4 ms·

Ok this was a terse comment, but so is a downvote. Please explain why is not 50 years away from first real industrial use. I am waiting.... https://youtu.be/Rb

by belter 2y ago

Ok this was a terse comment, but so is a downvote. Please explain why is not 50 years away from first real industrial use. I am waiting.... https://youtu.be/RbZ-XYy0k10 https://youtu.be/RbZ-XYy0k10

Gud 2y ago
https://news.mit.edu/2024/commonwealth-fusion-systems-unveils-worlds-first-fusion-power-plant-1217 https://news.mit.edu/2024/commonwealth-fusion-systems-unveil... So according to the industry leaders, we will have the first 400MW plant within 10 years.
- andriesm 2y ago
  How can they build something commercial/grid-scale when not a single research-level reactor truly generates net energy out, and none can do it anywhere near continously enough to be of any practical use? This news is either based on misleading the public, or I am about to be updated with where Fusion is?
  - cladopa 2y ago
    Because they are more or less certain (because of their magnets) they will get the necessary temperatures for ignition, giving more energy that it consumes. If they get ignitions, all the other problems will be solved very fast, because there will be an enormous rush from investors wanting to invest billions.
    - nradov 2y ago
      I hope they succeed, but throwing more money at problems like this doesn't necessarily accelerate progress. There is still basic research needed. Building large, high-precision devices can't be rushed.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > throwing more money at problems like this doesn't necessarily accelerate progress "Necessarily" being your Zeno's Arrow. Necessary to what threshold? I can literally argue against anything to an arbitrary level of necessity. (Breathing doesn't necessarily ensure living.)
        Gud 2y ago
        Also, is living really necessary?
      - Gud 2y ago
        They are doing the “basic research” and are actually world leading nuclear fusion engineers… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJvdWdoIGluIG51Y2xlYXIgZnVzaW9uIGRlbm5pcyB3aHl0ZQ%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJ...
  - Gud 2y ago
    I think you are about to be updated. Watch this clip with Prof. Whyte from 8 years ago. It’s the team behind CFS(then still at MIT). Highly interesting. He will explain exactly what they will do(now doing), how they will do it, and why they will do it they way they are doing it. Please note that they are pretty much on target since. I have been following CFS closely. Essentially the breakthrough has been the ability to manufacture more powerful magnets. CFS makes the most powerful magnets in the world. That was always the main issue, how to contain the plasma. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJvdWdoIGluIG51Y2xlYXIgZnVzaW9uIGRlbm5pcyB3aHl0ZQ%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJ...
    - belter 2y ago
      https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusion-cons-nature-magazine-journalist/ https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusi...
      - Gud 2y ago
        Sorry, what are you responding to?
        belter 2y ago
        "Scientists working on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Commonwealth Fusion Systems collaboration have misled members of the science news media again. The latest casualty is Philip Ball, an experienced U.K. science reporter. In a Nov. 17, 2021, news story, Ball wrote that scientists working with the MIT/CFS collaboration are planning to deliver the “first fusion machine expected to generate more energy than it uses” in 2025. Actually, the MIT/CFS SPARC reactor is designed only to produce a fusion plasma that produces power at a higher rate than it consumes power. That measurement does not account for the input power required to operate the reactor. It’s the same trick that fusion promoters used to sell the idea of ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor."
        2y ago
- epistasis 2y ago
  What makes them industry leaders? Do they have a prototype? Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies? If they don't have a prototype, and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant, why should we believe this is possible? What evidence is there that these plans for a massive breakthrough ten years from now will work out? This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype. It may not be, but it has all those features, and not many other features.
  - gpm 2y ago
    > What makes them industry leaders? They have a plausible relatively well understood path to fusion, have credibility with their background (coming out of fusion research at MIT), and have raised something like 2 billion dollars in funding. > Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies They think so > and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant They aren't. They're currently developing "SPARC", a Q>1 demonstration plant targeting 2027. The 400 MW commercial plant, ARC, is a follow on design targeting 2030s. > This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype They predate the AI boom by a lot. The project started in 2018. They had a $1.8 billion dollar funding round in 2021. The basic concept is "hey look, someone figured out how to build better superconductors. What if we took what ITER is trying to do, but used modern super conductors to make it smaller and actually achievable". I'm not saying I think they're certain to succeed, but I don't think they're a scam and I think it's very reasonable to include them amongst the group of "industry leaders"
    - orwin 2y ago
      The reason Iter is so big is not to achieve controlled fusion, but to be able to capture the fusion energy output. I'm not doubting their ability to reach the self-sustaining plasma, I'm doubtful about their ability to capture energy from it though.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  I looked up this Commonwealth Fusion Systems company. "The company plans to produce its first plasma in 2026 and net fusion energy shortly after." Looks like your argument is build on just promises, not backed by any tech developments.
  - Gud 2y ago
    No, they have developed the world’s most powerful magnets based on superconducting tape which is essential for containing the plasma.
  - thinkcontext 2y ago
    Their key tech development is the manufacture of high temperature superconducting magnets. This is the key to their reactor design.
- belter 2y ago
  Fake news: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusion-cons-nature-magazine-journalist/ https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusi...
garyrob 2y ago
"I am waiting..." was unnecessary.
- belter 2y ago
  True...But I am still waiting for the scientific and technical arguments to prove me wrong.
zamadatix 2y ago
As for "why not 50 years", even the pessimistic reports of that video have it at ~30 years. Besides, the point is "we won't really know a good estimate for when until it's already about to hit us in the face" not "we should just assume 50 years is a more correct guess than other ones". As for the comments about votes, they aren't a measure of terseness either. The point is to bubble comments likely to result in curious and thoughtful conversation to the top while comments which will distract from that kind of conversation (combative, vague, distractly offtopic, or whatever else the reason may be) tend to get hidden away. Whether a comment is totally on the money or absolutely incorrect, how you present the conversation starter has a far bigger drive on what types follow-on conversation will appear. Here, that also strongly implies what types of votes will appear too.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  And how about a honest discussion about whether 30 years away for fusion research may boil down to never ? We are in a contraction already,people voting for decomplexification of society because that is just a natural felt trade off- feed my family now with less tax and forget about leechers promising free energy since almost a 100 years.Its not reasonable , its not historically backed up (science saved the day multiple times ) but this window of research opportunities is closing rapidly and its time to find alternatives to finance such endeavours besides state and oligarchy conglomerate investment scams.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Sustained fusion is already a thing in the universe but while we can't undiscover what powers the sun we could certainly give up replicating it on Earth if we'd like. That would be less an estimate of how long it'd take and more a measure of what we want to invest our limited resources in though. I think everyone would agree we should find ways of investing that aren't scams. The hard part is who agrees on what is a scam. I don't mind more purely private investment myself though, which has seemed to be a trend in recent years.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > As for "why not 50 years", even the pessimistic reports of that video have it at ~30 years. When a prediction is at a timescale where the person making the prediction will be retired by the time the prediction applies, you can safely ignore the prediction. That person has no reputational skin in the game.

by belter 2y ago

Ok this was a terse comment, but so is a downvote. Please explain why is not 50 years away from first real industrial use. I am waiting.... https://youtu.be/RbZ-XYy0k10 https://youtu.be/RbZ-XYy0k10

Gud 2y ago

https://news.mit.edu/2024/commonwealth-fusion-systems-unveils-worlds-first-fusion-power-plant-1217 https://news.mit.edu/2024/commonwealth-fusion-systems-unveil... So according to the industry leaders, we will have the first 400MW plant within 10 years.

andriesm 2y ago
How can they build something commercial/grid-scale when not a single research-level reactor truly generates net energy out, and none can do it anywhere near continously enough to be of any practical use? This news is either based on misleading the public, or I am about to be updated with where Fusion is?
- cladopa 2y ago
  Because they are more or less certain (because of their magnets) they will get the necessary temperatures for ignition, giving more energy that it consumes. If they get ignitions, all the other problems will be solved very fast, because there will be an enormous rush from investors wanting to invest billions.
  - nradov 2y ago
    I hope they succeed, but throwing more money at problems like this doesn't necessarily accelerate progress. There is still basic research needed. Building large, high-precision devices can't be rushed.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > throwing more money at problems like this doesn't necessarily accelerate progress "Necessarily" being your Zeno's Arrow. Necessary to what threshold? I can literally argue against anything to an arbitrary level of necessity. (Breathing doesn't necessarily ensure living.)
      - Gud 2y ago
        Also, is living really necessary?
    - Gud 2y ago
      They are doing the “basic research” and are actually world leading nuclear fusion engineers… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJvdWdoIGluIG51Y2xlYXIgZnVzaW9uIGRlbm5pcyB3aHl0ZQ%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJ...
- Gud 2y ago
  I think you are about to be updated. Watch this clip with Prof. Whyte from 8 years ago. It’s the team behind CFS(then still at MIT). Highly interesting. He will explain exactly what they will do(now doing), how they will do it, and why they will do it they way they are doing it. Please note that they are pretty much on target since. I have been following CFS closely. Essentially the breakthrough has been the ability to manufacture more powerful magnets. CFS makes the most powerful magnets in the world. That was always the main issue, how to contain the plasma. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJvdWdoIGluIG51Y2xlYXIgZnVzaW9uIGRlbm5pcyB3aHl0ZQ%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJ...
  - belter 2y ago
    https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusion-cons-nature-magazine-journalist/ https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusi...
    - Gud 2y ago
      Sorry, what are you responding to?
      - belter 2y ago
        "Scientists working on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Commonwealth Fusion Systems collaboration have misled members of the science news media again. The latest casualty is Philip Ball, an experienced U.K. science reporter. In a Nov. 17, 2021, news story, Ball wrote that scientists working with the MIT/CFS collaboration are planning to deliver the “first fusion machine expected to generate more energy than it uses” in 2025. Actually, the MIT/CFS SPARC reactor is designed only to produce a fusion plasma that produces power at a higher rate than it consumes power. That measurement does not account for the input power required to operate the reactor. It’s the same trick that fusion promoters used to sell the idea of ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor."
        2y ago
epistasis 2y ago
What makes them industry leaders? Do they have a prototype? Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies? If they don't have a prototype, and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant, why should we believe this is possible? What evidence is there that these plans for a massive breakthrough ten years from now will work out? This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype. It may not be, but it has all those features, and not many other features.
- gpm 2y ago
  > What makes them industry leaders? They have a plausible relatively well understood path to fusion, have credibility with their background (coming out of fusion research at MIT), and have raised something like 2 billion dollars in funding. > Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies They think so > and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant They aren't. They're currently developing "SPARC", a Q>1 demonstration plant targeting 2027. The 400 MW commercial plant, ARC, is a follow on design targeting 2030s. > This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype They predate the AI boom by a lot. The project started in 2018. They had a $1.8 billion dollar funding round in 2021. The basic concept is "hey look, someone figured out how to build better superconductors. What if we took what ITER is trying to do, but used modern super conductors to make it smaller and actually achievable". I'm not saying I think they're certain to succeed, but I don't think they're a scam and I think it's very reasonable to include them amongst the group of "industry leaders"
  - orwin 2y ago
    The reason Iter is so big is not to achieve controlled fusion, but to be able to capture the fusion energy output. I'm not doubting their ability to reach the self-sustaining plasma, I'm doubtful about their ability to capture energy from it though.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
bufferoverflow 2y ago
I looked up this Commonwealth Fusion Systems company. "The company plans to produce its first plasma in 2026 and net fusion energy shortly after." Looks like your argument is build on just promises, not backed by any tech developments.
- Gud 2y ago
  No, they have developed the world’s most powerful magnets based on superconducting tape which is essential for containing the plasma.
- thinkcontext 2y ago
  Their key tech development is the manufacture of high temperature superconducting magnets. This is the key to their reactor design.
belter 2y ago
Fake news: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusion-cons-nature-magazine-journalist/ https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusi...

garyrob 2y ago

"I am waiting..." was unnecessary.

belter 2y ago
True...But I am still waiting for the scientific and technical arguments to prove me wrong.

zamadatix 2y ago

As for "why not 50 years", even the pessimistic reports of that video have it at ~30 years. Besides, the point is "we won't really know a good estimate for when until it's already about to hit us in the face" not "we should just assume 50 years is a more correct guess than other ones". As for the comments about votes, they aren't a measure of terseness either. The point is to bubble comments likely to result in curious and thoughtful conversation to the top while comments which will distract from that kind of conversation (combative, vague, distractly offtopic, or whatever else the reason may be) tend to get hidden away. Whether a comment is totally on the money or absolutely incorrect, how you present the conversation starter has a far bigger drive on what types follow-on conversation will appear. Here, that also strongly implies what types of votes will appear too.

ashoeafoot 2y ago
And how about a honest discussion about whether 30 years away for fusion research may boil down to never ? We are in a contraction already,people voting for decomplexification of society because that is just a natural felt trade off- feed my family now with less tax and forget about leechers promising free energy since almost a 100 years.Its not reasonable , its not historically backed up (science saved the day multiple times ) but this window of research opportunities is closing rapidly and its time to find alternatives to finance such endeavours besides state and oligarchy conglomerate investment scams.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Sustained fusion is already a thing in the universe but while we can't undiscover what powers the sun we could certainly give up replicating it on Earth if we'd like. That would be less an estimate of how long it'd take and more a measure of what we want to invest our limited resources in though. I think everyone would agree we should find ways of investing that aren't scams. The hard part is who agrees on what is a scam. I don't mind more purely private investment myself though, which has seemed to be a trend in recent years.
pfdietz 2y ago
> As for "why not 50 years", even the pessimistic reports of that video have it at ~30 years. When a prediction is at a timescale where the person making the prediction will be retired by the time the prediction applies, you can safely ignore the prediction. That person has no reputational skin in the game.