8 ms·

I like how they don't even try to pretend that this is a route to practical power generation, it's all about research into the fundamental physics of fusion - w

I like how they don't even try to pretend that this is a route to practical power generation, it's all about research into the fundamental physics of fusion - which is a worthy goal in itself. > The record shot was a major scientific advance in fusion research, which establishes that fusion ignition in the lab is possible at NIF,” said Omar Hurricane, chief scientist for LLNL’s inertial confinement fusion program. “Achieving the conditions needed for ignition has been a long-standing goal for all inertial confinement fusion research and opens access to a new experimental regime where alpha-particle self-heating outstrips all the cooling mechanisms in the fusion plasma."

citizenpaul 4y ago
I feel like the pendulum has swung too far the other direction these days. It used to be we'll have cold fusion in 20 years which was hopelessly over optimistic. Nowdays its. We are spending 10 years on a myopic proof of concept that has no practical uses and never will.
- seedless-sensat 4y ago
  The private fusion companies still have ambitious (and most likely unrealistic) goals
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    So did the Moller Air Car. Moller at least had a brief prototype that hovered. There are probably real scientists, engineers, and approaches, but it's probably about fleecing dumb investors at a fundamental level.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  One of my elderly relatives commented last week that he has been hearing that the new experimental results will promise reliable fusion plants in less than a decade ... Since 1960 (He used to be one of those guys inside an ICBM silo during the Cold war)
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  I maintain that we would be further along with fusion had we not kneecapped fission into a regulatory abyss.
- dcow 4y ago
  We're just biding our time until 2050, at which point we will unlock the ability to build industrial scale fusion energy plants.
  - planck01 4y ago
    I would love that. But honestly, I would be surprised if fusion energy will be economically feasible before 2100. If ever.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      I'd bet on that. I'd give Commonwealth Fusion Systems alone 40% in the next 20 years. More on recent fusion developments: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-future-of-fusion https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-f...
      - planck01 4y ago
        I hope you win! I usually get my reality checks from Sabine Hossenfelder, who a while back explained that all these fusion claims are wildly optimistic. You can find her video here: https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY I am no scientist, so it is hard for me to know if team optimistic or team pessimistic is right. But even if it is the latter, I think we should put more money and research on it!
        jefftk 4y ago
        The video isn't nuts, but it's mostly focused on clearing up a common misconception around what "break even" means. It discusses how ITER is not going to be powering the grid in 2025 (strong agree) but I don't see any discussion of the commercialization projects (of which Commonwealth is the strongest) or discussion of timescales anywhere near 2100.
        mlindner 4y ago
        > Sabine Hossenfelder FYI she's largely been debunked as a fear monger. She swings the pendulum too far in the other direction when reality is somewhere in between.
hyuijk 4y ago
My understanding is that one big reason so much money was invested in this lab is because the research has direct applications to nuclear weapon design. It's a dual use lab so to speak. The process they are studying is very similar to what's happening in the core of a thermonuclear bomb. > 1978: This report reviews aspects of the military applications of the inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program at Sandia Laboratories https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6412035 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6412035 > Today, research on inertial confinement fusion—the other leading approach—remains largely under the control of US national weapons labs. The military focus has had profound impacts on the development of inertial fusion energy. https://thebulletin.org/2013/07/nuclear-weapons-the-death-of-fusion/ https://thebulletin.org/2013/07/nuclear-weapons-the-death-of...
- Pixelbrick 4y ago
  Better they keep a cadre of smart people who can do this stuff than lose the institutional knowledge. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank
  - rtpg 4y ago
    Or one could choose to not do any further nuclear weapons research. I understand that is not the marching orders of the US government but it could be, and it could also be a choice made by individuals on the ground.
    - golergka 4y ago
      And make the world a much less safer place? Why would anyone in their right mind do such a thing?
      - rtpg 4y ago
        With existing nuclear weapons the US could easily wreck large population centers very easily. They also completely destroy a nations infrastructure. Blowing up population centers of course would be a case of indiscriminate bombing and kill tens of thousands of civilians. In WW2, even before dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US committed to a large bombing campaign that completely destroyed the country. The damage was so vast and total that the Japanese government did not even register Hiroshima to be unusual! Around that time other cities were also being razed to the ground, it just took more bombs to do so. During that war, in Europe and in Japan there were large bombing campaigns that indiscriminately killed many civilians. I find it hard to justify this (no, "they were doing the same" does not actually feel like a legitimate reason, especially when the narrative nowadays is that it was a battle between good and evil) Low-yield tactical nukes seem to be playing with the idea of being able to have this option to massacre people more easily and play around with the idea of using nukes with no consequence. Higher-yield nukes seem to serve the purpose of more effectively wiping chunks of a city from a map. What magical weapon are we looking for that will make the world safer, and that accomplishes strategic objectives that are not already covered by both the existing nuclear arsenal and the conventional weapons of the US? Remember, normal bombs actually do things too! Meanwhile, actual, legitimate No First Use policies would be much more effective at making the world a safer place. Stronger treaties to reduce nuclear arsenals, giving militaries less space to just push other countries around.
systemvoltage 4y ago
> which is a worthy goal in itself. I'd like us to focus on practical power generation. It will be the most defining aspect of future of US and largely the world. Everything is tied to energy and if we can make energy cheap enough so that its not worth metering; we'd secure the future from literally any calamity (including CC). Even the shittiest efficiency of carbon capture can be put to use when energy is cheap. 4% efficiency? Cool. Entropy increase from residual heat loss wouldn't make meaningful dent on the world's temperature. It is the carbon that is the problem (greenhouse effect). We have an almost unlimited source of energy from nuclear + solar. There are always going to be people and ideologies that oppose technological progress and prevent humanity from propelling forward. I belong to the camp where I'd want us to become a Kardeshev Type 1 civilization. Fusion would be a direct contributing factor for it.
- dataflow 4y ago
  > we'd secure the future from literally any calamity (including CC) What is CC here? Cosmic collapse? Credit cards? Edit: Ah, of course. Thanks.
  - tommsy64 4y ago
    Climate Catastrophe?
  - agar 4y ago
    Climate change
  - IntelMiner 4y ago
    Climate Change I assume
  - mrlonglong 4y ago
    Not really. A direct hit by a CME from the Sun would probably seriously damage a fusion plant. Magnets would need to be replaced along with a lot of electrical equipment.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
bandyaboot 4y ago
Omar Hurricane is a top-notch name.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  Doctor Hurricane. Never forget that.

citizenpaul 4y ago

I feel like the pendulum has swung too far the other direction these days. It used to be we'll have cold fusion in 20 years which was hopelessly over optimistic. Nowdays its. We are spending 10 years on a myopic proof of concept that has no practical uses and never will.

seedless-sensat 4y ago
The private fusion companies still have ambitious (and most likely unrealistic) goals
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  So did the Moller Air Car. Moller at least had a brief prototype that hovered. There are probably real scientists, engineers, and approaches, but it's probably about fleecing dumb investors at a fundamental level.
readthenotes1 4y ago
One of my elderly relatives commented last week that he has been hearing that the new experimental results will promise reliable fusion plants in less than a decade ... Since 1960 (He used to be one of those guys inside an ICBM silo during the Cold war)
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
I maintain that we would be further along with fusion had we not kneecapped fission into a regulatory abyss.
dcow 4y ago
We're just biding our time until 2050, at which point we will unlock the ability to build industrial scale fusion energy plants.
- planck01 4y ago
  I would love that. But honestly, I would be surprised if fusion energy will be economically feasible before 2100. If ever.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I'd bet on that. I'd give Commonwealth Fusion Systems alone 40% in the next 20 years. More on recent fusion developments: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-future-of-fusion https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-f...
    - planck01 4y ago
      I hope you win! I usually get my reality checks from Sabine Hossenfelder, who a while back explained that all these fusion claims are wildly optimistic. You can find her video here: https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY I am no scientist, so it is hard for me to know if team optimistic or team pessimistic is right. But even if it is the latter, I think we should put more money and research on it!
      - jefftk 4y ago
        The video isn't nuts, but it's mostly focused on clearing up a common misconception around what "break even" means. It discusses how ITER is not going to be powering the grid in 2025 (strong agree) but I don't see any discussion of the commercialization projects (of which Commonwealth is the strongest) or discussion of timescales anywhere near 2100.
      - mlindner 4y ago
        > Sabine Hossenfelder FYI she's largely been debunked as a fear monger. She swings the pendulum too far in the other direction when reality is somewhere in between.

hyuijk 4y ago

My understanding is that one big reason so much money was invested in this lab is because the research has direct applications to nuclear weapon design. It's a dual use lab so to speak. The process they are studying is very similar to what's happening in the core of a thermonuclear bomb. > 1978: This report reviews aspects of the military applications of the inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program at Sandia Laboratories https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6412035 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6412035 > Today, research on inertial confinement fusion—the other leading approach—remains largely under the control of US national weapons labs. The military focus has had profound impacts on the development of inertial fusion energy. https://thebulletin.org/2013/07/nuclear-weapons-the-death-of-fusion/ https://thebulletin.org/2013/07/nuclear-weapons-the-death-of...

Pixelbrick 4y ago
Better they keep a cadre of smart people who can do this stuff than lose the institutional knowledge. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank
- rtpg 4y ago
  Or one could choose to not do any further nuclear weapons research. I understand that is not the marching orders of the US government but it could be, and it could also be a choice made by individuals on the ground.
  - golergka 4y ago
    And make the world a much less safer place? Why would anyone in their right mind do such a thing?
    - rtpg 4y ago
      With existing nuclear weapons the US could easily wreck large population centers very easily. They also completely destroy a nations infrastructure. Blowing up population centers of course would be a case of indiscriminate bombing and kill tens of thousands of civilians. In WW2, even before dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US committed to a large bombing campaign that completely destroyed the country. The damage was so vast and total that the Japanese government did not even register Hiroshima to be unusual! Around that time other cities were also being razed to the ground, it just took more bombs to do so. During that war, in Europe and in Japan there were large bombing campaigns that indiscriminately killed many civilians. I find it hard to justify this (no, "they were doing the same" does not actually feel like a legitimate reason, especially when the narrative nowadays is that it was a battle between good and evil) Low-yield tactical nukes seem to be playing with the idea of being able to have this option to massacre people more easily and play around with the idea of using nukes with no consequence. Higher-yield nukes seem to serve the purpose of more effectively wiping chunks of a city from a map. What magical weapon are we looking for that will make the world safer, and that accomplishes strategic objectives that are not already covered by both the existing nuclear arsenal and the conventional weapons of the US? Remember, normal bombs actually do things too! Meanwhile, actual, legitimate No First Use policies would be much more effective at making the world a safer place. Stronger treaties to reduce nuclear arsenals, giving militaries less space to just push other countries around.

systemvoltage 4y ago

> which is a worthy goal in itself. I'd like us to focus on practical power generation. It will be the most defining aspect of future of US and largely the world. Everything is tied to energy and if we can make energy cheap enough so that its not worth metering; we'd secure the future from literally any calamity (including CC). Even the shittiest efficiency of carbon capture can be put to use when energy is cheap. 4% efficiency? Cool. Entropy increase from residual heat loss wouldn't make meaningful dent on the world's temperature. It is the carbon that is the problem (greenhouse effect). We have an almost unlimited source of energy from nuclear + solar. There are always going to be people and ideologies that oppose technological progress and prevent humanity from propelling forward. I belong to the camp where I'd want us to become a Kardeshev Type 1 civilization. Fusion would be a direct contributing factor for it.

dataflow 4y ago
> we'd secure the future from literally any calamity (including CC) What is CC here? Cosmic collapse? Credit cards? Edit: Ah, of course. Thanks.
- tommsy64 4y ago
  Climate Catastrophe?
- agar 4y ago
  Climate change
- IntelMiner 4y ago
  Climate Change I assume
- mrlonglong 4y ago
  Not really. A direct hit by a CME from the Sun would probably seriously damage a fusion plant. Magnets would need to be replaced along with a lot of electrical equipment.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago

bandyaboot 4y ago

Omar Hurricane is a top-notch name.

rbanffy 4y ago
Doctor Hurricane. Never forget that.