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

23 hours ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

classed as a Rumour and treated as such until official and verified data is published.

Would like to add Senator Gary Peters of Michigan posted on Facebook about this, looks like the Department of Energy was involved with this project. 
 

E9068840-9816-4DE9-9176-FF7E0F5462E7.thumb.png.1e26d539b04a8ed676655093323f2b04.png

I just want to sit back and watch the world burn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to this topic, I will not be holding my breath for Nuclear Fusion anytime soon.  With the advancements in material science and knowledge I do think that it might be possible, but the simple fact is you see news stories like this every few years about fusion.  Until proven otherwise, I will be cynical of any solution where the company tries claiming they can have a commercial reactor in like 15 years.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

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

That does create an issue though moving "all nuclear".  If everyone went all nuclear we would very quickly hit a supply shortage and also hit the issue of running out of enrichable uranium.  Apparently, some of the commercial PV's have hit $0.06/kWh with a pathway to $0.03/kWh which would also make it less feasible to go all Nuclear. [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030]

 

This article says 230 years (based on discovered and estimated undiscovered uranium) at 2009 levels [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/].  Currently we have 10% nuclear (not sure if it was higher in 2009, could be).  If we assume 20% back in 2009 though, that would mean converting to all nuclear we would have 46 years.  If you consider 10%, that would be 23 years.  Based on the world-nuclear.org though, 2009 had 438 plants online and 2022 had 440 plants online so I'm assuming the 10% number is about correct.  Based on current known supplies of uranium though the numbers drop to [current year 230->~100, all nuclear (20% current) 23 years, all nuclear (10% current) 10 years]

 

Really the solution is to have a blend of all of the renewables and nuclear.  It's the most realistic way.  Nuclear is important and needs to be built, but we cannot realistically bank on it as a complete solution because in the worst case it can only buy us an additional 10 - 20 years to build out the other solutions.

3735928559 - Beware of the dead beef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 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?

You're making a mini-sun on the earth and extracting energy from it. 

We've been able to do this for a long time, it's just it took like 100x the energy to get it started and to keep it going than could be extracted. 

The dream is a self-sustaining reaction that pumps out tons of energy, has minimal upkeep and from which a high percentage of the energy could be harvested. 

Ohh and the great thing about this... SUPER safe compared to nuclear fission. 

3900x | 32GB RAM | RTX 2080

1.5TB Optane P4800X | 2TB Micron 1100 SSD | 16TB NAS w/ 10Gbe
QN90A | Polk R200, ELAC OW4.2, PB12-NSD, SB1000, HD800
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cmndr said:

You're making a mini-sun on the earth and extracting energy from it. 

We've been able to do this for a long time, it's just it took like 100x the energy to get it started and to keep it going than could be extracted. 

The dream is a self-sustaining reaction that pumps out tons of energy, has minimal upkeep and from which a high percentage of the energy could be harvested. 

Ohh and the great thing about this... SUPER safe compared to nuclear fission. 

when fission was already our safest form of baseline power production, that says a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, starsmine said:

when fission was already our safest form of baseline power production, that says a lot.

Fission is the safest and least polluting form of power if nothing goes wrong. 

Unfortunately the world has a critical mass of idiots. 

3900x | 32GB RAM | RTX 2080

1.5TB Optane P4800X | 2TB Micron 1100 SSD | 16TB NAS w/ 10Gbe
QN90A | Polk R200, ELAC OW4.2, PB12-NSD, SB1000, HD800
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cmndr said:

Fission is the safest and least polluting form of power if nothing goes wrong. 

Unfortunately the world has a critical mass of idiots. 

Even with Nuclear accidents, Fission is still safer than almost every other form of power.

 

Take coal, for example - it actually creates more radioactivity than Nuclear does (assuming proper procedures).

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2022 at 1:09 PM, Lightwreather JfromN said:

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

 

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)

If you think about it, and consider that the universe is expanding, then humans have had infinite energy since April 1932. When we first split the atom. I have no expertise in this field. Any thoughts? 🤔

Omg, it's a signature!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Under sea wave generators 🥳

Kills marine life + gets corroded + transporting the energy back is a pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Even with Nuclear accidents, Fission is still safer than almost every other form of power.

 

Take coal, for example - it actually creates more radioactivity than Nuclear does (assuming proper procedures).

The problem is always a question of tradeoffs. When we finally wean the world off coal, it will only be because extractable amounts are no longer financially viable. There's supposed to be like 170 years of coal that is still financially viable. Uranium and Natural gas, not so much.  Uranium extraction renders the entire area it's extracted from a no-man's land. Like if you think tarsands destroyed the planet, look at Uranium. The problem is not so much the fuel extraction but the waste products left behind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Would like to add Senator Gary Peters of Michigan posted on Facebook about this, looks like the Department of Energy was involved with this project. 
 

E9068840-9816-4DE9-9176-FF7E0F5462E7.thumb.png.1e26d539b04a8ed676655093323f2b04.png

And of course defense has to be mentioned lol. At least it comes after clean energy.

12 minutes ago, My_Computer_Is_Trash said:

If you think about it, and consider that the universe is expanding, then humans have had infinite energy since April 1932. When we first split the atom. I have no expertise in this field. Any thoughts? 🤔

No. Firstly we don't have the means to harness that energy and secondly the expansion only matters on cosmological scales. Locally gravity and other forces dominate over the expansion.

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The problem is not so much the fuel extraction but the waste products left behind.

Nuclear waste, at least from reactors, is more or less a solved problem: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

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

I think the catch isn't that we can or cannot create nuclear fusion on earth, it's doing so in a harnessable manner. We achieved net positive fusion energy with bombs in the 60's I believe. Ivy Mike, the first Fusion bomb however was 77% fission power release.  Later bombs were cleaner and more fusion energy than fission. 

As I understand it, our end goal is fusion reactions with minimal external energy input needed but for safety sake always some external input needed. It'll be similar to how generators need electric power to make electric power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor

There's still then the matter of losses converting heat to steam to drive a turbine and losses there as well. It all adds up.

 

Maybe someday we'll get to Trek levels of matter/antimatter annihilation energy production and figure out more efficient ways to capture that energy for use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tikker said:

And of course defense has to be mentioned lol. At least it comes after clean energy.

Energy independence is definitely a goal to help protect the home land. 

I just want to sit back and watch the world burn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before yall get to excited, there is a good chance this has more to do with fusion bomb research (better understanding of yields, and the older a warhead, the more unsure we are of its output as things age) then fusion energy production. That Lab works more with DOD and weaponry then DOE.

That may partially be why they say none of this will be commercialize for another 20-30 years, if it can at all.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-13/fusion-breakthrough-gives-us-new-way-to-evaluate-its-nuclear-weapons?fbclid=IwAR3CkjHXJwCytdWi4VmCRmtkI-OlxCZlX8Pj75OU6s6FYIxh5VAbXtttjyc

 

 

Quote

That helps to ensure the nation’s more-than-5,000 aging warheads can be deployed — effectively creating a new way to gauge the arms’ shelf life. 



What bloomberg has reported I have corroborated with someone who knows more then all of us combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

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 🤔

The tides are easy to predict, and the change in how much power over time is not as erratic as say windpower, do you have any source on efficiency? how would it ugly-fy the landscape if its underwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

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

how does the renewables destroy the land mass? or are you refering to mining processes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oali24 said:

how does the renewables destroy the land mass? or are you refering to mining processes?

Hydro, it's actually really destructive to create a new hydro dam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 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

okay, then how come a country like france that produces the majority of its electricity from nuclear is still investing in renewables and uses lots of renewable energy? the more renewable energy you have installed the less need for batteries and the less likely for demand to be higher than supply at any given moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Hydro, it's actually really destructive to create a new hydro dam.

yeah, but he was talking about using power from the waves and tides, which has not been deployed at scale and is unproven but it would definitely have less issues than other forms of hydropower if the technology could work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oali24 said:

okay, then how come a country like france that produces the majority of its electricity from nuclear is still investing in renewables and uses lots of renewable energy? the more renewable energy you have installed the less need for batteries and the less likely for demand to be higher than supply at any given moment.

Renewables with no batteries or dams are useless.

 

Cheaper renewables are dams, followed by photovoltaic (which are useless for nighttime and peak power usage at the end of the afternoon), then wind (which isn't super reliable depending on the location).

 

Hopefully Ambri will succeed in bringing their dirty cheap calcium-antimony batteries for these kinds of applications, negating these cons.

 

But I still prefer relying on nuclear than renewables. Brazil has the biggest renewables share of large nations, and it's mostly due to hydro, ton of sun for solar and coastal winds in the northeast, which are very stable throughout the year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, oali24 said:

okay, then how come a country like france that produces the majority of its electricity from nuclear is still investing in renewables and uses lots of renewable energy? the more renewable energy you have installed the less need for batteries and the less likely for demand to be higher than supply at any given moment.

Political narrative and vote grabbing.    Even in France there is a strong push to reduce nuclear and go "green".    Any government that tries to be even mildly rational about power generation and the environment can kiss their election goodbye.  That is how powerful fear mongering can be.

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

15 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

 

That does create an issue though moving "all nuclear".  If everyone went all nuclear we would very quickly hit a supply shortage and also hit the issue of running out of enrichable uranium.  Apparently, some of the commercial PV's have hit $0.06/kWh with a pathway to $0.03/kWh which would also make it less feasible to go all Nuclear. [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030]

 

This article says 230 years (based on discovered and estimated undiscovered uranium) at 2009 levels [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/].  Currently we have 10% nuclear (not sure if it was higher in 2009, could be).  If we assume 20% back in 2009 though, that would mean converting to all nuclear we would have 46 years.  If you consider 10%, that would be 23 years.  Based on the world-nuclear.org though, 2009 had 438 plants online and 2022 had 440 plants online so I'm assuming the 10% number is about correct.  Based on current known supplies of uranium though the numbers drop to [current year 230->~100, all nuclear (20% current) 23 years, all nuclear (10% current) 10 years]

 

Really the solution is to have a blend of all of the renewables and nuclear.  It's the most realistic way.  Nuclear is important and needs to be built, but we cannot realistically bank on it as a complete solution because in the worst case it can only buy us an additional 10 - 20 years to build out the other solutions.

 

The problem with articles like that is they only pay lip service to breeder reactors and seawater uranium which are both possible but not feasible  financially (repeating narrative with nuclear).  but if they did bother to pull their fingers out of their ass and be more aggressive with saving the environment there is enough uranium to last 30,000 years. 

 

And on top of that it really depends on who you ask as to how much there is and how long it will last.  As far as I am concerned if the climate is that serious then they should build all the nuclear they can and mine uranium dry while trying to find an alternative source.  Because solar panels only last 25 years and are only yielding $3 of materials for every $30 spent recycling them.  That makes their cost per kw/h look a lot worse and their green attributes not very green at all.

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

ah another one, though this was already stated before and this is just new BS.

But if its about the "fusion ignition" itself? then I guess its cool, but not the BS "gain" it sounds like.

Another fusion BS story from the media, to greenwash the situation, as I guess LTT has been into

and projects like this being more fun

when Linus goes nuclear.

 

US Energy department, its about the ignition, not something that is about "gains" yet.
Something was achieved, the only gain is in the ignition, not the full fusion. Sadly media is greenwashing that sh*t.

Edited by Quackers101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, tikker said:

And of course defense has to be mentioned lol. At least it comes after clean energy.

Also American innovation. U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A. One just can't be happy about progress without mixing in patriotism.

I wonder how many scientists from far-east and Europe are part of that project.

 

18 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Apparently, some of the commercial PV's have hit $0.06/kWh with a pathway to $0.03/kWh which would also make it less feasible to go all Nuclear.

This. As much as I am a fan of nuclear fission as a bridge and backup technology (and hate all the political fear BS around it), renewables are just waay cheaper by now. And of course the problems associated with a limited fuel supply, especially Uranium for the current reactor types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, oali24 said:

The tides are easy to predict, and the change in how much power over time is not as erratic as say windpower, do you have any source on efficiency? how would it ugly-fy the landscape if its underwater.

The same way an offshore rig on the distance makes a sore view

Depending on tides would still have downtimes compared to nuclear who can run at full throttle 24/7 365/year

11 hours ago, oali24 said:

how does the renewables destroy the land mass? or are you refering to mining processes?

The amount of surface land required to produce the same amount of energy a single nuclear plant would.. isn't the ratio like 30 to 1 against solar and over 100 to 1 against wind?

And yeah, if people are going to make an argument against nuclear for its mining process, guess what? Rare earth still need to be mined for solar, steel still has to be mined mill, and in order to have a system that runs all day long, batteries still have materials that to be mined, that leaves as much of a wasteland as uranium mining does.

"But but but batteries can be recycled" so can uranium

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


×