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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#951

Post by whycome »

martopix wrote: post #890
whycome wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The periodic table is pretty awesome. But I wonder if there's a layout that takes into account this fission/fusion division? Would it just be a line? -- Yeah there are a few alternative designs, but nothing that seems to do the division. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_periodic_tables

That's because the periodic table is essentially about chemistry (i.e. about electron orbitals), not about nuclear physics (i.e. the atom's nucleus). For example it doesn't talk much about isotopes, aside from usually reporting the average atomic mass.

My point is that there are other ways of organizing the same information to perhaps reveal unexpected connections. From the same link, a 'physicists periodic table' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_periodic_tables#Th...

And really, i guess everything is physics if you get specific enough.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#952

Post by [deleted] »

r2_pilot wrote: post #949
Retric wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> none of what anyone said is about a self-sustaining reaction. Actual power plants are self sustaining as in they use the electricity they produce to operate, it’s mandatory though not sufficient for any commercial fusion power plant. So, this isn’t about a different way to “calculate reaction efficiency better than the physicists doing the work” he was directly quoting their numbers from the paper. It’s only a ques…

> Actual power plants are self sustaining Actual power plants are not necessarily self-sustaining and practically none of them can start if the grid power is not available. See: black start power plants and https://youtu.be/uOSnQM1Zu4w

[deleted]

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#953

Post by Retric »

r2_pilot wrote: post #949
Retric wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> none of what anyone said is about a self-sustaining reaction. Actual power plants are self sustaining as in they use the electricity they produce to operate, it’s mandatory though not sufficient for any commercial fusion power plant. So, this isn’t about a different way to “calculate reaction efficiency better than the physicists doing the work” he was directly quoting their numbers from the paper. It’s only a ques…

> Actual power plants are self sustaining Actual power plants are not necessarily self-sustaining and practically none of them can start if the grid power is not available. See: black start power plants and https://youtu.be/uOSnQM1Zu4w

If it on average produces less electricity than it consumes then it isn’t a power plant.

Black start is obviously a different question than being self sustaining.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#955

Post by vincnetas »

nova22033 wrote: post #913
vincnetas wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With abundant electricity wouldn't we face another type of global warming? We will would start to consume so much electricity that this will heat up the planet?

I'm not going to set my thermostat to 78 degrees because electricity is practically free.

But some people would start driving 6 ton vehicles because fuel is free. Limiting factor for crytpo mining would be only number of hardware you can get (provided crypto survives for so long). Some people would probably do the math and decide that thermal insulation is too expensive, and run heating/cooling on max. I could probably come up with more examples.

EDIT: from quick google query it looks like per day earth receives equivalent of yearly power consumption (not only electricity but also fuel). So we would need to x356 our energy consumption which is not that much unreasonable if you could have for example heated outdoor pool for free anywhere in the world.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#956

Post by azinman2 »

rrrrrrrrrrrr2 wrote: post #727
azinman2 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the bottleneck for fusion money though?

I think a major bottleneck for fusion research from the lay public (including myself) is lack of interest. Fission reactors work really well and have been around for 50+ years. If we are going to go nuclear instead of renewable, we need to address the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is: why not just fission?

Fukushima most recently

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#957

Post by 93po »

nsxwolf wrote: post #653

What’s the difference between "ignition" and every other “fusion achieved“ news story I’ve seen in the last 40 years? This has the feel of those “water discovered on Mars for the first time ever” headlines.

My laymen understanding is that this is showing the first net-positive energy fusion, which has always been the biggest roadblock.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#958

Post by 93po »

johnthuss wrote: post #166

"NIF, the world’s largest and most energetic laser system...-located at LLNL in Livermore, Calif.—is the size of a sports stadium" That's an important piece of information - the thing is gigantic!

Why is it important? I picked a random nuclear plant in the US (Palo Verde Generating Station) and it's 4000 acres/more than 6 square miles.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#959

Post by anon291 »

grecy wrote: post #823
anon291 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even the great deserts of the southwest have life. In fact, I challenge you to drive through these tens of thousands of miles of landscapes in the hour or two after a rainstorm and tell me they're dead. You're missing out if you've not seen the desert in bloom.

I grew up by the desert, and I don't know why people think it's dead. There are some extremely fragile ecosystems there.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#960

Post by jdhendrickson »

User23 wrote: post #941
_cs2017_ wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, but: 1. How does this research help address this problem? 2. What are the sources for your opinion?

> 1. How does this research help address this problem? I see it the other way around, this problem makes me doubt that this research will ever actually lead anywhere, supposing it's even as good a result as it first appears. > 2. What are the sources for your opinion? It's a fact. And my source is dead tree media. I don't recall all the details, but there are some very finicky parts that go into a state of the art wa…

This is incorrect.

Similar to the "we can't make concrete as good as the romans" line of woo. Caveat Emptor

Post reply on HN