4 ms·

MIT Claims They've Figured Out How to Make Fusion Energy Practical

39 points by galaxyLogic 3y ago

stefantalpalaru 3y ago
> cleaner energy Fusion is far from clean and unlikely to ever become economically viable: https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-the...
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  "After having worked on nuclear fusion experiments for 25 years at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, I began to look at the fusion enterprise more dispassionately in my retirement. " Reminds me of that old saw that goes something like “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” (Upton Sinclair and others [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/?amp=1 https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/?amp=1])
passwordoops 3y ago
I think they mean this MIT PR from early March: https://news.mit.edu/2024/tests-show-high-temperature-superconducting-magnets-fusion-ready-0304 https://news.mit.edu/2024/tests-show-high-temperature-superc...
- bradley13 3y ago
  Yes, that seems to be the real article. The MSN piece is useless. Basically, their idea (which mostly seems to work) is that they can wind a ribbon of superconductor material into a magnet with no electrical insulation between the layers of ribbon. Apparently the ribbon is superconductive along its length (I'm reading between the lines here), and hence the electrical insulation is unnecessary. Also, they were using REBCO superconductors, which work as somewhat higher temperatures (20K instead of 4K). While this class of superconductors is not new, apparently they hadn't been used in fusion experiments before. Can anyone with more knowledge of superconductors chime in?
qsi 3y ago
Sorry, but that's a terrible article, almost entirely devoid of content. It does link to [1] though, which has some actual background and [2] from MIT itself. [1] https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-magnets-ready-fusion https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-magnets-ready-fusion [2] https://news.mit.edu/2024/tests-show-high-temperature-superconducting-magnets-fusion-ready-0304 https://news.mit.edu/2024/tests-show-high-temperature-superc...
mike_hearn 3y ago
There have been such articles my whole life yet fusion never seems to get nearer. From the MIT press release: > It is designed to achieve a Q factor — a key parameter denoting the efficiency of a fusion plasma — of at least 2, essentially meaning that twice as much fusion energy is produced as the amount of energy pumped in to generate the reaction. That would be the first time a fusion plasma of any kind has produced more energy than it consumed. I didn't realize until recently that such statements from physics researchers have to be read very carefully. These aren't statements about the actual net power output of a theoretical power station, even though they read that way. They "define out" huge power draws that are physically necessary. The MIT PR is hardly better than the MSN article in this regard. The subhead says it "paves the way for practical, commercial, carbon-free power". They've done no such thing. The challenges faced by a real power plant are still far larger than usually gets reported. The biggest practical challenge facing fusion isn't even generating sufficient power or being cheap enough, IMO. It's that it's still nuclear technology and the claims about it being "clean" are invariably only talking about carbon (and ignoring the CO2 in the construction). The operation of the plasma irradiates the power plant itself and generates large quantities of low-grade nuclear waste that must still be buried somewhere. It's not as dangerous as the stuff from fission but there'd be more of it, it can still leak causing biohazards, and you still need scary stuff like robots to work with the reactor. Fusion plants also need to be really big to be practical, and they would consume way more water as a consequence. Given that the Greens have been shutting down nuclear plants due to general fear of nuclear technology, would something that looks just like it get a free pass? Despite the radioactive waste problem, the water consumption, the need for huge subsidies? There's also the issue of where to get tritium for reactor designs that need it. You have to get it from fission reactors! In theory it can be recycled but the practical challenges for that are themselves enormous.
- piokoch 3y ago
  "Given that the Greens have been shutting down nuclear plants due to general fear of nuclear technology" - so true... Something that Greens do not want to admit today. For long, long years they were fighting nuclear, thanks to them people who wanted to work in the are of nuclear energy field were treated like Holocaust deniers. Maybe one day someone will calculate how much money was spent on fighting nuclear energy (all those grants, donations, etc.) that led us to only one outcome: today exactly the same people are taking again grants and donations. This time to fight global warming (sorry, now we should say "climate catastrophe" as warming does not sound scary enough).
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
not-MSNified link https://twistedsifter.com/2024/04/mit-claims-theyve-figured-out-how-to-make-fusion-energy-practical/ https://twistedsifter.com/2024/04/mit-claims-theyve-figured-...

39 points by galaxyLogic 3y ago

> cleaner energy Fusion is far from clean and unlikely to ever become economically viable: https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-the...

readthenotes1 3y ago
"After having worked on nuclear fusion experiments for 25 years at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, I began to look at the fusion enterprise more dispassionately in my retirement. " Reminds me of that old saw that goes something like “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” (Upton Sinclair and others [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/?amp=1 https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/?amp=1])

passwordoops 3y ago

I think they mean this MIT PR from early March: https://news.mit.edu/2024/tests-show-high-temperature-superconducting-magnets-fusion-ready-0304 https://news.mit.edu/2024/tests-show-high-temperature-superc...

bradley13 3y ago
Yes, that seems to be the real article. The MSN piece is useless. Basically, their idea (which mostly seems to work) is that they can wind a ribbon of superconductor material into a magnet with no electrical insulation between the layers of ribbon. Apparently the ribbon is superconductive along its length (I'm reading between the lines here), and hence the electrical insulation is unnecessary. Also, they were using REBCO superconductors, which work as somewhat higher temperatures (20K instead of 4K). While this class of superconductors is not new, apparently they hadn't been used in fusion experiments before. Can anyone with more knowledge of superconductors chime in?

qsi 3y ago

Sorry, but that's a terrible article, almost entirely devoid of content. It does link to [1] though, which has some actual background and [2] from MIT itself. [1] https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-magnets-ready-fusion https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-magnets-ready-fusion [2] https://news.mit.edu/2024/tests-show-high-temperature-superconducting-magnets-fusion-ready-0304 https://news.mit.edu/2024/tests-show-high-temperature-superc...

mike_hearn 3y ago

There have been such articles my whole life yet fusion never seems to get nearer. From the MIT press release: > It is designed to achieve a Q factor — a key parameter denoting the efficiency of a fusion plasma — of at least 2, essentially meaning that twice as much fusion energy is produced as the amount of energy pumped in to generate the reaction. That would be the first time a fusion plasma of any kind has produced more energy than it consumed. I didn't realize until recently that such statements from physics researchers have to be read very carefully. These aren't statements about the actual net power output of a theoretical power station, even though they read that way. They "define out" huge power draws that are physically necessary. The MIT PR is hardly better than the MSN article in this regard. The subhead says it "paves the way for practical, commercial, carbon-free power". They've done no such thing. The challenges faced by a real power plant are still far larger than usually gets reported. The biggest practical challenge facing fusion isn't even generating sufficient power or being cheap enough, IMO. It's that it's still nuclear technology and the claims about it being "clean" are invariably only talking about carbon (and ignoring the CO2 in the construction). The operation of the plasma irradiates the power plant itself and generates large quantities of low-grade nuclear waste that must still be buried somewhere. It's not as dangerous as the stuff from fission but there'd be more of it, it can still leak causing biohazards, and you still need scary stuff like robots to work with the reactor. Fusion plants also need to be really big to be practical, and they would consume way more water as a consequence. Given that the Greens have been shutting down nuclear plants due to general fear of nuclear technology, would something that looks just like it get a free pass? Despite the radioactive waste problem, the water consumption, the need for huge subsidies? There's also the issue of where to get tritium for reactor designs that need it. You have to get it from fission reactors! In theory it can be recycled but the practical challenges for that are themselves enormous.

piokoch 3y ago
"Given that the Greens have been shutting down nuclear plants due to general fear of nuclear technology" - so true... Something that Greens do not want to admit today. For long, long years they were fighting nuclear, thanks to them people who wanted to work in the are of nuclear energy field were treated like Holocaust deniers. Maybe one day someone will calculate how much money was spent on fighting nuclear energy (all those grants, donations, etc.) that led us to only one outcome: today exactly the same people are taking again grants and donations. This time to fight global warming (sorry, now we should say "climate catastrophe" as warming does not sound scary enough).

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

not-MSNified link https://twistedsifter.com/2024/04/mit-claims-theyve-figured-out-how-to-make-fusion-energy-practical/ https://twistedsifter.com/2024/04/mit-claims-theyve-figured-...