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

US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

energy.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#271

Post by mbauman »

frellus wrote: post #74
frellus wrote: post #66

I hate to ask this, but have to ... is there any danger of these discoveries being weaponized easily by hostile countries? i.e. does this make unconventional weapons more accessible to countries who otherwise have embargoes on technology and material to make atomic weapons?

Oops, answered my own question I guess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_fusion_weapon That ain't good. Although fusion is clearly the future of energy, we have to get our sh*t together on earth so we don't kill ourselves off or devolve with endless wars. Or give up and use fusion to leave the planet efficiently.

> That ain't good.

Your takeaway does not match that article. The article details how "no measurable success was ever achieved" and that the large amount of energy required to start fusion is hugely prohibitive.

I don't see how the NIF's success here changes that.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#272

Post by orthecreedence »

pfdietz wrote: post #169
hackernewds wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offset the financial viability with the cost of freedom from energy reliance and the need (more like craving) for military interventions

That would be a valid argument if the only alternative to fusion was petroleum.

I'm confused by this. Does the US have the productive forces and resources to replace petrolium with solar panels (and the required energy storage)? Does it have the nuclear fuel to replace petrolium with fission reactors?

What alternatives to petrolium does the US have that it does not rely on others for?

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#273

Post by SoftTalker »

alexose wrote: post #124
raydiatian wrote: post #60

> 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…

This work is the result of decades of effort under many administrations. This PR piece makes it sound like it all happened in the last two years under Biden-Harris and a set of Senators and Representatives who all happen to be from one party. I had to stop reading to get the vomit taste out of my mouth.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#275

Post by jszymborski »

valine wrote: post #135
thehappypm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s potentially just a much better version of fission. Fusion won’t cause a runaway reaction — in fact it’s brutally difficult to get it to react at all, hence why this is an achievement. It also doesn’t use materials that can be used for a bomb, again unlike fission. As a result it has the potential to be cheaper to implement, cheaper to fuel, with no meltdown risk.

Also don’t forget the biggest benefit over solar/wind: it keeps on generating power on cold windless nights.

No need to worry about Cold Dunkelflaut!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xsg9iK5yo

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#276

Post by risyachka »

mFixman wrote: post #104

Widespread energy generation nuclear fission is politically impossible in most Western countries. Why are people optimistic that fusion won't have the same kind of problems, such as new plants being too expensive to build and old obsolete plants being too useful to decommission?

The main backlash for fission is not cost but danger.

Fusion removes it.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#277

Post by baq »

hackernewds wrote: post #127
pfdietz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Q needs to be something like 500 to 1000, not because of energy breakeven, but to produce enough energy that the shot is financially positive. The amount of fusion energy produced in this shot is worth a penny or two. (And even then, it's dubious a laser fusion scheme will be competitive with other energy sources.)

Offset the financial viability with the cost of freedom from energy reliance and the need (more like craving) for military interventions

Military interventions to blow up other people’s under construction fusion reactors will still be a thing, worry not

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#278

Post by adventured »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #199
tmccrary55 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has pretty conclusively shown that they aren't even close to the same league as the US in terms of warfare. Like comparing an amateur pickup basketball team to the Chicago Bulls.

Uh what US warfare have you been watching? Your analogy only works if it’s the like the 2000-200 Bulls (15-67).

> Uh what US warfare have you been watching?

The one where the US tends to perform well against its adversaries. True in the Civil War. True in WW1. True in WW2. True in Korea. True in Vietnam. True in the Gulf War. True in Afghanistan. True in Iraq.

And now just a smidgen of its old weapons are helping Ukraine humiliate Russia.

The US was in Afghanistan for two decades with 1,932 soldiers killed by hostile action.

Russia lost 15,000+ soldiers in Afghanistan in ten years (probably far higher given the information available and how we've seen Russia lie so dramatically about its losses in Ukraine). It's going to lose 100,000 soldiers in Ukraine in a little over a year.

The US could have held Afghanistan perpetually with 15,000-20,000 soldiers on the ground. The Taliban is a joke of a fighting force, they never competed well with the US; but they have replacement numbers, and guerrilla wars are very time consuming to fight and require massive troop deployments to actually win (you have to suffocate every corner of the enemy presence, like battling an infestation). It wasn't worth it and voters decided that, it had begun to become an unpopular nation building exercise despite the very low losses for the US.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#279

Post by blamestross »

willis936 wrote: post #236
dogma1138 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the scale and reactor design, we have really good examples of run away fusion reactions. Run away reactions are easy, controlled ones are hard. And whilst I won’t doubt that if fusion ever becomes commercially viable the reactors would be walk away safe it doesn’t mean that you don’t need to account for that in your design.

What is an example of a run away fusion reaction?

A Hydrogen Bomb. It is basically using a nuke (fission) to trigger fusion instead of lasers.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#280

Post by belval »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #232

Maybe I missed it but it's not a net positive output. From the article, the implication it is: "LLNL’s experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 MJ of fusion energy output" From newscientist, the same info followed by a rider: "generated a power output of 3.15 megajoules from a laser power output of 2.05 megajoules – a gain of around 150 pe…

This was explained by another commenter yesterday, but this is not an issue. The 3.15:2.05 ratio is the news as it is the part that was difficult to achieve. The 300MJ accounts for significant laser inefficiencies in much the same way that the 3.15MJ of output won't convert to 3.15MJ of electricity as the conversion is not loss less.

In other words: it's a net-positive output for that reaction, not the whole process, there is still a lot of work to be done before you and I exchange comments on a server powered by fusion energy in homes powered by fusion energy.

Post reply on HN