Fusion Discussion Thread

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Nuke said:

it will displace anyone who based their entire economy on oil. 

+1
 

Spoiler

 

Much easier to synthesize.

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 2/10/2022 at 2:07 AM, Johnmo89 said:

I wonder how this will affect the energy industry in general... I mean the French reactor. After all, if all the predictions come true, then in 2025 we will get a new unlimited source of energy. Have they thought about how this will affect the global economy?

 

5 hours ago, Nuke said:

it will displace anyone who based their entire economy on oil. 

I doubt it.  Instead it will be slowly added to the mix as our energy needs are voracious.  Eventually, once they are common and if they prove cheaper than fossil fuel power generation we might see all that phased out. 

But to expect broad displacement or rapid change is wishful thinking (outside harsh govt regulation - which I don't see happening) 

[Scotius]

I don't know about it. Many countries relying heavily on import of oil and gas would love to shrug off this dependency. Especially if majority of imported fuel comes from... bigger countries that have been known to use fuel supply and prices as a leash tool in international politics. Many countries would invest heavily into fusion energy just to be able to show middle finger next time they hear "Do this, or else oil you need will cost you twice as much when winter comes."

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, Scotius said:

I don't know about it. Many countries relying heavily on import of oil and gas would love to shrug off this dependency. Especially if majority of imported fuel comes from... bigger countries that have been known to use fuel supply and prices as a leash tool in international politics. Many countries would invest heavily into fusion energy just to be able to show middle finger next time they hear "Do this, or else oil you need will cost you twice as much when winter comes."

What you are describing is a Strategic Advantage.  So - the countries with the wherewithal (Talent and Treasure) to develop their own Fusion Plants will do so - and sell, at a cost, a steep cost - to those that behave.  Those that don't?  Sorry, bud, you get the hind teat.

 

(Join our sphere of influence and do what we say, and not only will you get one... but maybe a second, down the line.  Remember, friend, toe the line and good things will happen.  BTW - don't talk to THOSE guys - we don't like THOSE guys).

Edited February 11, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Scotius]

You paint a bleak picture, friend - but it is very true. Still, it is a measure of independence if the country in question can provide itself with fuel it will need - after all, water is everywhere.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Just now, Scotius said:

You paint a bleak picture, friend - but it is very true. Still, it is a measure of independence if the country in question can provide itself with fuel it will need - after all, water is everywhere.

Can be.  Yeah.

Thing is, there's really three spheres and then an unaligned group, atm.  Countries within the US/EU sphere will take care of themselves and then reach out to their friends (will be interesting if Japan has to 'go it alone' or gets considered 'one of the gang'.)  China will do the same (yes, this likely means NK Fusion, but also its another card for them to play towards regional hegemony.  Russia, as well (Syrian Fusion?).  But this also gives Russia an extended life on shipping existing fuels to the unaligned.

That's the short term.  

Presuming we can keep from killing ourselves and the world remains relatively stable (China feels comfortable, not threatened, Russia is stable, the US does not implode)... the tech will expand because reasoned self interest in developing a world that is less polluted will trickle to the far corners.  Plus - it will be a 'new market' to exploit.  (Chinese tokomaks springing up in Africa and South America at the same time US and EU are taking care of themselves and their close friends is not unlikely)

While 'self interest' never sounds egalitarian, the effects can be regionally beneficial.

It just takes time.

[StrandedonEarth]

56 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Join our sphere of influence and do what we say, and not only will you get one... but maybe a second, down the line.  Remember, friend, toe the line and good things will happen.  BTW - don't talk to THOSE guys - we don't like THOSE guys).

Shades of “Join me, and together we shall rule the Galaxy!” *shakes fist*

[kerbiloid]

The meaning of terrestrial life is to be a self-organized carbon cycle moderator.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/us-scientists-make-major-breakthrough-limitless-zero-carbon-fusion-energy-report

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and under-secretary for nuclear security Jill Hruby are expected to formally announce "a major scientific breakthrough" at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Tuesday

The scientists, working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, recently achieved a net energy gain in a fusion reaction, the Financial Times reported, citing three people with knowledge of the experiment. 

[Codraroll]

17 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/us-scientists-make-major-breakthrough-limitless-zero-carbon-fusion-energy-report

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and under-secretary for nuclear security Jill Hruby are expected to formally announce "a major scientific breakthrough" at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Tuesday

The scientists, working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, recently achieved a net energy gain in a fusion reaction, the Financial Times reported, citing three people with knowledge of the experiment. 

A net energy gain, but within which system boundaries? The National Ignition Facility has achieved net energy gain in fusion before, by producing more energy in the reaction than the laser delivered to the fuel. However, this was less than the total power of the laser, which again is less than the power required to run the laser, which again again is less than the power required to support the whole experiment. To quote Wikipedia:

"The experiment used ~477 MJ of electrical energy to get ~1.8 MJ of energy into the target to create ~1.3 MJ of fusion energy."

I guess this time, they created >1.8 MJ of fusion energy, by delivering ~1.8 MJ of energy to the fuel. There's a long way up to 477 MJ still, and they have to go yet beyond that to get an equivalent amount of electricity back. However, it's a way that has to be walked in steps, and it's good news that yet another step has been taken.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

within which system boundaries

It's a Fox News article quoting a Financial Times article... So no meat. 

So... Tuesday is the announcement - either something interesting or '20 more years'. 

@Codraroll - a bit more info:

Quote

Researchers were able to produce 2.5 megajoules of energy, 120 per cent of the 2.1 megajoules used to power the experiment.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nuclear-fusion-lawrence-livermore-laboratory-b2243247.html%3famp

Edited December 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/12/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-doe-00073518

The findings, which Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is expected to announce Tuesday, still leave many obstacles to be resolved in turning the nuclear process that powers the sun into a source of Earth-bound energy. But scientists are embracing the historic milestone nonetheless, cheering that researchers have finally created a fusion reaction that produces more energy than it takes in.

 

The amount of handwringing and tempering of expectations - along with Global Warming Grousing - that accompanies this, yet again (but better written) reporting on a scoop by the Financial Times is amazing. 

Needless to say - look for an announcement by the Secretary and LLL tomorrow 

Apparently only Financial Times has any direct info, and everyone else does not want to let them take all the credit 

...

Edit: Timely and basic explanation of Fusion

It does a fantastic job of explaining why Fusion power - even with the expected advancement - isn't going to be an immediate panacea to our energy and pollution control needs.

Edited December 13, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Gargamel]

Since this is a significant discussion about fusion, I’d like to split them off into an existing thread, anybody have a good link for one of our fusion mega threads? 

[kerbiloid]

Yours.

 

[Gargamel]

Thank you @kerbiloid, said posts have been moved into a Fusion specific thread.  

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Live

2 Mj in, 3Mj out. 

Also 'they're hiring'! 

Frigging Sky News cut away just as the actual LLNL person started talking 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

So... Only a few decades of investment and concerted efforts before commercialization 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

The quick down and dirty: LLMN has done ignition fusion, which differs from all the Tokamak and other commercial endeavors referred to in the video I linked above (not the SKY).  The lasers they're using are 1980s technology.  The hope is that with this new advancement and proof of concept (power can be generated) that they can get the funding necessary from Congress to keep pressing and upgrade their gear.  There are very real defense implications (including non-proliferation) from their work, and so they're briefing on two points; they know the audience - science nerds, lefties who want to peel everyone away from carbon burning fuels, and national defense minded people who will only spend money if it keeps 'Murica safe.  The 'from the wall' energy needed to get the ignition started is exponentially greater than the energy output - that's not the point.  The point is that for the first time they got a net energy gain (2Mj in, 3Mj out) at the ignition source; that is both exciting and a clear indication that they need to invest more to improve efficiencies - before ever even thinking about commercial applications.

Edited December 13, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Codraroll]

52 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

they know the audience - science nerds, lefties who want to peel everyone away from carbon burning fuels, and national defense minded people who will only spend money if it keeps 'Murica safe.

Paradoxically, fossil fuel companies are also over the moon with these news. It gives them ammo for their own lobbyism campaign.

"Mr. Senator, the great state of Befuddlement needs more electricity, and we understand that you want to subsidize wind power to make that happen. In the last couple of decades, solar and wind power has grown in scope to rival the coal industry. But why throw money into the winds when you can have the future? Look here, new technology is on the way: clean fusion, unlimited power from water, so those turbines will be obsolete in a few years! It will only take a few years before fusion power plants are available, we promise. After all, it's 2022, how long can it take to develop fusion power? Instead of spending money to transit into an outmoded form of energy production, stay your hand, wait until fusion is available, and let the Coal'n'Gas'n'Oil'n'Stuff Corporation handle the state's power generation needs in the meantime, like we do today. Letting the status quo continue for a few more decades is definitely the right thing to do, for the sake of our walle-, uh, for the sake of us all."

This is because the exact same process used to work in reverse:

"Herr Chancellor, the great state of Unnamed European Country needs more electricity, and we understand that you want to build more nuclear power plants. In the last couple of decades, nuclear power has grown in scope to rival the coal industry. But why bother with that scary radiation stuff, when you can have the future? Look here, new technology is on the way: clean wind and solar power, unlimited power from the weather, so those nuclear plants will be obsolete in a few years. It will only take a few years to install enough solar and wind power to make the entire grid green, we promise. After all, it's 1986, how long can it take to make renewables feasible on a countrywide scale? Instead of spending money to transit into an outmoded form of energy production, stay your hand, focus on expanding solar and wind power, and let the Coal'n'Gas'n'Oil'n'Stuff Corporation handle the country's power generation needs in the meantime, like we do today. Letting the status quo continue for a few more decades is definitely the right thing to do, for the sake of our walle-, uh, for the sake of us all."

Or the TL;DR: "No, don't do the thing that threatens our market position today! Do the thing that might threaten our market position in four decades, at the earliest, and let us remain top dogs in the present while your eyes are on the future!"

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

26 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

"No, don't do the thing that threatens our market position today! Do the thing that might threaten our market position in four decades, at the earliest, and let us remain top dogs in the present while your eyes are on the future

...no kidding 

[HebaruSan]

3 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Thank you @kerbiloid, said posts have been moved into a Fusion specific thread.  

Reading through this thread, we appear to be talking about two different fusion stories, the JET tokamak and the NIF lasers, which is pretty confusing (e.g., mentioning "energy from water" is accurate for JET but not NIF). Any chance the NIF story could be split back out?

EDIT: I double checked, and the target for NIF's lasers is "a small spherical pellet containing a few milligrams of fusion fuel, typically a mix of deuterium (D) and tritium (T)," which is the same as for a tokamak and would be sourced from "water". Sorry for the error. But I do still think it would be better to be able to comment without specifying which experiment every time.

Edited December 13, 2022 by HebaruSan

[Scotius]

We are getting a bit jaded with fusion power with passing years. Nonetheless, at this point I will take every bit of good news I can.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

17 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Reading through this thread, we appear to be talking about two different fusion stories, the JET tokamak and the NIF lasers, which is pretty confusing (e.g., mentioning "energy from water" is accurate for JET but not NIF). Any chance the NIF story could be split back out?

and @Gargamel

I fully understand Hebaru's concern.  It was a bit confusing for me too when I first started trying to figure out what LLNL had done differently at the NIF than was being done on the commercial side.

But - given that this is a nascent technology area and that advancements are likely to be few and far between - maybe it does make sense to keep the two together so that when a Fusion topic comes up... we can find the ongoing (pastgoing?) conversation.

The key, in that case is for those of us who post to try to clarify what Fusion tech is being talked about.  (Frankly, I once thought a tokomak was a thing to do on a large scale what the lasers did on a point target, just using magnets for compression rather than lasers and radiation).

[Gargamel]

Once I get back to a keyboard and not on mobile I’ll take a better look at the different options for this thread and prune/merge as needed.   

[kerbiloid]

Once they have published the fusion report, the next step will immediately be "can we use that in Orion drive?"  "how can we use that in Orion drive?"

Edited December 13, 2022 by kerbiloid