I love the reference to a hairdryer. Science communication at its best that helped me put this all in context.
Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
41–50 of 289 posts
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it's complex interaction. But where should our focus priorities be, what task should we do first...what should we publish most about??? Maybe my priorities are wrong...what are you saying?
It's possible to do 2 things at once.
Of course, more focus on food security tho. Using the rising tide of promotion of fusion to draw attention to this more important goal is a good.
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#43Still unconvinced why this is such a major breakthrough - it may be the first net-positive controlled fusion, but the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled fusion is a bit academic in this case. In uncontrolled fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon), you are using a nuclear fission primary stage to generate enough energy to start the fusion reaction in the secondary stage. In the NIF, you are using lasers (that have to be aligned to trillionths of a meter and damage their own guiding optics everytime they fire) to start the fusion reaction in a smaller pellet (that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars). So the only real difference between the first and the second case is that the H-bomb is smaller, much more expensive per amount of energy released, and explodes inside a chamber. And it's obvious to pretty much everyone who is paying attention that transforming this setup into a working and cost-effective fusion power plant is a very tall order. Also, what somehow always gets left out of these articles is that the NIF is a military facility financed from the "(Nuclear) Stockpile Stewardship" budget. So its primary objective is studying fusion in a controlled way, but for building better bombs (and retaining the expertise necessary to build them), not for energy production.
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, early transistors were 3-5 orders of magnitude larger, slower and more dissipative than those we have today. So by the same argument, the computer revolution would have seemed impossible just 50 years ago.
Transistors? Computers before them used vacuum tubes. In 1943 Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, said, "I think there's a world market for maybe five computers." Now, it would be easy for us to laugh at him, thanks to us being almost 80 years in the future, but on the topic of "what does the future hold for us", put yourself in Watson's place. You're reasonably smart and knowledgeable, and understand what goes into a co…
Thomas Watson's quote is misrepresented and it is more prescient than it appears. There are indeed maybe five computers on the world market: the BlackRock computer [1], the Google computer, the Tencent computer, and maybe a few others. A computer can be implemented in one CPU, or in millions of CPUs: if the control and the data ownership behind the CPUs is the same, it is still one computer. Watson's quote is more about psychology rather than technology, just look at the hullabaloo of crypto: a theoretically decentralized technology and the people still use centralized exchanges.
In the extreme you could say that today we have only one computer, the ASML computer [2], since they are the only ones making the machine that makes the machine.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin_(BlackRock)
[2] ASML: TSMC's Critical Supplier, Explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFsn1CUyXWs
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brilliant! YOur semantics have solved the wolrd food crisis. Advance to next stagel
You don't think having a cheap way to power artificial light sources might be relavent to the food crisis in places not suitable to growing food the natural way?
Think about it. I don't think "those places" are going to be getting first dibs on fusion anyway, not de point. It's not that it ain't relevant. Of course interacts, but focus on food first.
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#46Most interesting fact from the article. At the system level it took 300 million Joules to produce 3 Million a 1% return - so still a very long way to go! With this kind of approach I can’t see how fusion can ever be cheap, the capital costs are enormous. Better to focus on standardised production lines for small fission reactors.
It's better to focus on standardised production lines for small fission reactors currently if your goal is to produce energy for the power grid right now, but that's not what cutting-edge research or science is about. Whoever launched the first firework probably didn't see how people could walk on the moon either. Science is rarely a linear path. It's also rarely "I have this problem so I solved it this way." That's…
Except it isn't the HN readership who choose to constantly frame these stories in terms of engineering. From the article:
"These and other scientific, technological and engineering hurdles will need to be overcome before fusion will produce electricity for your home. Work will also need to be done to bring the cost of a fusion power plant well down from the US$3.5 billion of the National Ignition Facility. These steps will require significant investment from both the federal government and private industry."
If fusion research scientists continue to insist that their research has any viable path to use in commercial power generation, and to demand large amounts on funding on that basis, then they should expect to be critiqued on that same basis.
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> produce enough food to feed everyone? The soil crisis and the phosphorus crisis.... Are all ultimately problems of energy being too scarce (and therefore too expensive).
I don't think so. You can be doing the wrong (unsustainable thing), even if you could afford to do the right thing.
Humans usually do the cheap thing. Historically making the right thing the cheap option has been much much more effective than trying to nag the invisible hand, which basically never works.
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#48Quoted post unavailable.
Look everyone this is fun and all but I’m not going to waste my time going back and forth on this. Sort it out amongst yourselves. You can pretend you’ve won and everything, I’m cool with that.
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. You can be doing the wrong (unsustainable thing), even if you could afford to do the right thing.
Humans usually do the cheap thing. Historically making the right thing the cheap option has been much much more effective than trying to nag the invisible hand, which basically never works.
It's not the point, having cheaper energy is not going to magically reverse priorities. Focus on what's important. Anyway, you work it out. I'm not gonna waste my time having a discussion here.
Re: Nuclear physicist explains why fusion ignition is hailed as a major breakthrough
#50Still unconvinced why this is such a major breakthrough - it may be the first net-positive controlled fusion, but the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled fusion is a bit academic in this case. In uncontrolled fusion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon ), you are using a nuclear fission primary stage to generate enough energy to start the fusion reaction in the secondary stage. In the NIF,…
With regards to NIF being a military facility, I'd very much think that energy production (cheap, safe, limitless?) is very much a military needs as much as a civilian need.
Even if said energy goes further to power laser weapons or other exotic power hungry systems; energy is energy, and something has to produce it.