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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#821

Post by pauljurczak »

carabiner wrote: post #707
w0mbat wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They put 2.05 MJ in and got 3.15 MJ out. The 300MJ comes from equipment inefficiency- remember this is a research facility to prove plasma physics and ignition itself, mainly designed for weapons research. The fact they got definite fusion at 1.53x input energy is not just breakeven, but net gain. This is the first time ever we've gotten net gain, in any fusion device. A lot of people in gov leadership thought fusion…

> I fully expect a working fusion plant of some kind by 2030

Right. The first law of fusion physics: working fusion power generation in 10 years. It has been proven true for the last 7 decades. Rock solid.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#822

Post by aussieshibe »

moloch-hai wrote: post #784
jboy55 wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least ITER has a plausible, in a sci-fi story sense, way of creating a sustainable fusion reaction to which more fuel could be given. The fact the neutrons produced, if it did reach the high Q ratios, would irradiate and break down everything involved, is probably 2070's scientists and engineers problems to solve.

In that paradise of abundant cheap solar and wind power, only weapons people will be interested in fusion. They will probably be trying to come up with zero-fallout things they can use tactically.

Why won't fusion still be a worthwhile goal even if we do have abundant solar/wind?

Abundant and cheap are relative terms. Solar and wind could be abundant in a "powers everything we have now and for the foreseeable future of population growth" sense, but maybe not in a "gigantic power-hungry megaprojects which aren't remotely possible today" sense?

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#823

Post by grecy »

anon291 wrote: post #491
josho wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar and wind have massive environmental impacts Got a source for this? The only time I've seen this has been political talking points that had no backing.

My source is the fact that solar panels cause shade on the ground and squander energy that would normally be going towards developing biomass into developing energy instead. It just doesn't seem healthy for the animals and environment that live there. Especially with the talk of in ground installation, which basically destroys entire environments and soils and covers it with impermeable membranes. That's not great fo…

I’ve driven many many tens of thousands of miles through landscapes with intense sun and extremely close to zero vegetation or life.

Damaging that has got to be a lot better for the planet than coal or nuclear.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#824

Post by joe_the_user »

bboygravity wrote: post #817
iamgopal wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course you can invest enough and make solar equivalent to continuous power.

Solar + reverse hydropower, solar + synthetic fuel manufacture, solar + appropriate sized batteries, solar cranes-with-weights, etc.

Solar is so cheap that all those are plausible. Fusion is still far from ready.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#826

Post by moloch-hai »

philipkglass wrote: post #740
moloch-hai wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus $10M for the target bead.

Where did you see this estimate for hohlraum cost? The NIF fired 368 shots in 2021: https://lasers.llnl.gov/for-users/nif-target-shot-metrics At $10 million per target that would cost $3.7 billion. The annual LLNL budget (which includes NIF) is only $2.8 billion: https://www.llnl.gov/doing-business/economic-impact As of 2004, the targets were reported to cost $2500 each: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/828518

Got it from a comment on here.

The 2004 targets didn't work. Neither did the 368 shots in 2021. Maybe ones that work cost more?

Even $2500 for 1 kWh is rather steep.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#827

Post by zbobet2012 »

moloch-hai wrote: post #781
xbmcuser wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can get a continuous fusion reaction going converting the heat energy from that to electricity won't be a problem. Getting a contained fusion reaction that gives out more energy than input is the problem how to convert that into electricity is not going to be a problem.

It doesn't make heat. It makes fast neutrons. Turning them into usable heat is a project of its own. Turning dumb heat into electric power is expensive. Nothing that depends on doing that can ever compete with wind and solar, anymore. Tritium doesn't grow on trees. Making it by blasting those hot neutrons into a thousand tons of FLiBe is easy enough. Getting your few grams a day, at PPB concentration, out of that tho…

You've been all over this thread with some aggressive takes that are pretty seriously not supported.

> Turning dumb heat into electric power is expensive. Nothing that depends on doing that can ever compete with wind and solar, anymore.

This isn't even strictly true today when focusing on current "dumb heat sources":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

"cost of extension of operations of existing nuclear power plants (LTO, long-term operations) has the lowest LCOE of low-carbon energy sources; "

I'm going to go with the OECD and NEA on this one.

> Tritium doesn't grow on trees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeding_blanket

Saying that there are unknown engineering challenges is kind of a "duh", otherwise we wouldn't be researching we would be implementing. As you also mentioned there are other alternatives which we could consider than tritium.

> Fission is not competitive, and gets less so by the day.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062... yeah that's not true

> Fusion is nothing but a money pit (with the just barely-possible exception of D-3He).

We genuinely don't know if fusion is a money pit or not, because we don't have any idea how much a successful form will cost. Tritium blankets may be easy or not. Maybe helion's D-3HE will have a breakthrough. Maybe it's ICF.

I've not seen suggestions by anyone that wind and solar build-outs stop, or get diminished. Indeed at this point because the cost are low, industry will continue to invest in them regardless.

However, we will need a lot more energy production than folks think. We need to decarbonize the atmosphere. And that's going to require a lot of power.

All that aside, solar and wind are not getting you to mars in a timely fashion. We have reasons to research fusion that escape large commercial power generation.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#828

Post by salawat »

moloch-hai wrote: post #570
nerpderp82 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things that I think I noticed from the press conference, is that funding is going to be the bare minimum to meet some goal for a design they select. This seems like a gross mistake. If we are going to avert a climate catastrophe we will need TW of power to "unburn" the carbon we put into the environment (ocean and atmosphere). Instead of barely hitting this target, we should over deliver since we are runni…

Each dollar diverted to chase nuke wills-o'-th'-wisp brings climate catastrophe nearer. Money is fungible. Dropping $billions on this means not dropping those $billions on something that works already, works fantastically well, and would work even better with more money. We already know how to prevent (more) climate catastrophe. We just need to do more of it.

So drop it on fission. There. Settled.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#829

Post by carabiner »

stonogo wrote: post #281
hardnose wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every breakthrough starts from government funded initiatives? Wilbur and Orville Wright disagree.

I don't think they do, since they started with research done by the Smithsonian Institution.

Yeah but the Wrights were following research from all over the world, including England and Germany. You might as well say that the Wrights were also funded by the British government.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#830

Post by NovaVeles »

Trisell wrote: post #811
w0mbat wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not trying to undermine but more just act as a reminder to some folk. There is no such thing as "just an engineering problem". These things do not exist in a vacuum. It is a part of the tripod of economics and politics. If any one of these three buckles, the whole thing doesn't happen. Concord was an engineering problem we solved, but the economics and politics around it made it a white elephant. Here's hoping this doesn't happen to this.
Post reply on HN