5 ms·
Their "goal" is an order of magnitude improvement on existing stellarators, that sounds to me like it will want billions rather than millions. It's also doesn't
by Y_Y 3y ago
Their "goal" is an order of magnitude improvement on existing stellarators, that sounds to me like it will want billions rather than millions. It's also doesn't seem to meet the "triple product Lawson criterion" for useful fusion (achieved recently at NIF, expected for ITER). This is cool, but I'm always skeptical of the viability of fusion startups. I won't name names, but there's already a couple out there that seem to me to be vapourware but are dragging in big funding based on the dream of fusion.
- boxed 3y agoNIF didn't have anything even remotely practical though. The energy loss in the lasers alone is game over.
- Y_Y 3y agoExactly. They showed that it's a very lofty target even for a collosal non-commercial effort.
- itishappy 3y agoIt's a fair critique, but it was also never the intent. It was designed to test nuclear physics, not generate power.
- cameldrv 3y agoIt’s a reasonable misunderstanding though. They pretty deliberately obscure this fact.
- itishappy 3y agoI think they've been quite clear on their goals and accomplishments. Do you have an example in mind?
- boxed 3y agoThe big press releases claiming it has implications for fusion?
- itishappy 3y agoThis one? https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition... What do you find misleading? The ability to study self sustaining fusion reactions without nukes certainly does have implications for fusion, which aligns with their stated goals of researching nuclear physics.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoWhat is misleading is that nowhere in the press release do they say: 1) this research is weapons research (much less primarily weapons over power research) 2) this research does not currently contend a viable avenue towards breakeven power generation
- itishappy 3y ago> DOE Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby said in achieving ignition, LLNL researchers have “opened a new chapter in NNSA’s science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program,” one that enables scientists to modernize nuclear weapons and explore new avenues of research in nuclear science. > Following Hruby, NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Marvin “Marv” Adams showed a NIF target capsule and explained the science behind fusion reactions. Adams said ignition will enhance national security by helping NNSA maintain confidence in the nuclear deterrent, advance the country’s non-proliferation goals and increase national security. > “The science and technology challenges on the path to fusion energy are daunting but making the seemingly impossible possible is when we're at our very best,” Budil explained. “Ignition is a first step — a truly monumental one that sets the stage for a transformational decade in high energy density science and fusion research — and I cannot wait to see where it takes us.” > While optimism reigned for the event, Budil cautioned there are still “significant hurdles” and engineering challenges to solve before the commercialization of fusion energy becomes a reality, such as the ability to reproduce ignition many times per minute and making fusion reactions simpler and more efficient. > “I think it's moving into the foreground and, probably with concerted effort and investment, a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant,” Budil said.
- ben_w 3y agoIIRC, that specific issue is merely an implementation detail, much more efficient lasers already exist. There are plenty of other problems to be solved, and a lot of room for higher gain — upgrading the lasers isn't worth caring about until those things have actually been done.
- boxed 3y agoThe efficiency in the lasers isn't off by 50%. They are off by SEVERAL orders of magnitude. Plus the fuel pellets are too expensive anyway.
- ben_w 3y agoYes, I know. NIF's lasers are, I'm told, less than 1% efficient; modern lasers can be 50%-80% if that's what is being optimised for. There's no reason to bother upgrading those lasers until all the other issues are solved, and even then, as it's an experimental facility not a power station, they may well never bother even if it is the only thing holding them back from a gain of more than 1 as measured wallplug-to-wallplug.
- maxcan 3y agoTrue. But if you replace the Hohlraum with dilithium and find an anti-matter supply you can power a warm drive for FTL travel. Just need to kick it now and then.
- DennisP 3y agoThey lose so much in the lasers because they're using lasers from the 1990s, which are only 0.5% efficient. Equivalent modern lasers are over 20% efficient. From the input power being 130X more than the fusion output, modern lasers would turn that into about 3X. That's kinda promising because the fusion output seems to have nonlinear scaling; they increased laser power 8% and got 230% more output. This is why there are startups now pursuing laser fusion for commercial energy.
- willis936 3y agoTriple product is necessary and partially sufficient. One of those products is "confinement time". Longer confinement times with lower density make for machines that are closer to steady state rather than pulsed, greatly reducing engineering challenges. Stellarators are on the far end of the "steady state" spectrum while NIF is on the far end of the "high density" spectrum.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BeefWellington 3y agoI look at these places as technology and patent incubators more than anything.
- danbruc 3y agoNIF is doing weapons research, what they achieved is essentially irrelevant for electricity production as there is no plausible route towards a power plant. And if you take the overall energy balance, they did not even break even.
- cmpxchg8b 3y agoWarships need electricity too..
- Symmetry 3y agoAnd the Navy puts money into fusion research for that reason, including a bit into cold fusion just in case. But that's not what their doing at NIF, those guys are trying to figure out if you can make a thermonuclear bomb with just cheap lithium deutride and not the expensive plutonium/enriched uranium.
- tivert 3y ago> But that's not what their doing at NIF, those guys are trying to figure out if you can make a thermonuclear bomb with just cheap lithium deutride and not the expensive plutonium/enriched uranium. IIRC, thermonuclear bombs are already made with lithium deutride. Do you mean they're trying to build a thermonuclear bomb without the fission "detonator"? That doesn't make tons of sense to me, since I'd think the test ban treaty would realistically prevent creation of novel types of weapons (because it wouldn't be foolish to rely on a weapon for deterrence that you've never fully tested).
- actionfromafar 3y agoThe treaty Russia just punted on?
- danbruc 3y agoThe one that the United States signed but never ratified? Just as China, Egypt, Iran and Israel. And that India, North Korea and Pakistan never signed to begin with? And that will enter into force only after all those countries have signed at ratified it?