|
FlamingLiberal posted:This is potentially a massive breakthrough if the results are confirmed. I assume they already have or they would not be having a press conference about it. I get skeptical anytime there's any hope of Good News. Afraid there's going to be a big asterisk at the end of "Yeah, we figured this out."
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
The text of the article is pretty hedging which is both to be expected and means it should be taken with a grain of salt until there's a formal announcement and, ideally, more successful experiments replicating the net energy gain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Not really. She was at basically 30% approval among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. yeah that's still a solid 10-12% above where things like dysentery poll
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
And keep in mind that "net energy gain," as commonly used in fusion research and as described in the article, is only taking into account the energy used to power the lasers that ignite the reaction. There's other systems in a fusion reactor that draw power and they are not even hinting at a net power gain for the system as a whole. Would still be a nice step forward and all, but even if the story is true, it's not describing a fusion reactor that produces more power than it uses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
I can safely say I did not have "Actual Fusion power" on my list for today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
A hazy recollected memory is I heard an NPR story once that said that they could probably build some sort of fusion reactor now to create power but it would be large and need to be on for three years before it would be worth it. but of course I can't find the article.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This is potentially a massive breakthrough if the results are confirmed. I assume they already have or they would not be having a press conference about it. This is potentially great, but like so many others I'm waiting on something a little more concrete. I've been seeing "Major Breakthrough in Fusion Research!" headlines periodically my entire life, and I was born during the Carter administration. Every time, it's either nothing consequential, a wander down a dead end, or at best an incremental development (which are good things, to be sure).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Is fusion power something that enormous piles of money would help? Because it seems like we're at the stage of climate change where we need a space-race-level push toward some kind of magic technology to save us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Historically, breakthroughs had been "we aren't there yet, but we got closer this time!" This time, they are saying they smashed right through into generating 20% more power than what was used which if true (a big if) sounds like its a big step towards actually building something. We do need confirmation before we get excited, there was apparently some problem with some sensors so they need to do it again a few times, and then we have to get real about cost and energy output, etc. Then we'd probably have test reactors first which would take a decade, so we might be a generation out even if everything works out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Historically, breakthroughs had been "we aren't there yet, but we got closer this time!" Listen hydrogen fuel cells are just five year around the corner (said in 2005). edit: that being said, we should always be funding this type of research.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Is fusion power something that enormous piles of money would help? Because it seems like we're at the stage of climate change where we need a space-race-level push toward some kind of magic technology to save us. I've seen this around, not sure whether the data is accurate 
Happiness Commando fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Dec 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Listen hydrogen fuel cells are just five year around the corner (said in 2005). "We're about twenty years from functioning fusion reactors" is another thing I've been hearing all my life, too. You're right of course though, dumping more money onto this would surely help maybe stave off civilizational collapse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:"We're about twenty years from functioning fusion reactors" is another thing I've been hearing all my life, too. You're right of course though, dumping more money onto this would surely help maybe stave off civilizational collapse. I" should specify, we should fund research into other energy generation science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I get skeptical anytime there's any hope of Good News. Net positive is a huge step, but hardly "done".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:I've seen this around, not sure whether the data was accurate what is this, a graph for hydrogen atoms?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
That sounds like very terrific and optimistic news but after over 50 years on this planet, sadly, my first reaction was "what's the catch?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:what is this, a graph for hydrogen atoms?  found a bigger one, had problems inlining it on the edit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
It's too bad we can't harness relationship fission energy, because Elon's extremely divorced energy would lead us into a golden age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
Isn't the real problem behind fusion not that they can't start the reaction or make it energy efficient as far as producing energy but that they have trouble safely containing it? I apologize if i'm wrong but the problem that I sort of recall reading is that containing a reaction slowly (and sometimes in at times very bad situations not so slowly) slags whatever containment they have and if the shutdown sequence or certain parts of the reactor experience a total failure then oops now you basically have a superb bomb that can and absolutely will immediately vaporize the building along with everything in the locality of the power plant due to potentially as much as 150 million Celsius temperatures (depending on the scale of failure or Chernobyl style mismanagement and intentionally bad design.) and equivalent pressure rapidly expanding outwards if it it isn't shut down. Archonex fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Dec 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
While the Dems have probably lost the Latinos in Florida, they have maintained their standing with the ones in the Southwest. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1601985419041718272 I guess yet another reminder that Latinos are not a monolith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Isn't the real problem behind fusion not that they can't start the reaction or make it energy efficient as far as producing energy but that they have trouble safely containing it? Reading between the lines on that story: quote:Two of the people with knowledge of the results said the energy output had been greater than expected, which had damaged some diagnostic equipment, complicating the analysis. The breakthrough was already being widely discussed by scientists, the people added. Containment was a problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Reading between the lines on that story: So they were possibly close to it becoming a very big bomb and didn't realize it is what a more cynical take would be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:I've seen this around, not sure whether the data is accurate About a few years I did a bike ride and one of the cyclists was a retired physicist from General Atomics (San Diego). He explained that there are serious physics and engineering issues with creating a usable fusion generator plant even if you get past break even. I also see these stories as an attempt to delay positive actions we can do now to transition from fossil fuels. The one new area of research that does look seriously promising is the high speed microwave drilling stuff that COULD give us the ability to convert existing fuel based power plants to geothermal. Of course it needs to be proven that it can create a melted rock tube 15km into the earth at a reasonable time/cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Archonex posted:So they were possibly close to it becoming a very big bomb and didn't realize it is what a more cynical take would be.  I don't know anything about nuclear physics. Are you sure your idea that fusion reactors are basically contained A-bombs is actually true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Listen hydrogen fuel cells are just five year around the corner (said in 2005). Hey, I drive a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle now! A Nexo! I like the car! The stations are broken pieces of poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Hey, I drive a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle now! A Nexo! I like the car! The stations are broken pieces of poo poo! 95% + of the hydrogen you’re fueling is coming from fracked natural gas. Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:
H-bombs, not A-bombs They’re contained bombs in the same way that your car is setting off dozens of bombs per second. Same physical principle, but on a scale so much lower that the consequences of containment failure are much less
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Apparently the station nearest me uses renewable H2 but I don't know the details. But of course the station nearest me has also been broken since August soooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
Ither posted:I guess yet another reminder that Latinos are not a monolith. Not to worry, we can conveniently put them into their own monolithic category, Cuban Americans!  I'm only half kidding, that demographic does seem to politically move independently from just "Latinos".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:04
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:I've seen this around, not sure whether the data is accurate I’m sure there is one of these for the space program from 1976 too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:
It's not that fusion reactors are basically a-bombs (more like H-bombs in the case where a catastrophic failure occurs) so much as if the energy generation is higher than expected it can lead to all sorts of failures if the safeties are not functional. Ironically, this also can include diagnostic equipment that can report that, and it was damaged so a certain level of cynicism without peer reviewed assessment and experiments to verify their data isn't out of the question. Edit: Basically, reporting a mechanical failure as a success doesn't mean that it's a successful breakthrough. Until it's verified it's better to assume that they hosed something up and might not have realized it. haveblue posted:H-bombs, not A-bombs Pretty much this. The big problem with a fusion reaction getting out of control via a catastrophic failure is (Which is not likely given how the plasma terminates quickly.) that if someone were to poorly design a reactor ala Chernobyl and such a thing were to ever happen in practical usage there won't be anyone in the immediate area to tell you why it failed. Since in that scenario the whole thing can (again, assuming a total breakdown) just crater the immediate area on a scale similar to that big explosion in Beirut or wherever that made the rounds online a few years back. Either way, if it turns out they somehow managed to get 20% more energy out of a fusion reaction and weren't on track to slowly ruining the reactor then that's probably good. Edit: Also, they even without the fact that the reaction is supposed to self terminate there are other issues to consider. Namely, large amounts of neutron radiation damage, radioactive waste disposal needs, etc, etc. So for anyone thinking that a fusion reactor is basically radioactive-less...Uh, yeah, no. Archonex fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Dec 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
haveblue posted:H-bombs, not A-bombs Yeah, pretty sure fusion reactors are NOT giant atomic bombs waiting to go off based on the simple fact failure in containment is going to immediately drop the temperature down below where the fusion reaction is sustainable. They might be hard to keep control of per se, and I can't speak to how well equipment will stand up to the reaction, especially long-term, but I don't see how physics permits a reactor to generate a nuclear level explosion unless it was designed to do just that, the conditions under which fusion exists are just too artificial to be sustained if something fails bad enough. It's not like fission, where the reaction will merrily run along on its own without control and cause Bad Things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:Yeah, pretty sure fusion reactors are NOT giant atomic bombs waiting to go off based on the simple fact failure in containment is going to immediately drop the temperature down below where the fusion reaction is sustainable. They might be hard to keep control of per se, and I can't speak to how well equipment will stand up to the reaction, especially long-term, but I don't see how physics permits a reactor to generate a nuclear level explosion unless it was designed to do just that, the conditions under which fusion exists are just too artificial to be sustained if something fails bad enough. It's not like fission, where the reaction will merrily run along on its own without control and cause Bad Things. Yeah, and it should be pointed out that even Chernobyl, which was a fission reactor, failed primarily due to massive mismanagement and design flaws that no one in charge cared to fix since they were cheap as gently caress and wanted to cut corners. Along with that, practically speaking no one could contradict the people who hosed up or covered it up due to authoritarianism being a poo poo system overall. The real problem is if in the future some brainlet somehow manages to designs a fusion reactor in such a way that the plasma doesn't terminate properly (god knows how they'd do this, but someone probably will gently caress their way up into doing it at some point in the future) then you have a problem. Archonex fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Dec 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
I saw that news, and I am really hoping this isn’t another false alarm. If it’s true and it can be replicated, that’s humongous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:That sounds like very terrific and optimistic news but after over 50 years on this planet, sadly, my first reaction was "what's the catch?" The catch is that even if it is possible, the fossil fuel industry will fight tooth and nail to stop it from being politically feasible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The catch is that even if it is possible, the fossil fuel industry will fight tooth and nail to stop it from being politically feasible. And odds are they'll do it hand-in-hand with people who don't like fossil fuels but will always accept it ahead of anything with "nuclear" in the name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Edit: Also, they even without the fact that the reaction is supposed to self terminate there are other issues to consider. Namely, large amounts of neutron radiation damage, radioactive waste disposal needs, etc, etc. So for anyone thinking that a fusion reactor is basically radioactive-less...Uh, yeah, no. The sun is also famously radioactive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:what is this, a graph for hydrogen atoms? H- isn't real, it's just a concept that is statistically likely!!! For fusion, if it begins to work and is economical, there will be a propaganda campaign against it the likes of which we have never witnessed or it will be quietly shut down. Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Dec 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
Any time we make progress in fusion it’s a good thing but I’d like to know more about duration and equipment wear and tear before celebrating the death of fossil fuels. If they achieved these results for hours (or minutes!) and the whole thing needs to be rebuilt from the ground up now they’re not exactly close to commercial power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The catch is that even if it is possible, the fossil fuel industry will fight tooth and nail to stop it from being politically feasible. if only there was a significant amount of construction of wind and solar plants that disproved this edgy 1990s-era idea A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Any time we make progress in fusion it’s a good thing but I’d like to know more about duration and equipment wear and tear before celebrating the death of fossil fuels. If they achieved these results for hours (or minutes!) and the whole thing needs to be rebuilt from the ground up now they’re not exactly close to commercial power. from the lack of other newspapers repeating the FT story, I'm betting its an important step but nowhere near as important as the credulous FT reporter thought it was
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2022 02:52
|
|
