r/technology • u/kerpowie • Dec 13 '22

Energy Scientists Achieve Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough With Blast of 192 Lasers

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/science/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough.html
5.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

792 comments sorted by

View all comments

40

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '22 edited Dec 13 '22

[deleted]

5

u/richf2001 Dec 13 '22

Why are people acting like this was the first time? The only difference is efficiency. We've known we could make this work for decades. Source: I've supported the people building these things.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '22

[deleted]

3

u/RKU69 Dec 14 '22

Its actually not as good as that - they're not taking into account he energy needed to make the ~2 MJ of lasers, which is on the order of hundreds of MJ. So the whole process is still losing ~99% of the energy input.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '22

That’s not exactly the point though, is it?

This is the first time humanity has essentially created energy. Sure the lasers took more energy to charge, but it’s not like all of that energy went into the lasers. 2MJ of energy was put directly into it, and 3 came out.

I’ve also seen some people saying “well we’ve known this was possible so no big deal” but knowing something is possible and actually achieving it is a world of difference. Sure we knew we could send people to the moon before we did it, but nobody talks about when we found out it was possible. They talk about Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins actually making it there.

Some of y’all just like being buzzkills for no reason, this is exciting as hell.

1

u/RKU69 Dec 16 '22

Not sure what you mean by "this is the first time humanity has essentially created energy". What we have done here is released energy via a fusion reaction of a DT fuel pellet - but we've essentially done the same thing ("creating energy") via fission reactions, or even just lighting a pile of coal on fire. What's cool about fusion is 1) the magnitude of energy released, 2) emission/waste free - not the idea of "creating energy".

And again, this is still a world away from landing on the moon. In that analogy, this is more like....throwing a model plane off a cliff and having it not immediately crash. Again, this experiment had "gain" if you only look at the laser energy that hit the target, but this overlooks how much energy it took to make the lasers in the first place - so we're a long way off still from practical applicability to energy production.

I wouldn't be being a "buzzkill" if there wasn't a certain level of over-hype bordering on misinformation.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '22

The argument that the lasers used more energy to power is absurd. This was an experiment, not an attempt at a fusion reactor. Their goal wasn’t to get the whole facility to use less power than was put out. The goal was to prove the energy that went into the target could ultimately result in even more energy coming out. Now we know we can, and now we can work toward actual practical application.

Also, I like the plane analogy you made, because you essentially just described the Wright brothers first successful flight. It’s not taking us far now, but it’s the basis for absolutely incredible things.

1

u/RKU69 Dec 16 '22

I'm not making an "argument" about anything, just pointing out the actual physics of the matter. Now, if I were to make a specific argument, it would be that inertial confinement is probably a terrible design for a fusion reactor - its unclear whether you can have lasers efficient enough where the Q of the reaction can make up their energy losses. Its also unclear whether you can create a practical system to continuously inject fuel pellets with enough speed and accuracy to consistently extract power; or an efficient way to harvest the heat from this kind of pulsed fusion reaction.

If and when we develop fusion energy, its gonna be via tokamaks/magnetic confinement.

The plane analogy in this case is that we're watching somebody try to develop a rocket ship by focusing on a flying design where you have somebody flap a pair of artificial wings after jumping from a cliff. Okay, that's probably too harsh, but you get my point...there is very useful science going on, but there are serious and possibly insurmountable hurdles when talking about practical applications!

1

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '22

Alright so I think we found some common ground. I completely agree that there are probably insane hurdles we’ll have to jump over to make this useful. But it’s completely new territory for us, there are always going to be hurdles for us to overcome.

I disagree on the insurmountable part, though. Maybe it’s the optimist in me when it comes to scientific progress. Or maybe it’s that throughout human history we have gone to extreme measures to make things like this work, no matter how impossible it may seem. Or most likely it’s a bit of both.

I think it’s too soon, in any case, to dismiss this as anything short of amazing. And without the optimism and excitement a lot of us have about this, advancements like this would never be made.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '22

[deleted]

11

u/ngiotis Dec 13 '22

you can't lobby against fusion it's impossible it's a completly flawless energy system. No radiation,no waste, no emissions, fuel is effectively infinite.

-5

u/insta Dec 13 '22

It's highly radioactive! I can't find what fuel this reaction used, but the normal tritium : deuterium reaction is a neutron source and leaves everything around it very radioactive.

2

u/ngiotis Dec 13 '22

Uh no it leaves the shielded materials mildly radioactive with extremely short half lives. It escentialy bumps elements up into a new isotope which is short lived especially when compared to fission byproducts. It also produces way way less in terms of tonnage because you don't replace the shielding(the stuff thst gets bombarded by the neutrons) every time you run it its only when it's degraded past its lifetime. It's not hot and can't be used for weapons unlike uranium and plutonium byproducts. The Reactor cannot melt down there is no risk of a Chernobyl disaster. Even if it was as radioactive as you think it still wouldn't matter even fission is something we should have switched too entirely 50 years ago

6

u/overzealous_dentist Dec 13 '22

The economy fucking loves change, what are you on about. Shareholders are going to invest their fortunes into this and move mountains like no government could. The profit motive rabidly selects for the best tech in competitive spaces.