies, explicitly listing fusion research as something to be stopped. I think that this passage has been removed again, but the whole thing still serves as a good indicator for the sentiments here.

They do not mention fusion, but they are still clearly against fission:

> Wir vollenden den Atomausstieg und bekennen uns zum verabredeten Pfad der Endlagersuche mit höchsten Sicherheitsstandards bei größtmöglicher Transparenz und Beteiligung der Bevölkerung. Der Rückbau der bestehenden Atomkraftwerke muss schleunigst und ohne Zeitverzögerung auf höchstem Sicherheitsniveau erfolgen. Die Atomfabriken in Gronau und Lingen wollen wir schnellstmöglich schließen Auch in der EU werden wir den Einstieg in den Atomausstieg vorantreiben.

https://www.gruene.de/themen/energie

Google Translation:

> We are completing the nuclear phase-out and are committed to the agreed path of searching for a repository with the highest safety standards and the greatest possible transparency and participation of the population. The dismantling of the existing nuclear power plants must be carried out as quickly as possible and without any delay at the highest level of safety. We want to close the nuclear factories in Gronau and Lingen as quickly as possible. In the EU, too, we will promote the phase-out of nuclear power.

I believe it is misguided. Fission is a great intermediary technology, which killed way less people than coal, oil, and gas per energy produced, including the nuclear accidents.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#nuclear-...

Shutting down fission before finding a solution for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing is nuts, and results in emergency fuel burning (gas and coal).

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

#43

Post by pyinstallwoes »

jve wrote: post #9
jetru wrote: post #3

Skeptical. This video by Sabine clearly explains why a lot of these fusion research claims are dubious with a focus on ITER and JET: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

Moreover she communicates that to achieve the desired goal, Qtotal is the one that must exceed 1, and that is harder to achieve. That is, total electrical energy generated to exceed total energy to run the system. You have losses down the road, particularly when converting heat to electricity. It doesn't take away from research that is being done/must be done, but rather how far we are today from the results.

> 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 ITER as to JET, she says, it would probably reach its goal of a Q of 10, producing ten times the energy put in.

"If engineers applied the same conditions and physics..."

"...probably reach its goal of a Q of 10..."

So casually thrown about!

Source (the OP nature article): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00391-1

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

#44

Post by cr15 »

jetru wrote: post #3

Skeptical. This video by Sabine clearly explains why a lot of these fusion research claims are dubious with a focus on ITER and JET: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

Worth noting she makes several mistakes in her analysis, although her point stands she is likely over estimating the detla.

As this video is always posted on threads about fusion I'll just link to the last time it came up.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30271677&p=2#30273453

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

#45

Post by pyinstallwoes »

ahoka wrote: post #31
calibas wrote: 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.

A 1000% return is insane economically. Perhaps I'm not seeing the logic but the pure YOY return on 1000% seems to logically conclude a rational strategy of "nothing else matters besides building this and it will easily pay off and investment"

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

#46

Post by joss82 »

ncmncm wrote: post #38
Aeolun wrote: 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 no…

> The more there is, the cheaper it gets.

This also applies to nuclear fusion (and, BTW, fission) reactors.

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

#47

Post by pyinstallwoes »

calibas wrote: 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…

The best part to me:

> ... If engineers applied the same conditions and physics ...

& __physics__

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

#48

Post by ncmncm »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #13
epistasis wrote: post #5

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)

The only problems we have with storage are (1) determining which will end up cheapest, or has the most valuable side benefits, and (2) building out.

Hydrogen, anhydrous ammonia, and liquified air all produce a valuable industrial product once the tanks are full. Used to be their round-trip efficiency was considered too low, but with solar panels getting dirt cheap, just putting up more panels accommodates almost any conceivable loss. Likewise for long-distance high-voltage transmission lines; China is even building cables to Chile (!) for winter power from desert panel farms.

Factories for industrial amounts of iron-air batteries are already under construction, and will be in full production by end of next year.

It turns out that pumped hydro, the most mature and efficient current method, has far more potential than generally assumed. A regular hydro power dam has to be in a river valley with a big watershed area. But for hydro storage, all you need is a penstock up to a depression in the hills, no watershed or river needed. There are millions of those. Even if you build a dam along one end, it's cheap. And you can float solar panels on it, where they will reduce evaporation and also run more efficiently.

Storage is a solved problem. We don't have much of it yet just because a renewable dollar is today better spent on a panel or turbine, and because cost for storage is falling even faster than for solar panels. Wait a bit, get more for the same money.

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

#49

Post by rep_movsd »

Fusion is "sensational" science

Much like AGI, "room temperature superconductors", "Mars colonization" and so on - the science is intense, the reporting hyped up and every tiny step will continue to be posted again and again as if something revolution happened.

Meanwhile the world needs to many more nuclear reactors pronto if at all we stand a chance of climate change mitigation

We need better web security and privacy, better engineered cities and so on But no one cares about mundane engineering that may actually work - they only like pies in the skies

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

#50

Post by ncmncm »

joss82 wrote: post #46
ncmncm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

> The more there is, the cheaper it gets. This also applies to nuclear fusion (and, BTW, fission) reactors.

Tokamak fusion can only ever be far more expensive, per watt and per watt-hour, than existing fission. Fission is getting more expensive all the time.
Post reply on HN