Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
The B-21 isn't unmanned, the nuclear-capable B-2 already existed, and we've had fusion bombs since the 1950s.
The B-21 is stated to be capable of uncrewed operation.
US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
211–220 of 1001 posts
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#212Let's say this all works out and over the next few decades fusion replaces all other electricity generation, and we're past the point where all the initial infrastructure costs have been paid for. How much will my electric bill be reduced?
Initial investment cost to build reactors would in all likelihood be very high just by the nature of these being some of the most complex machines on the planet. It seems unlikely any sort of fast manufacturing line could be created to build these, and they’d all likely be built one at a time like fission reactors.
Running costs and maintenance would also be high, the fuel alone is expensive (right now), and I’ve heard that wear and tear on parts of the reactors can be high so much of the housing for the reactor would need to be replaced with time.
You’ve probably also got a small army of engineers running each one of these reactors you’ve got to pay.
All that said, the energy produced via fusion is EXTREMELY abundant. I imagine with later reactor iterations (after supply chains have been setup and electrical transportation routes upgrades) electricity could become very cheap even relative to renewables.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should I agree with this article of faith? The obstacles appear quite grave to me. Moreover, even reaching that Q doesn't mean we're there. That's a necessary, not sufficient, condition. A large, complex machine that explodes the equivalent of 500 lb. bombs to generate heat to drive a turbine sounds like an engineering nightmare.
Because sustainable positive energy out has never been achieved before in 60 years of research. This is gigantic. It’s potential to decarbonize the world is massive, and now it became a whole lot less theoretical. It’s an incredible milestone, not a solved problem.
That's a circular argument. It's big because the people doing it call it big. Why should I, an outsider, care about their internal goals, their egoes, or their status in their field? What does it do or imply for me?
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#214> achieve President Biden’s goal This seems unnecessarily partisan to mention
The full quote is > This historic, first-of-its kind achievement will provide unprecedented capability to support NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship Program and will provide invaluable insights into the prospects of clean fusion energy, which would be a game-changer for efforts to achieve President Biden’s goal of a net-zero carbon economy. That is his administration's goal, and it's the directive that DoE is working under…
Thank you for educating me. I was unaware Joe Biden invented the concept of bringing down CO2 emissions. It’s important that we’re calling him out by name so that we can illustrate the sixty years of effort put forth by the hard working men and women in nuclear physics. It is, after all, his money that is funding this research effort.
Sincerely, a Biden voter
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#215Since I absolutely decided to take this in the worst possible way (get the downvotes ready)
What is the timeframe for those lasers to light a bulb somewhere, vs the timeframe of those lasers killing someone on a battlefield ? (As in, how much of is applicable for the military?)
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are our modern J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Edward Teller, John Von Neumann, and Stanislaw Ulam?
> Who are our modern J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Edward Teller, John Von Neumann, and Stanislaw Ulam? they're working on getting you to click on an ad
[deleted]
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#217I tried to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on what this means in regards to energy costs being saved, because I couldn't find a direct source (maybe GPT could help actually). Anyway, based on ITER [1] to equate the energy production of a 1000MW coal plant you would need 2.7t of coal for that plant or 250kg of deuterium and tritium for the fusion reactor (split equally). Based on [2] deuetrium costs about ~$…
[0] provides economic analysis for this type of power plant. They conclude it would not be unreasonable to get levelized cost of energy could get as low as $25/MWh. For this one really needs a high gain of 1000, although gains of 400 are a bit more reasonable, and a gain of around 100 may be economically competitive in some cases. While the gain NIF achieved was about 1.5, there is good reason to expect it can be sca…
>> Ignition is a runaway process, so small changes in the input can result in large changes in the output. Hydrogen bombs, which also use a burning plasma as was demonstrated here, also suggest that the gain and yield may be scaled up.
Hydrogen bombs are driven by indirect implosion by a nuclear primary. It isn't a runaway process; the yield of a secondary is limited by the implosion achieved by the primary. Most hypothetical designs for an inertial fusion power plant achieve similar energy gains.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn’t what this would be used for. In fact, yields for the largest deployed H-bombs today I think are smaller than they once were (due to better targeting capabilities).
What do you think the US nuclear weapons research lab will use their research for? You're right that increasing the yield was a bad example from my side, but the purpose is to improve the weapons, nothing else.
The B53 bomb was built in 1961 and it released 38 PJ or 10 BILLION times more energy than this experiment. Data gathered about plasma and fusion at NIF temperatures and pressures is not helpful for the insanely different environment of a nuclear bomb.
> What do you think the US nuclear weapons research lab will use their research for?
Why do you think that fusion is not enough? Complete strategic energy independence for the US, and dominance in the electricity sector? That's so, SO much more valuable than better nuclear weapons.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#219> achieve President Biden’s goal This seems unnecessarily partisan to mention
The full quote is > This historic, first-of-its kind achievement will provide unprecedented capability to support NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship Program and will provide invaluable insights into the prospects of clean fusion energy, which would be a game-changer for efforts to achieve President Biden’s goal of a net-zero carbon economy. That is his administration's goal, and it's the directive that DoE is working under…
The GOP has been pro-nuclear for a long time.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#220I’m glad we might see fission power plants in my lifetime (next 30-50 years). My father still finds it novel that he basically gets to wear Dick Tracy’s watch.
Yet I’m concerned that shortly thereafter, the giant robotic laser death spiders will destroy entire cities. This might also be be before we’ve built the arcologies to launch into outer space to escape the giant robot laser death spiders.