3 ms·
Seemed like this article in Nature did pretty good. They explicitly said: “I don't want to give you a sense that we're going to plug the NIF into the grid: tha
by TheCondor 4y ago
Seemed like this article in Nature did pretty good. They explicitly said: “I don't want to give you a sense that we're going to plug the NIF into the grid: that is definitely not how this works,”
and “Although positive news, this result is still a long way from the actual energy gain required for the production of electricity,” said Tony Roulstone, a nuclear-energy researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK, in a statement to the Science Media Centre.
Still, “the NIF experiments focused on fusion energy absolutely are valuable on the path to commercial fusion power”, says Anne White, a plasma physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
There is a pretty solid disconnect between the public's perception of how science works and happens and how it does. For this to really matter, someone else needs to duplicate the experiment and verify the data. It's a huge win if the hype can lead to that.
- jboy55 4y agoTo me this is the most important part of the article, “It’s a big milestone, but NIF is not a fusion-energy device,” says Dave Hammer, a nuclear engineer at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Herrmann acknowledges as much, saying that there are many steps on the path to laser fusion energy. “NIF was not designed to be efficient,” he says. “It was designed to be the biggest laser we could possibly build to give us the data we need for the [nuclear] stockpile research programme.”