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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#871

Post by eru »

danw1979 wrote: post #866
eru wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...], and I doubt it will ever compete with solar, wind, and storage. Maybe not on earth, but there are applications in deep space.

This is exactly why we need to keep plugging away at fusion - one day we’ll need it in space. It doesn’t have to be cheap, it just has to work.

Of course, whether that's a good investment of resources right now is another question.

Even if we had no other goal than becoming an intergalactic species as soon as possible, we might still benefit from working on other things first.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#872

Post by krainboltgreene »

LarryMullins wrote: post #539
krainboltgreene wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't agree that funding is "largely the reason" > NASA just isn't about high-risk / high-reward "moonshots" anymore. The overarching political environment doesn't allow it, never mind the office politics. Why doesn't the political environment allow for it. What could happen. What could regulatory bodies do to NASA for taking a risk and failing. What sort of constricting change could political bodies do in such a…

> Why doesn't the political environment allow for it. What could happen. Three astronauts were incinerated alive. That was when they started to take safety more seriously. Subsequent accidents have only reinforced this.

Yes, but what happened after the astronauts died as a response?

The entire point of my comment is that funding cuts happened. That is the reaction.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#873

Post by throw827474737 »

eru wrote: post #793
floxy wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we should take this as a lesson in communications. The "breakeven" thing is a red-herring that should have been have been left out of the message, or at least only mentioned as a footnote. The critical ELI5 message that should have been presented is that they used a laser to create some tiny amount of fusion. But we have been able to do that for a while now. The important thing is that they were then able to…

> [...], or the ginormous fusion of the sun. The sun actually has very little fusion per cubic metre or per kg. Per volume the core of the sun produces only a quarter of the heat of the human body (and per kg it's even less, owing to high density). That's why our fusion reactors can't just mimic stars, they have to far surpass them to be useful to us.

That, but also mimicing the pressure of the sun here is just not possible (yet? :D), why we need to play with higher temperaturs with different problematic consequences.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#874

Post by dd36 »

jacquesm wrote: post #773
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.

> If they can get a continuous fusion reaction going converting the heat energy from that to electricity won't be a problem. Even accepting the qualification that's not just a mere matter of engineering, capturing that heat from a source that hot is not without trouble. A bit like how there is plenty of energy in a single lightning strike and yet we can't easily catch it even though in principle 'just build a large e…

There’s not plenty of energy in a lightning strike.

https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/is-there-...

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#875

Post by bratbag »

pauljurczak wrote: post #821
carabiner wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The joke used to be fusion was always 30 years away. Then the joke was it was always 20 years away. Now the joke is it's always 10 years away.

People paying attention over this time have noticed it getting closer as we improve our capabilities.

The next iteration of the joke will be 'fusion was always inevitable'

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#876

Post by xiphias2 »

dsign wrote: post #608

HN people has three orders of magnitude more technical background and education than politicians, yet when it's about fusion, fision, renewables and climate warming, we only manage to output a miserable 0.01 % consensus and the rest dissipates in waste argument. It comes to reason, the politicians are going to produce only 0.00001% of consensus. Conclusion: things are looking rather bad. We are not going to achieve C…

Maybe if the article would contain the HN names of the scientists in the experiment in bold instead of Senator names, it would be easier to find them (I'm sure some of them are around here). We should just find those sources, it's not that hard in the internet age.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#877

Post by bratbag »

eru wrote: post #871
danw1979 wrote: post #866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why we need to keep plugging away at fusion - one day we’ll need it in space. It doesn’t have to be cheap, it just has to work.

Of course, whether that's a good investment of resources right now is another question. Even if we had no other goal than becoming an intergalactic species as soon as possible, we might still benefit from working on other things first.

You are operating under the rather naive assumption that the people and resources used in fusion research are fungible with the people and resources used in other things.

When you have a bunch of people who know how to build nuclear bombs sitting around with nothing to do, you damn well keep them busy before another country finds them a job.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#878

Post by doikor »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #848
gfodor wrote: post #185

Another good time to remind everyone that the inventor of the maser (which led to the laser), Charles Townes, was discouraged by his department chair (allegedly): "Look, you should stop the work you are doing. It isn't going to work. You know it's not going to work, we know it's not going to work. You're wasting money, Just stop!" A few months later, it worked. [1] [1] https://www.theregister.com/2015/01/29/charles_t…

> He later explained that he was able to refuse to stop his research because he had tenure, so there was nothing they could really do to stop him. Not having to chase your next meal can make a big difference

This is why tenure for fundamental research is very important. You have to be free to fail without consequences or you won't be able to take the risks to figure this stuff out.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#879

Post by kubanczyk »

pauljurczak wrote: post #820
User23 wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

Why the optimism? Without MAD, it's nearly certain that we'd have a world war at some point in time. Sooner or later, it will surely happen. If you think it won't happen, or won't cost millions of lives, or won't employ re-developed nukes eventually, please tell me why you think so. (No sarcasm.)

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#880

Post by liketochill »

Tade0 wrote: post #865
Helmut10001 wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest we do not lay all of our eggs in one basket. Climate change can be best countered if we use the sweet spot of all current available and anticipated technologies, including photovoltaic, long & short term storage solutions, and fusion. There is no need to bet on one technology at this stage.

There is a market need. Solar panels are cheap and the market appears to be fine with unreliable power[0] if it's cheap enough. [0] Unreliable, but predictable that is. You can estimate with decent confidence what the weather will be like tomorrow and you can definitely tell what it's going to be a few hours from now, so energy auctions a day ahead are feasible.

Do you have week long blackouts currently? In any given year you can count on a week where a panel only produces 10%. It just has to be cloudy or rainy. However much solar we add, even with storage to get through a night, needs some other source to get through the cloudy week, unless we are ok with blackouts.
Post reply on HN