US Achieves (theoretical?) Fusion

[linkin06]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/12/11/fusion-nuclear-energy-breakthrough/

The Department of Energy plans to announce Tuesday that scientists have been able for the first time to produce a fusion reaction that creates a net energy gain — a major milestone in the decades-long, multibillion dollar quest to develop atechnology that provides unlimited, cheap, clean power.

The aim of fusion research is to replicate the nuclear reaction through which energy is created on the sun. It is a “holy grail” of carbon-free power that scientists have been chasing since the 1950s. It is still at least a decade — maybe decades — away from commercial use, but the latest development is likely to be touted by the Biden administration as an affirmation of a massive investment by the government over the years.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JoaoMoutinho]

Non paywall version:

A Fusion Energy Breakthrough? Watch Live as US Scientists Make Major Announcement

A fusion reactor at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory may have reached a critical milestone.

www.cnet.com

 

[patriot6]

 

[Dr. Rude]

beldar conehead and elvis

An animated gif. Make your own gifs with our Animated Gif Maker.

imgflip.com

 

[pgg]

Don't get too excited.

It's laser ignition fusion. The only reason that line of research exists is because it's the next best thing to testing thermonuclear weapons, which we quit doing half a century ago. It's used for modeling and maintenance for bombs, and some basic science. (Which is valuable, don't get me wrong.)

Its potential to become a controlled, sustained, slow burn energy source for powering an electric grid is dubious. Every year or so the NIF lab at Livermore hit some new contrived milestone that isn't actually any closer to production of electricity, and they do another round of publication by press release to show Congress they still need money that doesn't come from a Pentagon budget.

Better magnets are the real tech advancements that might make tokamak or stellarator designs practical. In any case, in the meantime, fission reactors work and newer ones could be built that either don't generate long-lived waste, or burn it in their own fuel cycle. That we haven't bothered to build any speaks more to politics than science.



Here's their 2021 "breakthrough": StackPath

And their 2018 "breakthrough": StackPath

I didn't have the thumb endurance to scroll further down on my Google News search for NIF but they've been doing this for as long as I can remember.

 

[The Duck Knows]

What a coincidence. The neurosurgeon is saying the same thing about this XLIF

 

[Fpg1245]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/12/11/fusion-nuclear-energy-breakthrough/

The Department of Energy plans to announce Tuesday that scientists have been able for the first time to produce a fusion reaction that creates a net energy gain — a major milestone in the decades-long, multibillion dollar quest to develop atechnology that provides unlimited, cheap, clean power.

The aim of fusion research is to replicate the nuclear reaction through which energy is created on the sun. It is a “holy grail” of carbon-free power that scientists have been chasing since the 1950s. It is still at least a decade — maybe decades — away from commercial use, but the latest development is likely to be touted by the Biden administration as an affirmation of a massive investment by the government over the years.

This all sounds like nonsense and a product of the clean energy push. I’m betting it’s going to be a disappointment. I mean if it really was the greatest breakthrough why wait till tomorrow?

 

[UscGhost]

This all sounds like nonsense and a product of the clean energy push. I’m betting it’s going to be a disappointment. I mean if it really was the greatest breakthrough why wait till tomorrow?

You make it sound like the clean energy push is a bad thing?

Fusion power is an eventuality. But requires significant time and money to get there. Baby steps

 

[Fpg1245]

You make it sound like the clean energy push is a bad thing?

Fusion power is an eventuality. But requires significant time and money to get there. Baby steps

Fusion is always the energy of the future.

If it’s such a BFD then why build it up? Just tell us now.

 

[UscGhost]

Fusion is always the energy of the future.

If it’s such a BFD then why build it up? Just tell us now.

I can't speak on the minor "breakthrough"s as they are vastly beyond my understanding.

I am sure nobody is actually expecting fusion power plants to come online tomorrow..but then again.. nobody though solar panels would be as ubiquitous as they are now.

If we have any shot at saving this planet...fusion will be a part of that.

 

[Fpg1245]

I can't speak on the minor "breakthrough"s as they are vastly beyond my understanding.

I am sure nobody is actually expecting fusion power plants to come online tomorrow..but then again.. nobody though solar panels would be as ubiquitous as they are now.

If we have any shot at saving this planet...fusion will be a part of that.

If it ever does. Solar panels are more common now than 10 years ago. No sign to me it’s moved the needle all that much.

The planet is screwed either way really. I don’t see a viable way out unless we start having COVID style reductions in consumption.

 

[Ronin786]

You make it sound like the clean energy push is a bad thing?

Fusion power is an eventuality. But requires significant time and money to get there. Baby steps

Clean energy isn't a bad thing. The bad thing is demonization of fossil fuels without an alternative in place while simultaneously ignoring the actual clean energy available (nuclear power).

The West has massively underinvested in fossil fuels as of late and made it unattractive for companies to create the infrastructure necessary to prevent serious energy shortages from occurring (just look at what Europe is experiencing this year).

The clean energy push should begin when viable clean energy alternatives exist, not when they're just fancy toys.

 

[nimbus]

If it ever does. Solar panels are more common now than 10 years ago. No sign to me it’s moved the needle all that much.

The planet is screwed either way really. I don’t see a viable way out unless we start having COVID style reductions in consumption.

Solar has slightly moved the needle.

“A company official told San Diego City Council members that the rate hikes are needed to cover wildfire prevention costs, a new $300 million billing system, construction of utility scale batteries and electric vehicle infrastructure.

“We’re seeing continued increases in the need for infrastructure investment largely driven by $3 billion in wildfire safety spending,” said Scott Crider, a senior vice president at SDG&E. “And at the same time we’re seeing a decrease in sales, about 2% from our residential customers. And the reason why is largely because of rooftop solar.”

Crider said rooftop solar cost the company 2% of its expected revenue, but he said the utility needs to see more solar installed in the region to help the company reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals.

California regulators will determine San Diego utility rate hike request

Twenty percent of SDG&E’s customers have rooftop solar and Crider said that needs to climb to 50%.

The utility said the rate increase is needed to pay for the cost of delivering electricity, not the cost of electricity.”

 

[linkin06]

"In a brief moment lasting less than 100 trillionths of a second, 2.05 megajoules of energy — roughly the equivalent of a pound of TNT — bombarded the hydrogen pellet. Out flowed a flood of neutron particles — the product of fusion — which carried the energy equivalent of about 1.5 pounds of TNT, or an energy gain of about 1.5."

50% ROI! now just gotta scale over the next decades.

 

[pgg]

The West has massively underinvested in fossil fuels as of late and made it unattractive for companies to create the infrastructure necessary to prevent serious energy shortages from occurring (just look at what Europe is experiencing this year).

Well -

Europe DID invest in the fossil fuel infrastructure they thought they needed - notably the Nord Stream pipelines.

It's not like they're going to start drilling for oil in Belgium, or mining coal in Switzerland. They were and are dependent upon foreign sources of hydrocarbons.

Of course, dependence on foreign fossil fuels - particularly from great neighborhoods like Russia, the Middle East, Venezuela - carries risk. And Europe sure experienced that risk when Russia invaded Ukraine, played energy embargo games with supporters of Ukraine, blew up their own pipeline, etc.

All of which is a powerful argument for energy independence, sooner rather than later. Energy independence for Europe obviously isn't going to be fossil fuels.

France got it more right than Germany, by embracing nuclear power many years go, while Germany made the needs-a-helmet-level-of-cognitive-impairment decision to shut all of their nuclear plants down early, after Fukushima. France has been much less injured by supply disruptions than the rest of Europe, as a consequence.

The clean energy push should begin when viable clean energy alternatives exist, not when they're just fancy toys.

Solar and wind are viable, now.

Solar is about 3% of US electricity production, wind about 9%. I think nuclear is about 20%.

Solar deployment in the US has increased by 15-20% year over year for the last couple decades. It's already cost competitive, without subsidy, with new natural gas plants.

Relative cost is difficult to tease out, when government subsidies for renewables are so clearly visible. I'd just urge everyone to think a moment about how fantastically ginormous our government fossil fuel subsidies have been. You can start by direct payments, and then think about corn ethanol (strategically wise IMO but undeniably an economic boondoggle), and then get serious about the $trillions we've spent securing our access to foreign oil by getting involved in middle eastern wars. Which were multifactorial in cause, of course, but let's not pretend oil had nothing to do with why we cared about how those miserable places govern themselves.

If Brazil had invaded Paraguay in 1990 we wouldn't have sent half a million troops to defend Bolivia, just in case Brazil decided to keep going, and then we wouldn't have righted the moral injustice by kicking Brazil's teeth in, and then we wouldn't have gone back for another round a decade later. But Iraq gobbles up Kuwait and the whole world loses its collective ****, because oil.

And that's before we even begin the talk about environmental costs.

Fossil fuels have never been cheap, unless you ignore the way we externalize the cost. It's disingenuous to claim that they cost less than renewables and fission.

(And again, I've mentioned this before but I absolutely support building more fission plants. If I was god-empdrer-dictator of the USA the third thing I'd do after disbanding the DEA and ATF would be to break ground on a bunch of nuclear plants.)

 

[pgg]

"In a brief moment lasting less than 100 trillionths of a second, 2.05 megajoules of energy — roughly the equivalent of a pound of TNT — bombarded the hydrogen pellet. Out flowed a flood of neutron particles — the product of fusion — which carried the energy equivalent of about 1.5 pounds of TNT, or an energy gain of about 1.5."

50% ROI! now just gotta scale over the next decades.

No

First of all, there's some accounting sleight of hand going on here, as there always is with every stunning breakthrough that Livermore runs to the press with.

2.05 megajoules of laser energy went in, yup. That's how many energetic photos hit the fuel pellet. But it didn't take 2.05 megajoules to generate those photons, because the lasers and other apparatus that made them aren't remotely close to 100% efficient.

Also, no attempt was made to capture all the resulting heat and fast particles, including a whole bunch of neutrons which are notoriously hard to make use of while they damage surrounding materials. At some point that heat would need to boil some water and turn a turbine, also not a 100% efficient process.

But beyond that, there's just no plausible path forward by which blasting a fuel pellet with a laser becomes a process that can be repeated a million times per day in the same reactor vessel. It's a ridiculous idea. There's no hope for a self sustaining contained plasma because there's no containment.

It's a weapon maintenance and design program that yields some experimental data that might be useful for other reactor designs.

 

[Dr. Rude]

All of which is a powerful argument for energy independence, sooner rather than later. Energy independence for Europe obviously isn't going to be fossil fuels.

France got it more right than Germany, by embracing nuclear power many years go, while Germany made the needs-a-helmet-level-of-cognitive-impairment decision to shut all of their nuclear plants down early, after Fukushima. France has been much less injured by supply disruptions than the rest of Europe, as a consequence.


Solar and wind are viable, now.

Solar is about 3% of US electricity production, wind about 9%. I think nuclear is about 20%.

Solar deployment in the US has increased by 15-20% year over year for the last couple decades. It's already cost competitive, without subsidy, with new natural gas plants.

Agree with France getting it more right than Germany.

As far as Solar and Wind being viable now....Sorta.

Granted that we could do more, but only a relatively small chunk of the World has enough sunlight and/or good wind resources to make them viable. Also there is the problem when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing so much. Storage and transmission over distances are a big problem.

In the US we could do a lot more on the conservation side. Encourage Smaller vehicles, Smaller and better insulated homes, Invest more in public transportation, Encourage less meat consumption, etc. But those things are about as politically attainable as effective gun control.

 

[linkin06]

No

First of all, there's some accounting sleight of hand going on here, as there always is with every stunning breakthrough that Livermore runs to the press with.

2.05 megajoules of laser energy went in, yup. That's how many energetic photos hit the fuel pellet. But it didn't take 2.05 megajoules to generate those photons, because the lasers and other apparatus that made them aren't remotely close to 100% efficient.

Also, no attempt was made to capture all the resulting heat and fast particles, including a whole bunch of neutrons which are notoriously hard to make use of while they damage surrounding materials. At some point that heat would need to boil some water and turn a turbine, also not a 100% efficient process.

But beyond that, there's just no plausible path forward by which blasting a fuel pellet with a laser becomes a process that can be repeated a million times per day in the same reactor vessel. It's a ridiculous idea. There's no hope for a self sustaining contained plasma because there's no containment.

It's a weapon maintenance and design program that yields some experimental data that might be useful for other reactor designs.

thanks for analysis.

 

[abolt18]

In the US we could do a lot more on the conservation side. Encourage Smaller vehicles, Smaller and better insulated homes, Invest more in public transportation, Encourage less meat consumption, etc.

Blasphemy!!!!

 

[pgg]

There is no "breakthrough": NIF fusion power still consumes 130 times more energy than it creates

NIF fusion power still consumes 150 times more energy than it creates. We are decades away from commercial fusion power plants.

bigthink.com

This is a nice article which summarizes why this "breakthrough" is ridiculous PR hype over a process that was never intended to generate power, and never will.

(tldr: 400 MJ consumed to charge the lasers to produce 2 MJ of photons to produce 3 MJ of fast neutrons, using a tritium-containing fuel pellet that was made in a fission reactor. My eyes can't roll hard enough.)

 

[Fpg1245]

There is no "breakthrough": NIF fusion power still consumes 130 times more energy than it creates

NIF fusion power still consumes 150 times more energy than it creates. We are decades away from commercial fusion power plants.

bigthink.com

This is a nice article which summarizes why this "breakthrough" is ridiculous PR hype over a process that was never intended to generate power, and never will.

(tldr: 400 MJ consumed to charge the lasers to produce 2 MJ of photons to produce 3 MJ of fast neutrons, using a tritium-containing fuel pellet that was made in a fission reactor. My eyes can't roll hard enough.)

Oh so that’s where they got the 50% more power from.

For all the sophistication of these experiments, all it takes is a slimy accounting maneuver. Screw these people.

 

[UscGhost]

There is no "breakthrough": NIF fusion power still consumes 130 times more energy than it creates

NIF fusion power still consumes 150 times more energy than it creates. We are decades away from commercial fusion power plants.

bigthink.com

This is a nice article which summarizes why this "breakthrough" is ridiculous PR hype over a process that was never intended to generate power, and never will.

(tldr: 400 MJ consumed to charge the lasers to produce 2 MJ of photons to produce 3 MJ of fast neutrons, using a tritium-containing fuel pellet that was made in a fission reactor. My eyes can't roll hard enough.)

The facility primarily uses equipment from the 80s and 90s. It's not modern and the lasers weren't intended or designed to be efficient.

The first solar panels, steam engines, ICE weren't efficient either. Takes time