US scientists reach long-awaited nuclear fusion breakthrough, source says

I’m just reading it now, apparently DOE is scheduled to announce something tomorrow.

Holy Shi…. Is this actually something?

“ —
For the first time ever, US scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California successfully produced a nuclear fusion reaction resulting in a net energy gain, a source familiar with the project confirmed to CNN.”

US scientists reach long-awaited nuclear fusion breakthrough, source says

I'm skeptical because I doubt the achieved fusion and are probably gonna use fake news as a press release to boost poll numbers.

That being said, fusion is the difference between us being type 0 civilization and type 1 civilization. The way to fix the energy crisis is to first use efficient nuclear thorium reactions and then gradually transition to fusion when its figured out.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Nice catch!!!!

Tastes like distraction though after reading.
That candle ain’t lighting up the room anytime soon.
That’s for sure.

Thanks!!!

da pirate 😎

PS. We’ve not met, I think.
Is this your once a year visit or are you mainly a lurker.

Askin for a fren……

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Could be real, but note the lack if specifics.

I hate to be the wet blanket, but I have been told by self proclaimed experts for 40 years that this wasn't possible. Just like Hydrogen can't be used to fuel cars. A peak back in ATS history reveals some interesting conversations, debunking things like this.

But if it was really real, wouldn't something that made more energy than it consumed make Big oil angry?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for the reply, I’m usually over with my. Tin foil hat and the UFO section. a reply to: PiratesCut

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

My friends and colleagues in the fusion community tell me that LLNL put about 2 MJ of laser energy into the target pellet and got about 2.5 MJ out. That means they got a thermonuclear burn that produced more energy than the energy cost to ignite the burn.

That is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have a net energy gain. The amount of laser energy deposited on the fusion target is no more than 1% of the electrical energy required to power the lasers, so they will have to make the lasers more efficient and/or increase the energy gain of the thermonuclear burn. Probably some combination of both, actually.

a reply to: 1947boomer


Thanks for the insight Boom. I am not expecting to quit my job for a free energy world anytime soon but if they actually got more out than they put in, the first step is usually the smallest, but at least they will have scientifically proved it’s viable.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

The big challenge of harnessing fusion energy is sustaining it long enough so that it can power electric grids and heating systems around the globe.

Chittenden and Roulstone told CNN that scientists around the globe now must work toward dramatically scaling up their fusion projects, and also bring the cost down. Getting it commercially viable will take years of more research.

“At the moment we’re spending a huge amount of time and money for every experiment we do,” Chittenden said. “We need to bring the cost down by a huge factor.”

However, Chittenden called this new chapter in nuclear fusion “a true breakthrough moment which is tremendously exciting.”

Roulstone said there’s much shows more work needs to happen to make fusion able to generate electricity on a commercial scale.

“The opposing argument is that this result is miles away from actual energy gain required for the production of electricity,” he said. “Therefore, we can say (it) is a success of the science but a long way from providing useful energy.”

LINK

It seems that at the moment it's extremely experimental and very expensive to even test!

There may be some long term benefits coming...but for now it sounds like it's a big nothing!

It does seem encouraging that they are looking at the broad global commercial applications...but then again...I would expect that!

The funding for this experiment and this research is my interest...millions and millions...how much of it is funded by my tax dollars?

My first thought is "How much tritium does this require"

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Could it be for something like a small nuclear energy appliance that every household could use instead of the usual polluters?

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
a reply to: 1947boomer


Thanks for the insight Boom. I am not expecting to quit my job for a free energy world anytime soon but if they actually got more out than they put in, the first step is usually the smallest, but at least they will have scientifically proved it’s viable.

No, I don't think it's going to happen instantly, but if nothing else, this proves the modeling of the physics is understandable and correct. For once, I actually find myself agreeing with v1rtu0s0. We should probably view Thorium-based fission reactors as an interim solution for that portion of the energy system that can't be replaced with wind and solar power and then phase in fusion when it becomes economically competitive.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

“The opposing argument is that this result is miles away from actual energy gain required for the production of electricity,” he said. “Therefore, we can say (it) is a success of the science but a long way from providing useful energy.”

Well that's significantly less hype than the headlines would suggest.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Could it be for something like a small nuclear energy appliance that every household could use instead of the usual polluters?

No, probably not with Deuterium-Tritium fuel.

Also, from a regulatory and public safety standpoint, I don't think you could literally have a small fusion reactor in every household, even if you could make them small enough. I think they would have to be regulated at least at the level of a cancer radiation machine in a hospital, for example. They would pose about the same level of public risk, probably cost about as much, and require similar levels of knowledge to operate and maintain. I think you could have them distributed at the neighborhood level or similar.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Could it be for something like a small nuclear energy appliance that every household could use instead of the usual polluters?

No, probably not with Deuterium-Tritium fuel.

Also, from a regulatory and public safety standpoint, I don't think you could literally have a small fusion reactor in every household, even if you could make them small enough. I think they would have to be regulated at least at the level of a cancer radiation machine in a hospital, for example. They would pose about the same level of public risk, probably cost about as much, and require similar levels of knowledge to operate and maintain. I think you could have them distributed at the neighborhood level or similar.

Yes, at the neighourhood level with professionals servicing and inspecting them. Sounds good to me.

I think we are all waiting for the discovery of dilithium crystals.

Or tapping into zero-point energy...like the military does.

originally posted by: Zrtst
I think we are all waiting for the discovery of dilithium crystals.

Or tapping into zero-point energy...like the military does.

Didn't the Atlantians use crystals for their energy source?

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

An announcement about an announcement…

Can you be more dramatic??!

Let’s see. This is laser fusion (inertially confined), where they implode a fuel pellet causing x-rays to heat up the D-T. Last year NIF announced a significant increase in fusion reactions to the point of ignition (the fusion reaction continues while there is fuel). The problem was they could not repeat it!

So, no ignition announcement. Just “net gain”??

Well that’s a bit of a let down. Repeatable ignition would be more newsworthy than net gain!

Both would be needed for a fusion reactor to produce electricity onto the grid.

And of course,… we are still waiting Lockheed!!

Cool news! We a step in that direction and I vote we use the electricity generated to suck CO2 from the atmosphere instead of changing consumers for its use.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

As I read it (and note that the official announcement has not yet been made), what has been achieved proves that the physics portion of the equation has been worked out. What remains is (an albeit, significant) matter of engineering; better lasers, higher temperatures, high output over input energies, etc.

We've proved that we're in the right forest.

Now, we just have to find the right tree(s).

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
I'm skeptical because I doubt the achieved fusion and are probably gonna use fake news as a press release to boost poll numbers.

That being said, fusion is the difference between us being type 0 civilization and type 1 civilization. The way to fix the energy crisis is to first use efficient nuclear thorium reactions and then gradually transition to fusion when its figured out.

We have had fusion for decades. The H bomb is fusion, and we get more energy out of an explosion than it takes to trigger it.

Laser initiated fusion (what they do at the NIF) is just at a smaller, and more controlled, scale.

While this is an encouraging sign, it doesn't yet mean we can use it to generate usable power from our own mini-Sun's.

But I agree, Liquid Thorium Salt reactors are a doable now and have inherent safety features that other nuclear power generation systems lack (like you can just turn it off if you need to).