6 ms·

Seeing humanity achieve net fusion in my lifetime would be a total game changer and repoint a good chunk of our future. Things like this make me think we are c

Seeing humanity achieve net fusion in my lifetime would be a total game changer and repoint a good chunk of our future. Things like this make me think we are closer than most people imagine if only because climate change is pushing is hard in this direction. Not only are the economics starting to make sense but also the political will to make this a reality before we all roast due to climate change.

lambdasquirrel 5y ago
It's nice to see advancements like this but I'm not sure that they will come soon enough for climate change. We needed to move on that yesterday. The industrialized countries need to sort out their safer fission options as a stopgap measure, and it's something we can start moving on immediately.
- nopinsight 5y ago
  If cheap energy from fusion becomes reality, it would open up many possibilities, including carbon capture techniques that are currently impractical.
  - shakezula 5y ago
    These are already cheap enough with current fission tech. It’s just that no one cares enough to do it.
- japanuspus 5y ago
  If only everyone has been as radically rational back in the 1970's when the greenhouse effect was generally dismissed as an argument for nuclear (fission) power, we would have had a half century head start.
- alexgmcm 5y ago
  Why not both? Fusion research budgets are a tiny, almost negligible, fraction of GDP as it is. We aren't so starved for cash we have to choose between fusion or fission - but that might mean less money for wars, the ultra-rich etc.
ncmncm 5y ago
It is a real achievement in plasma fluid dynamics engineering to have got a stable plasma so hot for so long. However, it does not mean there will ever be practical, commercially competitive power produced using this method or anything much like it. The total mass of material fusing in a reasonable volume is so small that, despite the large amount of energy per nucleus fused, the power produced is nowhere near what would be needed to pay for plant construction, never mind operation and maintenance--not to speak of having to replace all the most expensive parts after minimal use, as they are destroyed by neutron irradiation. Thus, every cent spent on this project actually takes us farther away from a renewable-energy future, vs. that same money put into building out wind and solar capacity and storage. This is a fundamental problem in any hot-neutron fusion system. The real reason governments pour so much money into Tokamak fusion projects is as jobs programs for hot-neutron physicists, and subsidy for contractors, to keep them all ready for when they will be tapped for weapons work. This is similar to the way NASA is still funding SLS: nobody expects it ever to be useful for anything, but the contractors involved need to be kept busy and employing staff for when a new missile system is needed. There are lots of probably-practical ideas for aneutronic fusion that don't get peanuts because they fail to provide a conduit for funding to thd right places. E.g. D-H3 fusion in FRC may well be practical for spacecraft propulsion, but development is on a shoestring budget, hoping to test something in maybe 2035.
- ragebol 5y ago
  Do you really think we can cover our far-future energy needs with renewables alone?
  - idownvoted 5y ago
    Labeling a project like SLS a subsidy for contractors, but not mentioning how solar and wind till this day aren't marketable without subsidisation speaks for itself.
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    We can but it means that you'll have solar captors (wind turbine, solar pv) littering the ground _or_ we'll just eat less energy. I'm afraid not many of us are ready for any of these two. Fusion would allow us to go on as usual. If only we had reliable information about the "is fusion for real use possible" question...
js8 5y ago
> Seeing humanity achieve net fusion in my lifetime would be a total game changer and repoint a good chunk of our future. For the same reason, I hope it will never happen. We will fuse all the hydrogen currently stored in Earth oceans just to produce Bitcoins or do something equally crazy. Remember when Americans put down a lot of asphalt just because they had all the oil? It didn't turn out to be so great 50 years after. I don't believe fusion is going to help our planet, either.
- lolc 5y ago
  Converting all hydrogen on earth would be thermal death for us even if done over centuries. While I do think that humanity is a destructive force, and we don't know how to control ourselves, that doesn't mean to me we should not develop fusion reactors. Because we haven't only grown in energy-consumption, but also in responsibility. From my point of view, we should stay on that path. Which includes looking for clean sources of energy.
  - taneq 5y ago
    It's OK, we'd only spend half of it on bitcoin and spend the other half on air conditioning.
phreeza 5y ago
I agree it's a game changer in the long term (eg for multiplanetary life), but in the timeframe that we have to do something about climate change (rather short), the effect of fusion depends hugely on the cost of building and running a fusion plant. If it is more expensive per Watt than a solar panel and a battery, not much is gained. If it is much cheaper, then it will indeed be a game changer in the short term. But currently it doesn't really look like it will be super cheap when it becomes available.
qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
Why is fusion better than traditional nuclear reactors?
- Iv 5y ago
  - Lower half-life wastes - Much more common fuels - Lower risks of catastrophic explosions
- nicoty 5y ago
  Afaiu, fusion doesn't produce radioactive waste products that fission does, since the fuel used for fusion are isotopes of hydrogen, and the waste products are helium and neutrons.
blablabla123 5y ago
Since the 70s people - also in Physics departments - thought we are really close to viable fusion. In these early days also a lot of money has been put into it. Therefore I highly doubt this approach is bringing any commercially usable results within the next decades.

lambdasquirrel 5y ago

It's nice to see advancements like this but I'm not sure that they will come soon enough for climate change. We needed to move on that yesterday. The industrialized countries need to sort out their safer fission options as a stopgap measure, and it's something we can start moving on immediately.

nopinsight 5y ago
If cheap energy from fusion becomes reality, it would open up many possibilities, including carbon capture techniques that are currently impractical.
- shakezula 5y ago
  These are already cheap enough with current fission tech. It’s just that no one cares enough to do it.
japanuspus 5y ago
If only everyone has been as radically rational back in the 1970's when the greenhouse effect was generally dismissed as an argument for nuclear (fission) power, we would have had a half century head start.
alexgmcm 5y ago
Why not both? Fusion research budgets are a tiny, almost negligible, fraction of GDP as it is. We aren't so starved for cash we have to choose between fusion or fission - but that might mean less money for wars, the ultra-rich etc.

ncmncm 5y ago

It is a real achievement in plasma fluid dynamics engineering to have got a stable plasma so hot for so long. However, it does not mean there will ever be practical, commercially competitive power produced using this method or anything much like it. The total mass of material fusing in a reasonable volume is so small that, despite the large amount of energy per nucleus fused, the power produced is nowhere near what would be needed to pay for plant construction, never mind operation and maintenance--not to speak of having to replace all the most expensive parts after minimal use, as they are destroyed by neutron irradiation. Thus, every cent spent on this project actually takes us farther away from a renewable-energy future, vs. that same money put into building out wind and solar capacity and storage. This is a fundamental problem in any hot-neutron fusion system. The real reason governments pour so much money into Tokamak fusion projects is as jobs programs for hot-neutron physicists, and subsidy for contractors, to keep them all ready for when they will be tapped for weapons work. This is similar to the way NASA is still funding SLS: nobody expects it ever to be useful for anything, but the contractors involved need to be kept busy and employing staff for when a new missile system is needed. There are lots of probably-practical ideas for aneutronic fusion that don't get peanuts because they fail to provide a conduit for funding to thd right places. E.g. D-H3 fusion in FRC may well be practical for spacecraft propulsion, but development is on a shoestring budget, hoping to test something in maybe 2035.

ragebol 5y ago
Do you really think we can cover our far-future energy needs with renewables alone?
- idownvoted 5y ago
  Labeling a project like SLS a subsidy for contractors, but not mentioning how solar and wind till this day aren't marketable without subsidisation speaks for itself.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  We can but it means that you'll have solar captors (wind turbine, solar pv) littering the ground _or_ we'll just eat less energy. I'm afraid not many of us are ready for any of these two. Fusion would allow us to go on as usual. If only we had reliable information about the "is fusion for real use possible" question...

js8 5y ago

> Seeing humanity achieve net fusion in my lifetime would be a total game changer and repoint a good chunk of our future. For the same reason, I hope it will never happen. We will fuse all the hydrogen currently stored in Earth oceans just to produce Bitcoins or do something equally crazy. Remember when Americans put down a lot of asphalt just because they had all the oil? It didn't turn out to be so great 50 years after. I don't believe fusion is going to help our planet, either.

lolc 5y ago
Converting all hydrogen on earth would be thermal death for us even if done over centuries. While I do think that humanity is a destructive force, and we don't know how to control ourselves, that doesn't mean to me we should not develop fusion reactors. Because we haven't only grown in energy-consumption, but also in responsibility. From my point of view, we should stay on that path. Which includes looking for clean sources of energy.
- taneq 5y ago
  It's OK, we'd only spend half of it on bitcoin and spend the other half on air conditioning.

phreeza 5y ago

I agree it's a game changer in the long term (eg for multiplanetary life), but in the timeframe that we have to do something about climate change (rather short), the effect of fusion depends hugely on the cost of building and running a fusion plant. If it is more expensive per Watt than a solar panel and a battery, not much is gained. If it is much cheaper, then it will indeed be a game changer in the short term. But currently it doesn't really look like it will be super cheap when it becomes available.

qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago

Why is fusion better than traditional nuclear reactors?

Iv 5y ago
- Lower half-life wastes - Much more common fuels - Lower risks of catastrophic explosions
nicoty 5y ago
Afaiu, fusion doesn't produce radioactive waste products that fission does, since the fuel used for fusion are isotopes of hydrogen, and the waste products are helium and neutrons.

blablabla123 5y ago

Since the 70s people - also in Physics departments - thought we are really close to viable fusion. In these early days also a lot of money has been put into it. Therefore I highly doubt this approach is bringing any commercially usable results within the next decades.