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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#551

Post by devmor »

DesiLurker wrote: post #377
devmor wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economic impact doesn't just come from the fuel to energy ratio. One of the biggest differences is also in the space required. Nuclear fusion reactors could eventually end up being very small - like smaller than an SUV. Imagine the cost savings in miniaturizing electrical grids.

if they can be that small then they might find unexpected use in long range spacecrafts or lunar colonies. you'd still have to build and lift the reactor out of earths gravity well.

Here on earth we could see them used to power container ships as well, which are some of the biggest contributors to greenhouse emissions as far as vehicles go.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#552

Post by pfdietz »

VLM wrote: post #467
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.)

Its worth pointing out that per unit energy a lot of money is made making economically unviable cargo ship power, submarine and other military naval power, space ship power sources, diesel-electric locomotives ... True if you want to replace base load of a civilization size network it needs to be economically viable, but we generate "a lot" of power at higher than market minima. Ironically, "good batteries" are the n…

DT fusion reactors would be terrible for mobile applications, since there are so much larger than fission reactors of the same capacity. In space or mass constrained applications they would be ruinously inferior to fission.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#553

Post by mynameisvlad »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #499
kortilla wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with funding. SpaceX had far less than NASA. For another example from a different angle, the military has limitless supplies of funding but innovates even less than NASA.

You are comparing company that makes trucks with a company that makes precision scientific instrumers, and you are declaring that truck companu is more efficient per kilo of produce. this is stupid. Nasa develops nuclear reactors, landed on titan and has reached pluto. Spacex vehicle has never left the Earth-moon system.

SpaceX is not Tesla. It's disingenuous to call SpaceX a "company that makes trucks". Just like NASA, they also make precision scientific instruments. They're the first privately funded mission to the ISS and run a massive satellite constellation.

They may not have the same accomplishments as NASA, but they're far from a "company that makes trucks".

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#554

Post by antipotoad »

adventured wrote: post #317
chasd00 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> they're working on getting you to click on an ad They're not, and there's zero evidence to back that frequently floated premise up. That's a particularly laughable myth created by those same industry people to feel better about their terrible life choices. If you can't do something meaningful, at least you can pretend to be a genius doing nothing meaningful. It turns out that both things are false, they're not bril…

Thank you for this, sincerely.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#555

Post by tomdekan »

steam_raven wrote: post #451
stock_toaster wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of star stuff”. – Carl Sagan

We have calcium in our bones, iron in our veins, carbon in our souls, and nitrogen in our brains. 93 percent stardust, with souls made of flames, we are all just stars that have people names" Nikita Gill

I find this poem inaccurate.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#556

Post by pfdietz »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #521
pfdietz wrote: post #171

Earlier 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.

> A large, complex machine that explodes the equivalent of 500 lb. bombs to generate heat to drive a turbine sounds like an engineering nightmare. And using actual bombs and explosives to dig kilometers down and mine coal is not an engineering nightmare? Dying of gas in the mines, fires on oil wells, oil spills, these things are 'engineering simple'?

We don't place precision optics in those blast zones. We don't put structures there that are repeatedly exposed to blast. Over the life of a inertial DT fusion reactor there will be about a BILLION such explosions in the reactor core.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#557

Post by ngcc_hk »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #439
subsubzero wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know how much tritium is needed for a city's energy generation? What about a state etc? Reason I ask is the only uses I have seen for tritium is on old watch dials made in the pre-90's. Curious how much of this resource is out there.

TLDR is there isn't nearly enough tritium, but fusion reactors can make more (while still generating energy)

Can you collect them easily in the reactor ?

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#559

Post by LarryMullins »

boc wrote: post #450
sillysaurusx wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No thanks. I get that people are emotional about this, but it’s important to treat science with a critical eye. The claim is that more energy came out than was put in. This is false. It’s not just me saying it. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ There is no “context” to understand. Yes, it’s an impressive feat. Yes, other laser designs might fix the huge ignition costs. But that hasn’t happened yet , and until it do…

Quoted post unavailable.

Your "honest feedback" is nothing more than naked insults.

Sillysaurusx is right. The "impossibly complex" matter is actually quite simple, Q=1 is little more than a psychological milestone, not some sort of technical tipping point where further progress becomes easier. And they haven't even gotten to Q=1 unless you buy into the justifications they give for dodgy accounting of the energy they put into it. The "impossibly complex" matter of commercial fusion is actually quite simple, it needs to put out a lot more energy than you put into it after you fully account for all the energy you put in. They aren't even close to this.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#560

Post by twojacobtwo »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #456
boc wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Which criticism am I dismissing? People do seem to be getting emotional about fusion, and pointing that out is hardly edgy. Once fusion achieves more output than input, I’ll be celebrating right there with you. But until then, ignoring the Doberman in the room is a worse look, from a scientific standpoint. I even cited a source from someone with a phd in mathematical physics, who is likely far more qualified to be ta…

> It just seems a little strange to take credit for a milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to be reached. (More energy out than in.)

That comment/criticism is a little strange in and of itself. I would say it's the oddness or seeming petulance of the above comment that brought on boc's comment.

A silly, but illustrative analogy:

  Kid:    Dad, look! I scored a home-run!  
  Father: Who cares? Have you won the game yet? Stop celebrating until you do something that everyone cares about!
Post reply on HN