U.S. lab repeats nuclear fusion feat, with higher yield

On a day we remember a mourn the tragic bombing of Nagasaki, we have a seemingly pro nuclear article here. Whether for military use or consumer power, anything nuclear remains a threat the safety of people of all nations.

As a race, we seem to have learned nothing from history.

Did you even read the article lol

Another first for the USA!!!

KenshinToday 08:13 am JST

On a day we remember a mourn the tragic bombing of Nagasaki, we have a seemingly pro nuclear article here. Whether for military use or consumer power, anything nuclear remains a threat the safety of people of all nations.

As a race, we seem to have learned nothing from history.

Fusion will consume pure water one day. As a race, we can't shoot ourselves in the foot out of fear.

During December's experiment, the lab used 192 ultra-powerful lasers to deliver 2.05 megajoules of energy to a tiny capsule smaller than a pea containing isotopes of hydrogen. It produced 3.15 megajoules of fusion energy output.

While the result was a net energy gain, 300 megajoules of energy was needed from the electrical grid to power the lasers.

Someone's going to have to explain to me how this is a success :/

Because they’ve managed to replicate something that had only been done once, thereby making a proof of concept.

Now it’s just a matter of refining it.

Think of it this way - remember computers that took up entire rooms to do some addition? Now look at your phone.

They just figured out the computer that takes up a room.

Someone's going to have to explain to me how this is a success :/

The experiment successfully moved the problem of fusion from basic science to engineering.

As a race, we seem to have learned nothing from history.

Not learning can be a consequence of just not having the interest of properly inform yourself before making up your mind about something.

The article makes this very clear.

Like fission, fusion is carbon-free during operation, and has additional critical advantages: it poses no risk of nuclear disaster and produces much less radioactive waste.

During December's experiment, the lab used 192 ultra-powerful lasers to deliver 2.05 megajoules of energy to a tiny capsule smaller than a pea containing isotopes of hydrogen. It produced 3.15 megajoules of fusion energy output.

> While the result was a net energy gain, 300 megajoules of energy was needed from the electrical grid to power the lasers.

Long way indeed

They just figured out the computer that takes up a room.

This is an excellent analogy. If they can engineer it to production-scale, even the first basic units could make a huge difference.

Not learning can be a consequence of just not having the interest of properly inform yourself before making up your mind about something.

The article makes this very clear

This article is an opinion piece.

I'll evaluate the issues on my own and make my own conclusions.

This article is an opinion piece.

Pray tell, what about it is opinion?

Nothing requiring [300 megajoules of] energy and infrastructure can be said to be carbon free.

After all the lies about nuclear fission (cheap, clean, safe), we should be honest about nuclear fusion from the start.

We are still 40+ yrs away from practical uses. I won't be around to see fusion power on the grid, but hopefully by kids and grandkids will.

Fusion for power won't explode. Is that hard to understand?

Now, if the output is beyond all required input point AND the input power is less than 10% of the total power output, then I'll be impressed.

Some folks need to read the last sentence of the article again.

Some folks need to read the last sentence of the article again.

Someone else needs to read the comments where it has been well addressed.

This article is an opinion piece.

I'll evaluate the issues on my own and make my own conclusions.

The quoted text is not an opinion but a scientific fact, pretending your personal conclusions can be as valid as the experts on the field is what makes absolutely no sense.

After all the lies about nuclear fission (cheap, clean, safe), we should be honest about nuclear fusion from the start.

Fission can be all of those things but we went down the light water path to start and no one has been funded to do the molten salt reactors.

StrangerlandToday  04:34 am JST

Some folks need to read the last sentence of the article again.

“Someone else needs to read the comments where it has been well addressed.”

Sustainable fusion has been forty years away for the last 60 years. The total energy of the system was 302.05 megajoules in for 3.15 megajoules out.

I’ll leave the math to you, if you’re up for it,

Fission can be all of those things but we went down the light water path to start and no one has been funded to do the molten salt reactors.

Both the US and Soviet navies experimented with sodium cooled reactors, another name for molten salt. Both navies eventually rejected the technology for operational submarines. In the US Navy's case the reactor was removed at the earliest opportunity and replaced with a pressurized water reactor (USS Seawolf), The Soviets hung on to theirs longer and built more boats. The overarching problem is that the if the sodium coolant (molten salt) is allowed to cool it turns into a metallic solid. That means that if you do not have some sort of external heat source and circulate the coolant to keep it molten, it solidifies and your reactor is ruined. The Soviets had such heating systems on the docks their nuclear subs used but they required a lot of maintenance beyond just the maintenance required for the sub. Refueling was much harder to accomplish too. Eventually the Soviets gave up and like the US Navy used only pressurized water reactors.

The total energy of the system was 302.05 megajoules in for 3.15 megajoules out.

Correct. But, and that is the breakthrough here, for the first time that is not an issue with the fusion reaction being inefficient, it is an issue with the lasers being inefficient. And again, that is now an engineering problem instead of a scientific one. Can we, for once, cheerfully acknowledge that we are a step closer instead of finding ways to poo-poo every small success?

Sustainable fusion has been forty years away for the last 60 years. The total energy of the system was 302.05 megajoules in for 3.15 megajoules out.

Again, addressed in the comments already.

It's still a scientific advancement, nowhere near an engineering one. The lasers were the most powerful on the planet. More powerful lasers will still be for the science. It's not a method for commercialization,

magnetic containment is. Still back to tokamak, which my uncle was associated with in the 1960's and he and I talked about lasers back then.

Sure it's an advancement, but the countdown clock hasn't moved. It's still forty years out like it was 60 years ago.

It's still a scientific advancement, nowhere near an engineering one.

This article is about how it's a scientific feat.

Correct. But, and that is the breakthrough here, for the first time that is not an issue with the fusion reaction being inefficient, it is an issue with the lasers being inefficient. And again, that is now an engineering problem instead of a scientific one. Can we, for once, cheerfully acknowledge that we are a step closer instead of finding ways to poo-poo every small success?

Some people think we should have had iphones as soon as they figured out computers, and anything less is a failure.

I would say that the venn diagram of these people with those who actually do make progressions for humanity like said scientists, is two perfect side-by-side circles.

Can we, for once, cheerfully acknowledge that we are a step closer instead of finding ways to poo-poo every small success?

Sure, but we should also acknowledge the scale of the problem that still remains.

Pray tell, what about it is opinion?

Here you go:

Nuclear fusion has been touted by its supporters as a clean, abundant and safe source of energy that could eventually allow humanity to break its dependence on coal, crude oil, natural gas and other hydrocarbons driving a global climate crisis.