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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#811

Post by Trisell »

w0mbat wrote: post #577
jkelleyrtp wrote: post #33

> 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, demonstrating for the first time a most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE) Yesterday, everyone was complaining about the 2.2:2.0 ratio, but now we're working with 3.15:2.05. With modern lasers, that'd be a total Q of 0.375 assuming 100% ef…

Their total power draw from the grid was 300 megajoules and they got back about 3 megajoules, so don't start celebrating yet. Source: New York Times.

If it takes 300 one time in the future to start a long term reaction that’s a price I think we would all pay. The fact that we proved the idea now makes this just an engineering problem.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#812

Post by poopbutt7 »

petilon wrote: post #349
mustacheemperor wrote: post #2

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm taking this particular moment just to swell with pride and excitement for this achievement by science and forget about the details of how much more needs to be done to create the first power plant. I'm remembering when I first learned about fusion energy development, how distant and unfeasible it seemed, and regardless of how long the road ahead still is it's incredible how f…

When you consider that they laser they used consumed 300 megajoules from the wall plug, in order to send 1.8 megajoules to the target, the fact that they got 2.5 megajoules out looks puny in comparison. Even newer lasers only have 20% wall plug efficiency according to the press conference. So the important point here is, there was no net energy gain. They spent 300 megajoules to get 2.5 out. The scientists only talk…

You are correct: this is the important point. Until this is actually powering homes at scale and competitive price- which, clearly from these numbers is a fantasy- developments in this field should be dismissed. It's embarrassing to see HN so excited about what's really quite the failure.

(Sent from my ENIAC)

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#813

Post by elihu »

moloch-hai wrote: post #736
dmix wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell this is mostly a useful cover story as a fallback for the moon-shot type energy potential. But are there serious downsides to having this be the case? Does it significantly distract away from the pursuit of energy? Or somehow fundamentally constrain the projects scope?

Exactly the opposite: their task, assigned by Congress, is weapons work . Period. But pretending to work on "carbon-free energy" is good for funding, just now . Four years ago, being all about weapons opened the tap. Make no mistake, there is no story here. There will be no "unlimited free energy" from this, or any other fusion project. The fusion startups are spending down investors' money with zero possibility of p…

> The fusion startups are spending down investors' money with zero possibility of payback (Helion conceivably excepted), because if they did get Q>1, they have no workable way to harness it. ITER will not even try to produce one watt-second of electricity. Its follow-on demo reactor won't start building until 2050, if not further delayed.

You seem to be awfully certain of that. I'm not an expert in this area, but my understanding is that the MIT Arc reactor is planned to use FLiBe as a liquid coolant that absorbs heat/neutrons/etc from the fusion reaction and is pumped into heat exchangers to boil water to run turbines. I mean, maybe there's some details not worked out and maybe I'm misunderstanding how it works, but it seems like a plan to generate electricity to me.

There's no plan to hook ITER up to a thermal plant because it's a research reactor not a power plant, but there's no conceptual reason they couldn't do it. (Not that ITER is a great example; the design is already antiquated before it's even finished.)

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#814

Post by Gatsky »

simiones wrote: post #112
bioemerl wrote: post #20

Here's your most exciting paragraph > 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, demonstrating for the first time a most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE). Many advanced science and technology developments are still needed to achieve simple, affordable IFE to power homes and busines…

That's a very apt analogy, as both this and Manhattan are weapons research programs. I'm not very excited in hearing we'll get even more powerful thermo-nuclear bombs.

Good things often have dubious or downright evil origins (which would never be justifiable a priori).

A relatively recent example: development of cancer chemotherapy began with the incidental finding that the chemical warfare agent nitrogen mustard reduced the white cell count of affected soldiers.

We make progress building on the shoulders of giants, but those giants are often standing in dung.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#816

Post by dmix »

ErrantX wrote: post #301
JKCalhoun wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be right — we threw enough money and put humans on the Moon. The Manhattan Project was well funded and produced results as well.

They also had a strong ideological element too.

The talent + purpose (which drew the talent) was what defined Manhattan. The money came easy when all of the greatest minds in the country were pointing a giant flashing light in one obvious direction.

This is big news but fusion will largely be a product of the people it attracts. The people can do the job attracting money and other talent if it's justified.

I've seen the Canadian gov try to throw money at trying to build a local tech scene and it all went to hucksters, old school finance suits with megacorp resumes, and administrators. While all the tech talent just kept going to SF where the capital was going into high risk ventures... not expensive buildings, events, 'entrepreneur/small business programs', and propping up old school D-round investors. Money is easily wasted even when the pursuit sounds noble and valuable on the surface.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#817

Post by bboygravity »

iamgopal wrote: post #764
opportune wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree. We should be dumping as much as we can in getting fusion up and running ASAP. It could be a silver bullet to stop climate change alone, and by driving energy costs lower, enable huge innovations in AI/automation and increasing material wealth. $1T to move fusion forward just 5 years from eg 2040 to 2035 could alone have a huge ROI in terms of climate mitigation and decarbonization

How easy is to write $1T, but with that you can basically install enough solar cell to power all of USA energy need.

No you can't because solar isn't a continious source and fusion is.

No amount of investment into solar power can make the sun magically shine 24 hours a day.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#818

Post by julienreszka »

dqpb wrote: post #710
julienreszka wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water was signed in 1963, all nuclear weapons tests must be performed underground. This is typically done by digging a deep shaft or tunnel in the earth and detonating the weapon at the bottom of the shaft or tunnel. The explosion is monitored by a variety of equipment, such as seismographs, radiation detectors, and air sample…

Is this ChatGPT? It doesn't answer the question. When I ask ChatGPT it says: "fusion is not directly related to nuclear weapons or the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent"

In other words research in fusion helps make more accurate simulations of how nuclear weapons would behave.

>fusion is not directly related to nuclear weapons or the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent

ChatGPT is wrong in this case. Fusion occurs in hydrogen bombs i.e. nuclear weapons

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#819

Post by moloch-hai »

elihu wrote: post #813
moloch-hai wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly the opposite: their task, assigned by Congress, is weapons work . Period. But pretending to work on "carbon-free energy" is good for funding, just now . Four years ago, being all about weapons opened the tap. Make no mistake, there is no story here. There will be no "unlimited free energy" from this, or any other fusion project. The fusion startups are spending down investors' money with zero possibility of p…

> The fusion startups are spending down investors' money with zero possibility of payback (Helion conceivably excepted), because if they did get Q>1, they have no workable way to harness it. ITER will not even try to produce one watt-second of electricity. Its follow-on demo reactor won't start building until 2050, if not further delayed. You seem to be awfully certain of that. I'm not an expert in this area, but my…

"Some details"... Have you ever built anything?

Driving steam turbines, even with other costs at zero, leaves you uncompetitive with renewables. But other costs would be very, very far from zero. Extracting the grams of tritium at PPB concentration dissolved in 1000 tons of FLiBe every day so you have fuel for tomorrow is an expensive job all by itself.

Making a whole new reactor every year or two because it destroyed itself with neutron bombardment is another.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#820

Post by pauljurczak »

User23 wrote: post #807
_cs2017_ wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it help build better weapons? I thought the existing thermonuclear bombs do the job perfectly fine. Sure, the military might want to make them a bit smaller or a bit cheaper, but is it really such a big deal as to warrant a major announcement?

The USA no longer has the technical capability to manufacture the necessary parts to maintain the current stockpile. The whole strategic arms reduction treaty regime is basically a fig leaf to cover for the fact that we have to cannibalize some legacy weapons to maintain the rest. If nothing changes the USA probably won't have an effective arsenal within a century. Given the likely state of the USA by that time, that…

> USA probably won't have an effective arsenal within a century.

If other countries joined, it would be a great outcome.

Post reply on HN