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

51–60 of 282 posts

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

#51

Post by t43562 »

gruturo wrote: post #32
tsimionescu wrote: post #4

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…

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 abando…

Should we build N Wind turbines or blow the money on more fusion research? I would guess that we need to keep fusion research alive but the real bulk of the money should be for things that will work now.

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

#52

Post by londons_explore »

Are we actually learning new bits of fundamental science from these experiments?

Are there still bits of these fusion reactions we can't simulate accurately enough due to insufficient compute?

Or is it just a matter of ironing out engineering issues?

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

#53

Post by bratwurst3000 »

gruturo wrote: post #32
tsimionescu wrote: post #4

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…

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 abando…

I get your point but honestly you have to be an optimist to think that way. Al Gore was nearly voted in office on a global warming campaign. And since then nearly nothing good happened and it only got worse. So how can you judge someone who is just thinking about themself or profits at this times? I try to be optimistic and engage in politics to change the world a bit but as time pass by it feels more and more like a last „ grab what you can to have good life“ before catastrophe.

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

#54

Post by chmod775 »

ncmncm wrote: post #50
joss82 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Tokamak fusion can only ever be far more expensive, per watt and per watt-hour, than existing fission.

Why?

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

#55

Post by ncmncm »

rep_movsd wrote: post #49

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 privac…

If averting climate disruption depended on fission or fusion, we would be doomed.

Fortunately, solar and wind are up to the task.

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

#56

Post by ncmncm »

pyinstallwoes wrote: post #45
ahoka wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

A 1000% return only just covers unavoidable inefficiencies.

No Tokamak will ever pay off its investment.

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

#57

Post by rob74 »

ncmncm wrote: post #50
joss82 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not that familiar with the subject, but this phrase sounds suspiciously like the 1943 IBM executive saying there is a market for only five computers in the world - i.e. it completely discounts technological progress. Of course, this progress has been painfully slow until now, but comparing it with fission is still unfair - fission is well-researched and it getting more expensive is tied to the inherent dangers of radioactivity (and the ever more complicated measures which try to mitigate them), and the costs of spent fuel storage.

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

#58

Post by eutectic »

pyinstallwoes wrote: post #45
ahoka wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Q is just energy out over energy in. It is not an economic return.

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

#59

Post by rob74 »

t43562 wrote: post #51
gruturo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abando…

Should we build N Wind turbines or blow the money on more fusion research? I would guess that we need to keep fusion research alive but the real bulk of the money should be for things that will work now.

Why not do both? Unless the wind turbines are in my back yard of course (which they can't be, according to the rules where I live wind turbines have to be ~2 km away from anyone's back yard, but still).

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

#60

Post by modo_mario »

danuker wrote: post #42
gmueckl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Lin…

>They do not mention fusion

I believe they've spoken against it in the EP.

Post reply on HN