Jump to content

[Update: Confirmed] Unlimited* Powaaa! – Scientists achieve net positive nuclear fusion reaction

Lightwreather
Go to solution Solved by Lightwreather,

Well, it appears it has been confirmed by the Department of Energy,

Quote

On Tuesday, the US Department of Energy (DOE) confirmed information that had leaked out earlier this week: its National Ignition Facility had reached a new milestone, releasing significantly more fusion energy than was supplied by the lasers that triggered the fusion. "Monday, December 5, 2022 was an important day in science," said Jill Hruby, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. "Reaching ignition in a controlled fusion experiment is an achievement that has come after more than 60 years of global research, development, engineering, and experimentation."

Quote

In terms of specifics, the lasers of the National Ignition Facility deposited 2.05 megajoules into their target in that experiment. Measurements of the energy released afterward indicate that the resulting fusion reactions set loose 3.15 megajoules, a factor of roughly 1.5. That's the highest output-to-input ratio yet achieved in a fusion experiment.

Although there is a bit of a snag here, it appears that the lasers that produced the 2 MJ, used about 300MJ.

Quote

As we noted above, the 3 MJ released in this experiment is a big step up from the amount of energy deposited in the target by the National Ignition Facility's lasers. But it's an enormous step down from the 300 MJ or so of grid power that was needed to get the lasers to fire in the first place.

But many speakers emphasized that the facility was built with once-state-of-the-art technology that's now over 30 years old. And, given its purpose of testing conditions for nuclear weapons, keeping power use low wasn't one of the design goals. "The laser wasn't designed to be efficient," said Herrmann, "the laser was designed to give us as much juice as possible to make these incredible conditions happen in the laboratory."

However she noted

Quote

Tammy Ma leads the DOE's Inertial Fusion Energy Institutional Initiative, which is designed to explore its possible use for electricity generation. She estimated that simply switching to current laser technology would immediately knock 20 percent off the energy use. She also mentioned that these lasers could fire far more regularly than the existing hardware at the National Ignition Facility.

And there are a host of other issues with Intertial Confinement.

Quote

Kim Budil, director of Lawrence Livermore National Lab, mentioned the other barriers. "This is one igniting capsule one time," Budil said. "To realize commercial fusion energy, you have to do many things; you have to be able to produce many, many fusion ignition events per minute. And you have to have a robust system of drivers to enable that." Drivers like consistent manufacturing of the targets, hardware that can survive repeated neutron exposures, and so on.

Therefore, despite the fact that laser-driven fusion has achieved significant energy milestones, a long list of issues still need to be resolved before it can be commercialised. An alternate strategy, magnetic confinement in tokamaks, is considered to primarily deal with difficulties of scale and magnetic field intensity and, as a result, to be considerably closer to commercialisation.

Quote

"There's a lot of commonalities between the two where we can learn from each other," Ma said optimistically. "There's burning plasma physics, material science, reactor engineering, and we're very supportive of each other in this community. A win for either inertial or magnetic confinement is a win for all of us." But another speaker noted that magnetic confinement works at much lower densities than laser-driven fusion, so not all of the physics would apply.

But Ma also suggested that, for laser-driven fusion to thrive, it may need to break away from its past in weapons testing. "Where we are right now is at a divergent point," she said. "We've been very lucky to be able to leverage the work that the National Nuclear Security Administration has done for inertial confinement fusion. But if we want to get serious about [using it for energy production], we need to figure out what an integrated system looks like... and what we need for a power plant. It has to be simple, it has to be high volume, it needs to be robust." None of those things had been required for the weapons work.

My thoughts

So while this has indeed confirmed that there was indeed a net positive energy output, this is only in relation to the power outputted by the lasers. Furthermore, it appears the NIF is having some difficulty reproducing what happened here, so yea. But there is hope that this milestone will be able to be carried forth to more efficient designs and bring commercial reactors. Although it is certainly some time away, this has certainly reduced the time that we will be waiting. Until it happens though, I seriously hope that governments start investing not only in fusion but fission and other renewables as well.

Sources

ArsTechnica

Edit: It appears it has been confirmed but with a few caveats, so after reading this post I suggest that you read the post marked as the solution.

Summary

According to certain people close to preliminary data, an experiment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has yielded a net positive energy output. The laboratory confirmed to the FT it had recently conducted a “successful” experiment at the National Ignition Facility, but declined to comment further, citing the preliminary nature of the data.

 

Quotes

Quote

The experiment took place in recent weeks at the government-funded Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, where researchers used a process known as inertial confinement fusion, the Financial Times reports, citing three people with knowledge of the experiment’s preliminary results. Researchers were able to produce 2.5 megajoules of energy, 120 per cent of the 2.1 megajoules used to power the experiment.

 

My thoughts

It should absolutely be noted this is word of but a few people, and should be classed as a Rumour and treated as such until official and verified data is published.

But until then, it's kinda nice to dream a bit. If this is true, it may mean Nuclear Fusion as a viable energy source in the near future. Ofc, it will likely be a while before they're certified by Governments (I'm assuming this is a thing, someone tell me if it is right), and we see actual commercial Fusion reactors constructed and powered on. I kinda hope they market this as Fusion energy, given the general public's aversion to anything with the name nuclear in it.

Well, what will happen, is something we're gonna have to wait and see. If this is indeed confirmed or denied to be true, I will update this post accordingly

 

Sources

The Independent

Financial Times (Paywalled)

"A high ideal missed by a little, is far better than low ideal that is achievable, yet far less effective"

 

If you think I'm wrong, correct me. If I've offended you in some way tell me what it is and how I can correct it. I want to learn, and along the way one can make mistakes; Being wrong helps you learn what's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Okay, so its this like a creating energy out of nothing breaking the laws of physics kinda net gain, or one where you're still creating it from something, just not energy you need to pump into it?

You use lasers to light up a pellet of nuclear fuel.

 

You get excess energy when the energy needed to drive the laser pulse is less than the energy the nuclear fuel releases when it fuses into helium.

 

To the best I can tell, the "breakthrough" is that after 10KJ of energy that reached the pellet, the pellet released 14KJ.

Only problem, the lasers took 1.8MJ of energy to fire for 10KJ to reach the pellet. It's a very long way away.
image.png.a50989c15069cfa2e38d2dc7f7de8d83.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been done a couple of times now IIRC? Nonetheless, it is encouraging to see this happen more. I'm still in the I'll believe it when I see it camp, as fusion has been 20 years away for so long now, but I do hope we figure it out at some point.

 

2 minutes ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Okay, so is this like a creating energy out of nothing breaking the laws of physics kinda net gain, or one where you're still creating it from something, just not energy you need to pump into it?

Not really. The reason fusion releases energy is because up to iron, the nucleus resulting from fusion has less mass (well, binding energy) than the nuclei that fused. The excess is released as energy. In principle we know how to do fusion, we have fusion bombs after all, but that's a one time event. The even harder part is keeping the plasma contained, requiring high pressures, and keeping fusion going, requiring high temperatures. Not to mention that you then also need to (safely) extract and store the generated energy somewhere.

Crystal: CPU: i7 7700K | Motherboard: Asus ROG Strix Z270F | RAM: GSkill 16 GB@3200MHz | GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti FE | Case: Corsair Crystal 570X (black) | PSU: EVGA Supernova G2 1000W | Monitor: Asus VG248QE 24"

Laptop: Dell XPS 13 9370 | CPU: i5 10510U | RAM: 16 GB

Server: CPU: i5 4690k | RAM: 16 GB | Case: Corsair Graphite 760T White | Storage: 19 TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Ah, yea, so the second scenario. 
A viable method for fusion, no infinite energy bullshit. 

Glad to hear it, i hope they can figure it out

Infinite energy — BreadBlog

Current Network Layout:

Current Build Log/PC:

Prior Build Log/PC:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Okay, so is this like a creating energy out of nothing breaking the laws of physics kinda net gain

Fusion is how the sun and stars generate energy, usually the energy required to create stable fusion is a result of massive gravity. So it's not "energy from nothing" it's a "net positive" that relies on external energy input usually from extreme magnetism to replicate the effects of intense gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BiotechBen said:

Fusion is how the sun and stars generate energy, usually the energy required to create stable fusion is a result of massive gravity. So it's not "energy from nothing" it's a "net positive" that relies on external energy input usually from extreme magnetism to replicate the effects of intense gravity.

I was going to say wouldn't actual infinite energy basically destroy the laws of physics 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fasterthannothing said:

I was going to say wouldn't actual infinite energy basically destroy the laws of physics 

Not really, gravitational energy either caused by mass or magnetism are still contributing to the total energy input, just that if we don't have to GENERATE that energy it is functionally net gain. Fusion is only sustainable with unlimited fuel and great input energy. The laws of physics are not being broken, just exploited. 

 

If you want to talk about breaking laws of physics, EMdrives are what you want to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever is necessary for next frontier of gaming hardware.

| Ryzen 7 7800X3D | AM5 B650 Aorus Elite AX | G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo RGB DDR5 32GB 6000MHz C30 | Sapphire PULSE Radeon RX 7900 XTX | Samsung 990 PRO 1TB with heatsink | Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 | Seasonic Focus GX-850 | Lian Li Lanccool III | Mousepad: Skypad 3.0 XL / Zowie GTF-X | Mouse: Zowie S1-C | Keyboard: Ducky One 3 TKL (Cherry MX-Speed-Silver)Beyerdynamic MMX 300 (2nd Gen) | Acer XV272U | OS: Windows 11 |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have the unfortunate feeling that this may turn into another ninovium scandal.

i hope it doesn't we really need more diversity in how power is produced, solar and wind is cool and all but it won't work out in the depths of space.

*Insert Witty Signature here*

System Config: https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/Tncs9N

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

i have the unfortunate feeling that this may turn into another ninovium scandal.

i hope it doesn't we really need more diversity in how power is produced, solar and wind is cool and all but it won't work out in the depths of space.

Agree about wind, but solar works decently well for a significant chunk of our solar system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Senzelian said:

As of right now we desperately need more cheap energy in Europe. I wish we would've never gotten rid of nuclear power in Germany. I hope the french get their reactor running in 2025 as they planned.

 

 

we need more energy... period. Everywhere lol 

Like we just can't seem to get enough of it.

"If a Lobster is a fish because it moves by jumping, then a kangaroo is a bird" - Admiral Paulo de Castro Moreira da Silva

"There is nothing more difficult than fixing something that isn't all the way broken yet." - Author Unknown

Spoiler

Intel Core i7-3960X @ 4.6 GHz - Asus P9X79WS/IPMI - 12GB DDR3-1600 quad-channel - EVGA GTX 1080ti SC - Fractal Design Define R5 - 500GB Crucial MX200 - NH-D15 - Logitech G710+ - Mionix Naos 7000 - Sennheiser PC350 w/Topping VX-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcredeur97 said:

we need more energy... period. Everywhere lol 

Like we just can't seem to get enough of it.

Nuclear is the way to go.

Simple, unfortunately people are shit scared of it.

🌲🌲🌲

 

 

 

◒ ◒ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Nuclear is the way to go.

Simple, unfortunately people are shit scared of it.

yeah, but we also need renewables with nuclear as renewables are cheaper to implement at scale, at least in the short to medium term, we definitely should be building more nuclear for climate reasons even with that caveat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now to convince the eco zealot that there are other ways to produce clean energy without the sun or wind as sources....

Spoiler

Lost Battle

 

One day I will be able to play Monster Hunter Frontier in French/Italian/English on my PC, it's just a matter of time... 4 5 6 7 8 9 years later: It's finally coming!!!

Phones: iPhone 4S/SE | LG V10 | Lumia 920 | Samsung S24 Ultra

Laptops: Macbook Pro 15" (mid-2012) | Compaq Presario V6000

Other: Steam Deck

<>EVs are bad, they kill the planet and remove freedoms too some/<>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Now to convince the eco zealot that there are other ways to produce clean energy without the sun or wind as sources....

  Reveal hidden contents

Lost Battle

 

Under sea wave generators 🥳

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we still at the "30 years till power generation" or no?

Specs: Motherboard: Asus X470-PLUS TUF gaming (Yes I know it's poor but I wasn't informed) RAM: Corsair VENGEANCE® LPX DDR4 3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 2x8GB

            CPU: Ryzen 9 5900X          Case: Antec P8     PSU: Corsair RM850x                        Cooler: Antec K240 with two Noctura Industrial PPC 3000 PWM

            Drives: Samsung 970 EVO plus 250GB, Micron 1100 2TB, Seagate ST4000DM000/1F2168 GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti Black edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Under sea wave generators 🥳

does it occupy an unreasonable amount of space to generate any meaningful amount of power? yes

is it dependent  on weather/environmental conditions to generate power? yes

does it give a sense of "cleanliness" when you eliminate everything around it's production? yes

is it very inefficient? yes

will it require some sort of power accumulation to cover down times? yes

will it ugly-fy the landscape? yes

 

You might be on to something @leadeater 🤔

One day I will be able to play Monster Hunter Frontier in French/Italian/English on my PC, it's just a matter of time... 4 5 6 7 8 9 years later: It's finally coming!!!

Phones: iPhone 4S/SE | LG V10 | Lumia 920 | Samsung S24 Ultra

Laptops: Macbook Pro 15" (mid-2012) | Compaq Presario V6000

Other: Steam Deck

<>EVs are bad, they kill the planet and remove freedoms too some/<>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

You might be on to something @leadeater 🤔

Sometimes I am good at coming up with bad ideas, however I cannot take credit for this as those actually exist haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, oali24 said:

yeah, but we also need renewables with nuclear as renewables are cheaper to implement at scale, at least in the short to medium term, we definitely should be building more nuclear for climate reasons even with that caveat.

The things is, once you have nuclear all the other renewables are a net loss to the system.

 

310144978_402001868806658_1942061329783916958_n.thumb.jpg.f0428a7db3c99bb667a418ec74049364.jpg

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

Now to convince the eco zealot that there are other ways to produce clean energy without the sun or wind as sources....

  Hide contents

Lost Battle

 

 

I have it on good authority the fusion is what happens in the sun and the sun gives you skin cancer, so fusion gives you cancer.  Back to the windmills and solar panel landscapes.  But I'm also told that eating apricot kernels cures cancer,  so what if we made the fusion reactor out of those?

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Okay, so is this like a creating energy out of nothing breaking the laws of physics kinda net gain, or one where you're still creating it from something, just not energy you need to pump into it?

The laws of physics do not exist.

 

No, fusion is not a "perpetual motion machine"/"free energy" joke. We've literately been having these "cold fusion" jokes since the 60's or so. 

 

Whenever someone talks about fusion energy, you put on the skeptic hat and ask a lot of questions and do not trust something you don't actually see happening. Achieving hot fusion was always an attainable goal within reach, because we have proof it's possible (the sun), however the technology for magnetic containment and reactor design is not a precise process, that's what all the "research" reactors have been doing. One mistake, and the reactor get's damaged. 

 

At any rate, fusion involves some kind of fuel, it doesn't generate energy from ambient hydrogen in the air. A small net gain in energy is still not a useful net gain overall. If you need a billion dollar reactor to produce a net gain of 12V at 10A, wow, you have enough power for maybe one computer.

 

If billionaires really believed in saving the planet, they would be putting their money into Fusion research, but they aren't, because it will NEVER recoup the investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

we need more energy... period. Everywhere lol 

Like we just can't seem to get enough of it.

 

Nature of doing anything, you want cool stuff ion your life, it takes energy to create. That either comes from electricity, directly combusting somthing, or your own personal input. And the later comes from your food which in one fashion or another comes from photosynthesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Ah, yea, so the second scenario. 
A viable method for fusion, no infinite energy bullshit. 

Really don't know why you ever thought like that.

Like nuclear fission, nuclear fusion consumes some kind of fuel which loses energy during the process. With the subtle difference that fuel for (most) fusion reactors is indeed available in "infinite" amounts and for dirt cheap, which can't be said for fission fuel, especially the former aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

The things is, once you have nuclear all the other renewables are a net loss to the system.

 

310144978_402001868806658_1942061329783916958_n.thumb.jpg.f0428a7db3c99bb667a418ec74049364.jpg

The third option reminds me that Japan is reenabling all reactors they've put offline after Fukushima. And they have a project to generate idrogene with the excess power. And that they've learned from Fukushima and found a new way to cool down reactors.

But yeah, destroying 100 times the land mass to generate the power a single reactor could is so much better. Better burn every book on nuclear research and have only this 2 options

One day I will be able to play Monster Hunter Frontier in French/Italian/English on my PC, it's just a matter of time... 4 5 6 7 8 9 years later: It's finally coming!!!

Phones: iPhone 4S/SE | LG V10 | Lumia 920 | Samsung S24 Ultra

Laptops: Macbook Pro 15" (mid-2012) | Compaq Presario V6000

Other: Steam Deck

<>EVs are bad, they kill the planet and remove freedoms too some/<>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×