'unlimited clean energy'
December 12, 2022 8:42 AM Subscribe
Fusion energy breakthrough by US scientists boosts clean power hopes [ungated] - "Net energy gain indicates technology could provide an abundant zero-carbon alternative to fossil fuels." (also btw: Nuclear fusion power edges from fantasy to reality)
But within the next ten years....
posted by VTX at 8:49 AM on December 12, 2022 [13 favorites]
posted by VTX at 8:49 AM on December 12, 2022 [13 favorites]
Surely this.
posted by slogger at 8:50 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by slogger at 8:50 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
But within the next ten years....
...it'll be just twenty years away!
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:54 AM on December 12, 2022 [21 favorites]
...it'll be just twenty years away!
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:54 AM on December 12, 2022 [21 favorites]
So fun how we get to have this exact same post/convo every few years. On the upside I knew you guys would have the skinny and I shouldn't get excited unless y'all were.
posted by emjaybee at 8:55 AM on December 12, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 8:55 AM on December 12, 2022 [5 favorites]
I am 53 years old and I have been hearing this nonsense every few years for decades.
posted by bondcliff at 8:57 AM on December 12, 2022 [16 favorites]
posted by bondcliff at 8:57 AM on December 12, 2022 [16 favorites]
One piece of background is that NIF had a single, very successful shot- 70% of the way to net-gain- last year, but struggled to understand why it went so well or how to repeat it. It sounds like they've had another, even better one, also apparently to their surprise: "the energy output had been greater than expected, which had damaged some diagnostic equipment".
posted by BungaDunga at 8:57 AM on December 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 8:57 AM on December 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
Yeah, the fundamental problem with the coverage is that terms like "net energy gain" can have many different definitions depending on how you define "energy in" vs. "energy out."
Energy in could be:
a-in) the amount of energy directly delivered to the fuel by the lasers
b-in) the amount of energy that comes out of the lasers
c-in) the amount of energy it actually takes to power the lasers
d-in) c above, plus all the energy it takes to create the fuel and run all the other systems needed for a functioning power plant
Energy out could be:
a-out) the amount of energy theoretically produced by the amount of fuel burned
b-out) the amount of energy theoretically capturable from the reaction
c-out) the amount of energy actually captured by the reaction
d-out) the amount of captured energy actually delivered to do some sort of useful work
In order for this tech to be viable, even in a prototype test plant type environment, you need d-in > d-out, which is a very very long way from a-in > a-out. None of the coverage I've seen is at all clear about what definition of "in" and "out" they're using, which makes my cynical ass suspect that we're much closer to a > a than d > d.
posted by firechicago at 9:00 AM on December 12, 2022 [23 favorites]
Energy in could be:
a-in) the amount of energy directly delivered to the fuel by the lasers
b-in) the amount of energy that comes out of the lasers
c-in) the amount of energy it actually takes to power the lasers
d-in) c above, plus all the energy it takes to create the fuel and run all the other systems needed for a functioning power plant
Energy out could be:
a-out) the amount of energy theoretically produced by the amount of fuel burned
b-out) the amount of energy theoretically capturable from the reaction
c-out) the amount of energy actually captured by the reaction
d-out) the amount of captured energy actually delivered to do some sort of useful work
In order for this tech to be viable, even in a prototype test plant type environment, you need d-in > d-out, which is a very very long way from a-in > a-out. None of the coverage I've seen is at all clear about what definition of "in" and "out" they're using, which makes my cynical ass suspect that we're much closer to a > a than d > d.
posted by firechicago at 9:00 AM on December 12, 2022 [23 favorites]
Sabine Hossenfelder: How close is nuclear fusion power?
Real Engineering: The Problem with Nuclear Fusion. (A good discussion of the issues, but then it pivots to the same kind of hype at the end of the video)
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:04 AM on December 12, 2022 [5 favorites]
Real Engineering: The Problem with Nuclear Fusion. (A good discussion of the issues, but then it pivots to the same kind of hype at the end of the video)
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:04 AM on December 12, 2022 [5 favorites]
I believe the measurement they're using is a), there. Scientifically speaking it's huge, since nobody until now could be sure that you could create conditions that would liberate more energy from fusion than you put into it.
Practically speaking it's not useful, unless it means they've broken into an experimental regime that lets them study the dynamics and quickly make vast leaps in efficiency. Sometimes that happens!
posted by BungaDunga at 9:06 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Practically speaking it's not useful, unless it means they've broken into an experimental regime that lets them study the dynamics and quickly make vast leaps in efficiency. Sometimes that happens!
posted by BungaDunga at 9:06 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
I wonder if this will be the first technological problem solved by an AI - you give it a bunch of the inputs/outputs of the experiments, it tells you how to do the setup to get the result you want, after some trial and error it works, but we never get "why" it works.
Also if this does become useful soon, there is no guarantee it does anything besides makes the super rich super richer and accelerates the inequalities that make life so sucky - I wonder if there's a way to ensure that doesn't happen?
posted by nightcoast at 9:10 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Also if this does become useful soon, there is no guarantee it does anything besides makes the super rich super richer and accelerates the inequalities that make life so sucky - I wonder if there's a way to ensure that doesn't happen?
posted by nightcoast at 9:10 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
I wonder if this will be the first technological problem solved by an AI - you give it a bunch of the inputs/outputs of the experiments, it tells you how to do the setup to get the result you want, after some trial and error it works, but we never get "why" it works.
It wouldn't even be the first time. Check out this weird-ass antenna.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:13 AM on December 12, 2022 [8 favorites]
It wouldn't even be the first time. Check out this weird-ass antenna.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:13 AM on December 12, 2022 [8 favorites]
The wildly optimistic take is: imagine that it turns out there's some practical information that you can only learn by experience of running net-gain shots over and over, perhaps liberating information that you can then feed back into research to bootstrap you into higher and higher amounts of gain. But when you're sitting below the threshold you're only able to get a peek at it, so progress is slow; when you crack it you can start making exponential progress.
It's at least possible that'll happen, though even if it does the beautiful clean energy future is still years and years away.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:14 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
It's at least possible that'll happen, though even if it does the beautiful clean energy future is still years and years away.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:14 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
I wonder if this will be the first technological problem solved by an AI - you give it a bunch of the inputs/outputs of the experiments, it tells you how to do the setup to get the result you want, after some trial and error it works, but we never get "why" it works.
As someone who gets free iodine pills from the gov't due to being within proximity of a nuclear power plant, I'm not sure this would fly for a power generating system being plunked down where people are.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:18 AM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
As someone who gets free iodine pills from the gov't due to being within proximity of a nuclear power plant, I'm not sure this would fly for a power generating system being plunked down where people are.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:18 AM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
there is no guarantee it does anything besides makes the super rich super richer and accelerates the inequalities that make life so sucky
It just has to be less of an accelerant than climate change, if it alleviates some global warming then it would be really hard for it to be a net negative. The world is already full of huge, capital-intensive power plants; swapping out some coal for fusion would be better in every conceivable way.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:19 AM on December 12, 2022 [11 favorites]
It just has to be less of an accelerant than climate change, if it alleviates some global warming then it would be really hard for it to be a net negative. The world is already full of huge, capital-intensive power plants; swapping out some coal for fusion would be better in every conceivable way.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:19 AM on December 12, 2022 [11 favorites]
I understand the naysaying, but based on the flurry of development milestones being met and exceeded in both public and private reactor systems (Wendelstein 7-X, National Ignition Facility, EAST, KSTAR, Commonwealth Fusion, etc.), there really is hope that This Time It’s Different.
Energy sector still needs to decarbonize before this stuff hits the grid, but fusion is cool and this result is awesome. Can’t wait for the details, which will be released tomorrow.
posted by Headfullofair at 9:21 AM on December 12, 2022 [5 favorites]
Energy sector still needs to decarbonize before this stuff hits the grid, but fusion is cool and this result is awesome. Can’t wait for the details, which will be released tomorrow.
posted by Headfullofair at 9:21 AM on December 12, 2022 [5 favorites]
It's also just nice when Big Science stuff happens, regardless of what that means for anything else.
posted by aramaic at 9:43 AM on December 12, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by aramaic at 9:43 AM on December 12, 2022 [10 favorites]
In order for this tech to be viable, even in a prototype test plant type environment, you need d-in > d-out,
My understanding of the current news is it's b-in, a-out (may be b-in/b-out depending on how you want to do the accounting).
I would recommend thinking of it not just in terms of energy budget, but also things like capability of sustaining the reaction.
From what I gather in the leaked news sources, the lasers emitted something like 2 megajoules, and the reaction in the plasma exceeded that. This is absolutely a big deal.
But the system overall used something like 300 megajoules to power the lasers. Right now, a rough d-in/d-out comparison would indicate that we're 150x from having a reaction that puts out more energy than the total energy involved to create it.
ITER's current plan is 10x gain on the laser emission, so, even that is more than 10x less than will be required to have system-wide net positive energy.
This is a very, very big deal and indicates we are moving in the right direction on the research, though there always remains some chance that there's a dead end ahead that would require major topology redesign or major materials science/engineering breakthroughs.
But it's also important not to overstate this. Fusion power on the grid is very likely several decades away, unless there's some sort of black swan scientific discovery.
posted by tclark at 9:43 AM on December 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
My understanding of the current news is it's b-in, a-out (may be b-in/b-out depending on how you want to do the accounting).
I would recommend thinking of it not just in terms of energy budget, but also things like capability of sustaining the reaction.
From what I gather in the leaked news sources, the lasers emitted something like 2 megajoules, and the reaction in the plasma exceeded that. This is absolutely a big deal.
But the system overall used something like 300 megajoules to power the lasers. Right now, a rough d-in/d-out comparison would indicate that we're 150x from having a reaction that puts out more energy than the total energy involved to create it.
ITER's current plan is 10x gain on the laser emission, so, even that is more than 10x less than will be required to have system-wide net positive energy.
This is a very, very big deal and indicates we are moving in the right direction on the research, though there always remains some chance that there's a dead end ahead that would require major topology redesign or major materials science/engineering breakthroughs.
But it's also important not to overstate this. Fusion power on the grid is very likely several decades away, unless there's some sort of black swan scientific discovery.
posted by tclark at 9:43 AM on December 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
It wouldn't even be the first time. Check out this weird-ass antenna.
Wow it's ... beautiful!
posted by nightcoast at 9:46 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Wow it's ... beautiful!
posted by nightcoast at 9:46 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
So fun how we get to have this exact same post/convo every few years
If only we could harness the energy produced by these perpetual motion discussions...
posted by chavenet at 9:53 AM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
If only we could harness the energy produced by these perpetual motion discussions...
posted by chavenet at 9:53 AM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
I always love the joke, and while I am also skeptical this will solve anything in the immediate term re: energy production, private investment money is currently dwarfing the 'basic research' that governments historically provided for such endeavors (US government spends 700m/year on fusion, and private estimates are in the 2B range). This is a relatively recent phenomenon, which is being made more valuable in a capitalistic environment every day climate change progresses.
While I don't think this is a good thing, and think all power generation research should be a public good, private fusion researchers have been hitting some interesting benchmarks and providing some interesting designs that very well may get us to a model to provide net-positive energy from fusion. Several different models are very close to doing so.
It sucks that the reason for all of this is the privatization of that knowledge and the literal power it will produce.
posted by furnace.heart at 9:54 AM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
While I don't think this is a good thing, and think all power generation research should be a public good, private fusion researchers have been hitting some interesting benchmarks and providing some interesting designs that very well may get us to a model to provide net-positive energy from fusion. Several different models are very close to doing so.
It sucks that the reason for all of this is the privatization of that knowledge and the literal power it will produce.
posted by furnace.heart at 9:54 AM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
In Rochester, NY we have the U of R's Laboratory for Laser Energetics which was attempting to achieve fusion via laser beam since the 1970s, without success. We've been trying to do this for 50 years or so and it's an extremely difficult problem.
posted by tommasz at 9:55 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by tommasz at 9:55 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
The US Government already developed fusion in the 50's. Fission driven inertial confinement fusion. They're just keeping it under wraps for silly reasons like "releasing megatons of energy in a single reaction is dangerous" and "not suitable for civilian power" and "a threat to humanity's survival."
So, snark aside, the reason people have heard for about half a century that fusion power might be 10 years away is because that a proposal was made to the Carter administration in the late 70's to conduct a Manhattan-project style research project in order to develop civilian fusion power. The optimistic case envisioned a funding rate of about (iirc) 3x the Manhattan-project's to achieve results - either coming up with a prototype design or deciding fusion wasn't feasible within 10 years.
it also estimated a minimum amount of funding necessary to make any appreciable progress at all. Given that the US government already figured out how to use fusion energy to blow things up, how much money do you think fusion research has actually received over the last 40-50 years?
The US does not have a credible fusion research program. What it does have is a small to moderately sized basic plasma physics and astrophysics research program with scientists who write something about fusion on their research grants to satisfy the sorts who don't care that most of the visible universe is made up of plasma, and don't care how stars work or galaxies work, or how cosmic rays bounce around or how supernovas explode and want things they can envisage as practical and useful. Nevermind that the actual products of scientific research tend to be unexpected, novel things that no one thought of before until someone realized there was a cool thing you could do with a new understanding of the universe. Einstein wasn't imagining GPS. Fermi wasn't imagining microchips made of logic gates a handful of atoms across.
Oh the US also has funded things like the NIF ,which is under no circumstances a laser array for testing nuclear detonation like conditions without actual having to test nuclear weapons that they've given the money to civilian scientists to work out the kinks with doing their silly fusion research.
And it also has a handful of tech startups that are hail-marys on specific fusion ideas funded on the principle of "there's almost no chance of this working, but if it does, you'll be richer than the Saudis."
But the hard part that we are stuck on still, is that it's actually very hard to figure out what's going on inside a plasma. The small scale electric and magnetic field structure is important, and not something you can just look at from the outside. And if you stick a sensor in, you are disrupting the plasma, and if it's anywhere near fusion conditions you are just going to melt it anyways. And plasmas are devilishly complicated. It's all the complexity of fluid dynamics plus an additional electric and magnetic field which interact with basically everything else.
So you need to come up with creative ideas for instrumentation that can give you detailed results in 3 dimensions and computer models from that data to make valid predictions of how different configurations might behave. There are plenty of brilliant people working on this in a piecemeal fashion. It's just there's no funding for coordination and large scale projects that could really knock out the problem of accurately modeling and predicting plasma behavior and stability in a systematic way.
And that's kind of the baseline you need for properly inventing fusion power. At least not without getting very lucky.
Background: I did my PhD in plasma physics at one of the top schools for fusion research and I have a lot more I'd like to say, like "what is a plasma and what does it have to do with fusion?" for those who got lost, but I am running out of time to get groceries and find Christmas presents for people right now. I'll share some more thoughts later if I get the time.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:15 AM on December 12, 2022 [75 favorites]
So, snark aside, the reason people have heard for about half a century that fusion power might be 10 years away is because that a proposal was made to the Carter administration in the late 70's to conduct a Manhattan-project style research project in order to develop civilian fusion power. The optimistic case envisioned a funding rate of about (iirc) 3x the Manhattan-project's to achieve results - either coming up with a prototype design or deciding fusion wasn't feasible within 10 years.
it also estimated a minimum amount of funding necessary to make any appreciable progress at all. Given that the US government already figured out how to use fusion energy to blow things up, how much money do you think fusion research has actually received over the last 40-50 years?
The US does not have a credible fusion research program. What it does have is a small to moderately sized basic plasma physics and astrophysics research program with scientists who write something about fusion on their research grants to satisfy the sorts who don't care that most of the visible universe is made up of plasma, and don't care how stars work or galaxies work, or how cosmic rays bounce around or how supernovas explode and want things they can envisage as practical and useful. Nevermind that the actual products of scientific research tend to be unexpected, novel things that no one thought of before until someone realized there was a cool thing you could do with a new understanding of the universe. Einstein wasn't imagining GPS. Fermi wasn't imagining microchips made of logic gates a handful of atoms across.
Oh the US also has funded things like the NIF ,which is under no circumstances a laser array for testing nuclear detonation like conditions without actual having to test nuclear weapons that they've given the money to civilian scientists to work out the kinks with doing their silly fusion research.
And it also has a handful of tech startups that are hail-marys on specific fusion ideas funded on the principle of "there's almost no chance of this working, but if it does, you'll be richer than the Saudis."
But the hard part that we are stuck on still, is that it's actually very hard to figure out what's going on inside a plasma. The small scale electric and magnetic field structure is important, and not something you can just look at from the outside. And if you stick a sensor in, you are disrupting the plasma, and if it's anywhere near fusion conditions you are just going to melt it anyways. And plasmas are devilishly complicated. It's all the complexity of fluid dynamics plus an additional electric and magnetic field which interact with basically everything else.
So you need to come up with creative ideas for instrumentation that can give you detailed results in 3 dimensions and computer models from that data to make valid predictions of how different configurations might behave. There are plenty of brilliant people working on this in a piecemeal fashion. It's just there's no funding for coordination and large scale projects that could really knock out the problem of accurately modeling and predicting plasma behavior and stability in a systematic way.
And that's kind of the baseline you need for properly inventing fusion power. At least not without getting very lucky.
Background: I did my PhD in plasma physics at one of the top schools for fusion research and I have a lot more I'd like to say, like "what is a plasma and what does it have to do with fusion?" for those who got lost, but I am running out of time to get groceries and find Christmas presents for people right now. I'll share some more thoughts later if I get the time.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:15 AM on December 12, 2022 [75 favorites]
I wonder if this will be the first technological problem solved by an AI
That’s certainly an idea that’s been/being pursued: I saw a keynote about this in 2017 .
posted by Omission at 10:20 AM on December 12, 2022
That’s certainly an idea that’s been/being pursued: I saw a keynote about this in 2017 .
posted by Omission at 10:20 AM on December 12, 2022
Scientifically speaking it's huge, since nobody until now could be sure that you could create conditions that would liberate more energy from fusion than you put into it.
I'd tweak what you're saying a bit. We already 100% know that you can create conditions that liberate more energy from fusion than what you put into it, since it happens in all of the quintillions of stars in the universe, and it happens in fusion bombs.
It's like heavier-than-air flight, which was obviously possible since birds do it all the time. Whether we'll be able to accomplish some specifically limited version of it is the open question. (And is what I assume you meant.)
posted by clawsoon at 10:32 AM on December 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
I'd tweak what you're saying a bit. We already 100% know that you can create conditions that liberate more energy from fusion than what you put into it, since it happens in all of the quintillions of stars in the universe, and it happens in fusion bombs.
It's like heavier-than-air flight, which was obviously possible since birds do it all the time. Whether we'll be able to accomplish some specifically limited version of it is the open question. (And is what I assume you meant.)
posted by clawsoon at 10:32 AM on December 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
Yeah, the NIF has always been a fig leaf for nuclear weapons research and has no feasible path toward energy production. I think the commercial efforts are probably the best bet at this point, since they're directly targeting safe, scalable, sustainable energy production, and they're tackling the problem from several very different angles.
On the government project side, ITER is aiming for first plasma in 2025. Theoretically it will be capable of producing more energy than it takes in: "ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300 MW of electrical power to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power, creating 500 MW of heat from fusion for periods of 400 to 600 seconds." They won't bother to hook it up to a power generation system, but if they did it would probably manage something like 150-200MW of electrical power, so still a net loss.
If ITER works, then the basic idea will be scaled up in the EU DEMO plant for actual electricity generation, but that's not expected to come online til 2051 at the earliest.
Fusion is too far away to play a role in the immediate decarbonization of the grid, but if we could work out large scale power production from fusion, it might become feasible to remove a significant amount of carbon from the atmosphere. That's a project that makes sense on the 2050 - 2200 time scale.
posted by jedicus at 10:50 AM on December 12, 2022 [8 favorites]
On the government project side, ITER is aiming for first plasma in 2025. Theoretically it will be capable of producing more energy than it takes in: "ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300 MW of electrical power to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power, creating 500 MW of heat from fusion for periods of 400 to 600 seconds." They won't bother to hook it up to a power generation system, but if they did it would probably manage something like 150-200MW of electrical power, so still a net loss.
If ITER works, then the basic idea will be scaled up in the EU DEMO plant for actual electricity generation, but that's not expected to come online til 2051 at the earliest.
Fusion is too far away to play a role in the immediate decarbonization of the grid, but if we could work out large scale power production from fusion, it might become feasible to remove a significant amount of carbon from the atmosphere. That's a project that makes sense on the 2050 - 2200 time scale.
posted by jedicus at 10:50 AM on December 12, 2022 [8 favorites]
Greg_Ace: But within the next ten years....
...it'll be just twenty years away!
So you're saying they invented a time machine? Big, if true.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:55 AM on December 12, 2022
...it'll be just twenty years away!
So you're saying they invented a time machine? Big, if true.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:55 AM on December 12, 2022
1) Research money and time devoted to Nuke weapons has had enormous return on investment... they are the sine-qua-non of geopolitics.
2) so far, civilian power generation with fission (not fusion) has been expensive, uncleaneable, and commits us to 10s of thousands of years of waste management. (as does weapons) coal is also terrible (because we can only compare nuke to coal /s )
3) Fusion for civilian power has so far been unproductive and this result highlights how far we are from even working prototype. Let alone a useable industry.
4) At some point, lets be honest and admit that Fusion as civilian power is too late to be useful and that it was a mistake in retrospect. The 7 decades of funding and talent could have brought us the cheaper more efficient solar and wind we have now decades sooner, when incremental conversion of the power sector would have been sufficient to prevent climate catastrophe.
5)Even with cheap wind and solar available, we are not retiring fossil fuel plants before their service life ends, there is not a substituion or replacement going on, instead renewables have been added to the mix. We (the globe whose common atmosphere determines our climate) are still adding fossil fuel power plants and motors to the world.
6) We only improve our situation vis a vie the climate when we stop adding to the heat trapping gasses, each days emissions make the heating worse. but we celebrate when we change the ratio of energy to pollution while increaing the pollution. for example, by adding renewables instead of replacing fossils with renewables.
7) No fusion breakthrough can come fast enough or scale quick enough to ve worth it
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 11:24 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
2) so far, civilian power generation with fission (not fusion) has been expensive, uncleaneable, and commits us to 10s of thousands of years of waste management. (as does weapons) coal is also terrible (because we can only compare nuke to coal /s )
3) Fusion for civilian power has so far been unproductive and this result highlights how far we are from even working prototype. Let alone a useable industry.
4) At some point, lets be honest and admit that Fusion as civilian power is too late to be useful and that it was a mistake in retrospect. The 7 decades of funding and talent could have brought us the cheaper more efficient solar and wind we have now decades sooner, when incremental conversion of the power sector would have been sufficient to prevent climate catastrophe.
5)Even with cheap wind and solar available, we are not retiring fossil fuel plants before their service life ends, there is not a substituion or replacement going on, instead renewables have been added to the mix. We (the globe whose common atmosphere determines our climate) are still adding fossil fuel power plants and motors to the world.
6) We only improve our situation vis a vie the climate when we stop adding to the heat trapping gasses, each days emissions make the heating worse. but we celebrate when we change the ratio of energy to pollution while increaing the pollution. for example, by adding renewables instead of replacing fossils with renewables.
7) No fusion breakthrough can come fast enough or scale quick enough to ve worth it
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 11:24 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
someone on slashdot said each firing at NIF is akin to blowing up a hand grenade in an optical assembly
posted by glonous keming at 11:32 AM on December 12, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 11:32 AM on December 12, 2022 [4 favorites]
8) research dollars are finite, and while research both purposeful and explorative is well worth funding, and can should be expanded, we must prune failed avenues from time to time, and the people who work in those failed projects will protest. The "announcements of breakthroughs" are PR to prevent us from cutting off the boondoggle. They don't even understand why they sometimes get the better than dismal results, and it is not even net productivr of energy. The world had 50 years to develop fusion and failed. It does not have another 20.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 11:34 AM on December 12, 2022
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 11:34 AM on December 12, 2022
civilian power generation with fission (not fusion) has been expensive, uncleaneable, and commits us to 10s of thousands of years of waste management.
I've always found it disingenuous to raise this talking point without bringing up the fact that breeder reactors can take uranium with a half life of tens of thousands of years and reduce it to a waste product with a half-life of about 50 years, which dramatically changes the math on storing spent fuel.
Granted, the new waste product is plutonium, and that's a lot to worry about. But I don't like the constant refrain of "Oh, this reactor waste, we must seal it in tombs for eternity, there's nothing we can do!" when in fact yes, there is something we can do, we're just choosing not to do it for acceptable reasons. But the calculus on those reasons could change in the 21st century.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 11:38 AM on December 12, 2022 [16 favorites]
I've always found it disingenuous to raise this talking point without bringing up the fact that breeder reactors can take uranium with a half life of tens of thousands of years and reduce it to a waste product with a half-life of about 50 years, which dramatically changes the math on storing spent fuel.
Granted, the new waste product is plutonium, and that's a lot to worry about. But I don't like the constant refrain of "Oh, this reactor waste, we must seal it in tombs for eternity, there's nothing we can do!" when in fact yes, there is something we can do, we're just choosing not to do it for acceptable reasons. But the calculus on those reasons could change in the 21st century.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 11:38 AM on December 12, 2022 [16 favorites]
70 years * $700M per year (this is an overestimate) = $49 billion.
The US spends $700B per year on its military. Cutting the military budget by 10% for one year would cover all the government funding ever spent on fusion research and still leave you with an extra 20 billion to spend on solar cell research.
posted by Pyry at 11:57 AM on December 12, 2022 [17 favorites]
The US spends $700B per year on its military. Cutting the military budget by 10% for one year would cover all the government funding ever spent on fusion research and still leave you with an extra 20 billion to spend on solar cell research.
posted by Pyry at 11:57 AM on December 12, 2022 [17 favorites]
nthing that this is not a "breakthrough." On another site I compared it to being stuck in traffic on a road trip, and inching past a "Welcome to [county name]!" sign. It's sort of a milestone, but you're still stuck in traffic, the 10 feet you just travelled is not especially different than the 10 feet before that, and the whole trip is a lot slower than you wanted.
On climate: New fission (let alone fusion) can't be brought online to replace fossil fuels in the timeframes we care about, around 2-3 decades. It also solves the wrong challenge for the cheap solar world: Nuclear is so capital intensive that it needs to be "always on" once it's built, but it can't begin to compete economically with renewables when they are producing.
Renewables are so cheap at this point that we are, in fact, retiring some fossil fuel plants before they reach end of life. Not enough, but it's something I thought we'd never see without a hard government mandate.
The "announcements of breakthroughs" are PR to prevent us from cutting off the boondoggle. They don't even understand why they sometimes get the better than dismal results, and it is not even net productivr of energy. The world had 50 years to develop fusion and failed. It does not have another 20.
The thing about research is you don't do it if you know how things work. You do it to find out how things work.
Despite my point about the futility of using it for climate, fusion might well have a role in improving the lot of humankind in the long term.
posted by mark k at 12:05 PM on December 12, 2022 [7 favorites]
On climate: New fission (let alone fusion) can't be brought online to replace fossil fuels in the timeframes we care about, around 2-3 decades. It also solves the wrong challenge for the cheap solar world: Nuclear is so capital intensive that it needs to be "always on" once it's built, but it can't begin to compete economically with renewables when they are producing.
Renewables are so cheap at this point that we are, in fact, retiring some fossil fuel plants before they reach end of life. Not enough, but it's something I thought we'd never see without a hard government mandate.
The "announcements of breakthroughs" are PR to prevent us from cutting off the boondoggle. They don't even understand why they sometimes get the better than dismal results, and it is not even net productivr of energy. The world had 50 years to develop fusion and failed. It does not have another 20.
The thing about research is you don't do it if you know how things work. You do it to find out how things work.
Despite my point about the futility of using it for climate, fusion might well have a role in improving the lot of humankind in the long term.
posted by mark k at 12:05 PM on December 12, 2022 [7 favorites]
It's super disingenuous to suggest that the reason climate change is going at the rate it is because those darn fusion researchers are wasting all that money. Climate change always been a question of political will and the huge roadblocks thrown up by people who are being made rich by existing fossil fuel industries. If you went back fifty years and killed the first fusion researchers with a gardening spade, you wouldn't see any difference in the carbon levels today.
Fusion research is up against real fundamental questions, it's basic science, and whether it yields a commercial power source in X number of years or not, it's making progress and producing value. The argument that it's just a big boondoggle would have made a lot more sense, like, last friday, than it does today. Sorry to take this tone, but there's always someone convinced that every civilian science effort USA undertakes is a horrible investment, when, historically, it's almost never the case. It's usually the opposite.
posted by newdaddy at 12:23 PM on December 12, 2022 [29 favorites]
Fusion research is up against real fundamental questions, it's basic science, and whether it yields a commercial power source in X number of years or not, it's making progress and producing value. The argument that it's just a big boondoggle would have made a lot more sense, like, last friday, than it does today. Sorry to take this tone, but there's always someone convinced that every civilian science effort USA undertakes is a horrible investment, when, historically, it's almost never the case. It's usually the opposite.
posted by newdaddy at 12:23 PM on December 12, 2022 [29 favorites]
So either we'll have clean cheap energy or the world will explode.
Either outcome is equally welcome.
posted by Billiken at 1:20 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
Either outcome is equally welcome.
posted by Billiken at 1:20 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
> Granted, the new waste product is plutonium [...]
posted by The Pluto Gangsta
ep.
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 1:21 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by The Pluto Gangsta
ep.
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 1:21 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
I hope they commercialize in the next 5 years, because the US FERC is building the methane doomsday device in plaquemines parish, and many more in Cameron and Calcasieu parishes. The scar on the planet is visible from the ISS from the massive LNG buildout
posted by eustatic at 2:44 PM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 2:44 PM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm going to unfairly paraphrase and merge three comments.
Me in hindsight, fusion research hasnt panned out and we should focus on renewables
Pyrywhy criticise fusion when we spend more money on other things.
me: true, sports, war, meat and fashion come to mind.
newdaddy yeah, don't criticize fusion we weren't going to do use that money to do anything about climate change anyway!
The pluto Gangsta
Also nuclear waste is only a problem because we have a solution that totally works and is real and just choose not to use it in this country, or others because keeping spent fission fuel in pools by reactors is.... uh
cheaper, more popular, and evidence that we are totally ready to handle care and maintenance of fusion reactors.
Me: Someone has to rain on this expensive parade because the poles are melting, seas souring, crops dying, forests burning and pretending we have a long term future while we are failing to take the immeadiate steps to slow, stop and reverse out ecological suicide... Breakthrough the hype.
Do n't wait for new tech to save us. Act now. Shut down fossil fuels and build up renewables. When we finish cleaning up the old nuclear messes then you can play with your new toys.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 2:51 PM on December 12, 2022
Me in hindsight, fusion research hasnt panned out and we should focus on renewables
Pyrywhy criticise fusion when we spend more money on other things.
me: true, sports, war, meat and fashion come to mind.
newdaddy yeah, don't criticize fusion we weren't going to do use that money to do anything about climate change anyway!
The pluto Gangsta
Also nuclear waste is only a problem because we have a solution that totally works and is real and just choose not to use it in this country, or others because keeping spent fission fuel in pools by reactors is.... uh
cheaper, more popular, and evidence that we are totally ready to handle care and maintenance of fusion reactors.
Me: Someone has to rain on this expensive parade because the poles are melting, seas souring, crops dying, forests burning and pretending we have a long term future while we are failing to take the immeadiate steps to slow, stop and reverse out ecological suicide... Breakthrough the hype.
Do n't wait for new tech to save us. Act now. Shut down fossil fuels and build up renewables. When we finish cleaning up the old nuclear messes then you can play with your new toys.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 2:51 PM on December 12, 2022
there is no guarantee it does anything besides makes the super rich super richer and accelerates the inequalities that make life so sucky - I wonder if there's a way to ensure that doesn't happen?
Energy policy is already quite hard without having to solve capitalism as well.
posted by biffa at 3:15 PM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Energy policy is already quite hard without having to solve capitalism as well.
posted by biffa at 3:15 PM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
nightcoast: there is no guarantee it does anything besides makes the super rich super richer and accelerates the inequalities that make life so sucky - I wonder if there's a way to ensure that doesn't happen?
biffa: Energy policy is already quite hard without having to solve capitalism as well.
If you can get ignition but not confinement (a fire-breathing dragon of plasma), that's a tidy way to go about ethnic cleansing or disappearing your rivals or wiping protestors off the streets or zapping all electrical devices used to organise protests -- potential misuses of technology are reasons to control its use, not avoid it entirely.
I'm "yes and" for replacing carbon-emitting attitudes with renewables and also exploring new sources of energy.
posted by k3ninho at 3:32 PM on December 12, 2022
biffa: Energy policy is already quite hard without having to solve capitalism as well.
If you can get ignition but not confinement (a fire-breathing dragon of plasma), that's a tidy way to go about ethnic cleansing or disappearing your rivals or wiping protestors off the streets or zapping all electrical devices used to organise protests -- potential misuses of technology are reasons to control its use, not avoid it entirely.
I'm "yes and" for replacing carbon-emitting attitudes with renewables and also exploring new sources of energy.
posted by k3ninho at 3:32 PM on December 12, 2022
@Zalzidrax
Seems like I've heard of different recent advancements in modeling the (very difficult) plasma dynamics of the fusion reaction(s). Looking around a bit this is the most recent but seems like there were others. Might be some encouragement in that direction.
posted by aleph at 3:51 PM on December 12, 2022
Seems like I've heard of different recent advancements in modeling the (very difficult) plasma dynamics of the fusion reaction(s). Looking around a bit this is the most recent but seems like there were others. Might be some encouragement in that direction.
posted by aleph at 3:51 PM on December 12, 2022
The world had 50 years to develop fusion and failed. It does not have another 20.
If civilization is still around in 50 years, and fusion happens to pan out then, it will be useful then. Any and all work on energy alternatives should be welcomed. “When we finish X do Y” just isn’t how research works.
(The biggest argument for fusion research doing harm, I think, is that it gives people something to hold up and say “see we just have to wait for this to happen and the problem is solved.”)
posted by atoxyl at 5:59 PM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
If civilization is still around in 50 years, and fusion happens to pan out then, it will be useful then. Any and all work on energy alternatives should be welcomed. “When we finish X do Y” just isn’t how research works.
(The biggest argument for fusion research doing harm, I think, is that it gives people something to hold up and say “see we just have to wait for this to happen and the problem is solved.”)
posted by atoxyl at 5:59 PM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
Has anybody asked ChatGPT how to do fusion yet?
posted by clawsoon at 6:26 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 6:26 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
If you can get ignition but not confinement (a fire-breathing dragon of plasma), that's a tidy way to go about ethnic cleansing or disappearing your rivals or wiping protestors off the streets
I'm going to guess that the massive lasers that generate this plasma are something of an impediment to this plan, and if they could be weaponized this way you'd start with just weaponizing the lasers.
The much better story about why the NIF is bad is that it was built to study burning plasmas to further nuclear weapons research without violating the nuclear test ban treaty. It's already a weapons research project!
posted by BungaDunga at 7:08 PM on December 12, 2022
I'm going to guess that the massive lasers that generate this plasma are something of an impediment to this plan, and if they could be weaponized this way you'd start with just weaponizing the lasers.
The much better story about why the NIF is bad is that it was built to study burning plasmas to further nuclear weapons research without violating the nuclear test ban treaty. It's already a weapons research project!
posted by BungaDunga at 7:08 PM on December 12, 2022
From the article:
This isn't a "net energy gain," this is a fucking press show.
posted by introp at 7:24 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
The fusion reaction at the US government facility produced about 2.5 megajoules of energy, which was about 120 per cent of the 2.1 megajoules of energy in the lasers, the people with knowledge of the results said, adding that the data was still being analysed.2-ish MJ of laser energy is going to take at least 200-some MJ of energy input at NIF (not including prep, materials, etc.). Hell, just the frequency converters (a tiny tiny part of the system) are only about 50% efficient (e.g., wasting about 2 MJ), so merely that swamps the "gain" of the fusion. The says nothing about the hundreds of MJ of pumping energy burned.
This isn't a "net energy gain," this is a fucking press show.
posted by introp at 7:24 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
We'll likely never allocate much power to pulling carbon from the atmosphere, jedicus, because our economy would expand to consume whatever extra power we produce.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:30 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 7:30 PM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm yaying this but at the same time I find this comment in the NYT funny:
"Fusion research holds the promise of generating grants for scientists forever, in amounts that dwarf what we currently produce."
posted by storybored at 9:39 PM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Fusion research holds the promise of generating grants for scientists forever, in amounts that dwarf what we currently produce."
posted by storybored at 9:39 PM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
We'll likely never allocate much power to pulling carbon from the atmosphere, jedicus, because our economy would expand to consume whatever extra power we produce.
After a certain point on the economic ladder, power use is at most loosely coupled to GDP and much more strongly influenced by policy. Many of the highest per capita GDP states (like Massachusetts and California) have the lowest per capita energy usage. Whether you are above or below the national average lines up a lot better with whether you a red state or blue state than with GDP; in fact, high GDP might be a negative predictor or high energy use.
This applies internationally too.
Policy choices matter.
posted by mark k at 11:23 PM on December 12, 2022 [4 favorites]
After a certain point on the economic ladder, power use is at most loosely coupled to GDP and much more strongly influenced by policy. Many of the highest per capita GDP states (like Massachusetts and California) have the lowest per capita energy usage. Whether you are above or below the national average lines up a lot better with whether you a red state or blue state than with GDP; in fact, high GDP might be a negative predictor or high energy use.
This applies internationally too.
Policy choices matter.
posted by mark k at 11:23 PM on December 12, 2022 [4 favorites]
Does that count imported emergy, mark k?
posted by clew at 12:41 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 12:41 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
I wonder if this is what people in the early 17th century felt, every time somebody said they'd gotten a bit closer to calculating the longitude of a ship at sea?
(For the curious, the first longitude-method award was created in 1567; by somewhere around 1760, various people had worked things out well enough to have a prototype that you could use for navigation. Only 193 years of "another 10 years".)
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:42 AM on December 13, 2022
(For the curious, the first longitude-method award was created in 1567; by somewhere around 1760, various people had worked things out well enough to have a prototype that you could use for navigation. Only 193 years of "another 10 years".)
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:42 AM on December 13, 2022
What do you mean by imports, clew? It's consumption, so energy California gets from e.g. the Hoover Dam or other states' natural gas plants are included in California's total.
It would not include energy used to create products in other states, which are then shipped to California for sale.
posted by mark k at 12:53 AM on December 13, 2022
It would not include energy used to create products in other states, which are then shipped to California for sale.
posted by mark k at 12:53 AM on December 13, 2022
In fact, there is an almost perfect historical correlation between world energy usage and inflation adjusted GWP, so those states like MA and CA really do just import embedded energy in spades. We do observe a slight decoupling over the last decade, but it's likely entirely due to autocratic countries inflating their GDP statistics.
"Inflation is always and everywhere a re-distributional phenomenon", so yes we freely tinker with who sees material or paper benefits, but any real economic growth is entirely increased energy usage, alongside increased material usage.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:49 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Inflation is always and everywhere a re-distributional phenomenon", so yes we freely tinker with who sees material or paper benefits, but any real economic growth is entirely increased energy usage, alongside increased material usage.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:49 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Is Musk selling subscriptions to his new fusion company yet?
posted by SonInLawOfSam at 6:52 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by SonInLawOfSam at 6:52 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
FWIW, people who are better than me at math appear to be saying this experiment was a Q of 1.2, with prior widely-hailed experiments having Q of 0.67 (Q being the "fusion energy gain factor").
ITER is aiming at Q=10, with commercial viability thought to be starting around Q=25.
By way of comparison, it took roughly 15 years from the Chicago Pile (1942) to the first purely commercial electricity-generating fission plant (Shippingport PA, 1957; Calder Hall was also aimed at making Pu239 for nuclear weapons).
posted by aramaic at 7:47 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
ITER is aiming at Q=10, with commercial viability thought to be starting around Q=25.
By way of comparison, it took roughly 15 years from the Chicago Pile (1942) to the first purely commercial electricity-generating fission plant (Shippingport PA, 1957; Calder Hall was also aimed at making Pu239 for nuclear weapons).
posted by aramaic at 7:47 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
The current news frenzy competes with other discoveries it seems. If they found a way to produce cheap hydrogen, then game over for the old thinking that goes down the path of massive metered energy to be wasted in transmission lines or batteries. Hydrogen is also foreseen to be produced using sunlight and algae enzymes at some point, but I wonder if the gray goo theory of the apocalypse will occur then by catalyzing the oceans unconstrained.
posted by Brian B. at 8:13 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 8:13 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
2-ish MJ of laser energy is going to take at least 200-some MJ of energy input
Actually, even more.
NYT: Although the latest experiment produced a net energy gain (3 megajoules) compared to the energy of the 2.05 megajoules in the incoming laser beams, NIF needed to pull 300 megajoules of energy from the electrical grid in order to generate the brief laser pulse.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:23 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
Actually, even more.
NYT: Although the latest experiment produced a net energy gain (3 megajoules) compared to the energy of the 2.05 megajoules in the incoming laser beams, NIF needed to pull 300 megajoules of energy from the electrical grid in order to generate the brief laser pulse.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:23 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
I think it's dangerous to get locked into a mindset where, because climate change is impending, rectifying it is really the one only thing left that's worth doing. I mean, really? What are the other allowable activities? Laundering nursing uniforms? Feeding stray dogs? Painting the library? Watering the flowers?
Scientists are trying, and not only the government but also a swath of private interests are investing in, an energy source that, when it arrives, will be clean, cost-free, and close to limitless. People are choosing to commit their lives to pursuing this goal, and somehow all that's not good enough. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by newdaddy at 12:56 PM on December 13, 2022
Scientists are trying, and not only the government but also a swath of private interests are investing in, an energy source that, when it arrives, will be clean, cost-free, and close to limitless. People are choosing to commit their lives to pursuing this goal, and somehow all that's not good enough. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by newdaddy at 12:56 PM on December 13, 2022
> The world had 50 years to develop fusion and failed.
In 1976, the US Energy Research & Development Administration presented this program plan for the accelerated development of magnetic confinement fusion, as a flagship national project on the scale of the Apollo program or the Manhattan project.
If you look at page 17 of the report, you will see the graph on which they plotted out the expected completion date, as a function of funding level, with endpoints ranging from the early 1990s to the mid 2000s. For the lowest of the five projected funding levels, no completion date was given, as the report assessed that "if this pace were continued, a practical fusion power system might never be built".
Do you wanna take a guess what the actual funding level of fusion research has been in the 46 years since?
Here's an annotated version of that 1976 plot, with actual funding levels up to 2012.
The idea that fusion has had vast amounts of money thrown at it for decades and failed to deliver on its promises is total garbage. The result has been exactly what we were told it would be in the 1970s. In fact, relative to the actual level of funding, the level of success so far is pretty impressive.
There sure has been 50 years wasted, but it wasn't by the people trying to do the work.
posted by automatronic at 5:32 PM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
In 1976, the US Energy Research & Development Administration presented this program plan for the accelerated development of magnetic confinement fusion, as a flagship national project on the scale of the Apollo program or the Manhattan project.
If you look at page 17 of the report, you will see the graph on which they plotted out the expected completion date, as a function of funding level, with endpoints ranging from the early 1990s to the mid 2000s. For the lowest of the five projected funding levels, no completion date was given, as the report assessed that "if this pace were continued, a practical fusion power system might never be built".
Do you wanna take a guess what the actual funding level of fusion research has been in the 46 years since?
Here's an annotated version of that 1976 plot, with actual funding levels up to 2012.
The idea that fusion has had vast amounts of money thrown at it for decades and failed to deliver on its promises is total garbage. The result has been exactly what we were told it would be in the 1970s. In fact, relative to the actual level of funding, the level of success so far is pretty impressive.
There sure has been 50 years wasted, but it wasn't by the people trying to do the work.
posted by automatronic at 5:32 PM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
In fact, there is an almost perfect historical correlation between world energy usage and inflation adjusted GWP
Assuming you mean GDP here, that's not what the article linked in your nitter thread even says on its own term. Figure 3 clearly shows energy usage declining relative to current output; the correlation they claim is "cumulative wealth" and current energy usage.
The fact that it's averaged globally and then over time as well means it'd be tough to use that to tease out policy differences, even if you buy the analysis (which I think is interesting but far short of convincing). Constraining energy use has not been a consistent global priority, sadly.
Looking at what happens when governments emphasize energy efficiency, though, shows a big effect.
so those states like MA and CA really do just import embedded energy in spades.
This is circular reasoning. You're using an analysis that reports an average (and an average of a different metric, at that), then using that to deny that variation exists.
This is sort of the lefty version of what many Texans do when someone points to California energy numbers--they mutter something about air conditioning, without actually caring about how much of the difference can be conceivably attributed to air conditioning usage. They simply start with the belief that government policy can't improve things, then rationalize away differences post hoc.
posted by mark k at 8:32 PM on December 13, 2022
Assuming you mean GDP here, that's not what the article linked in your nitter thread even says on its own term. Figure 3 clearly shows energy usage declining relative to current output; the correlation they claim is "cumulative wealth" and current energy usage.
The fact that it's averaged globally and then over time as well means it'd be tough to use that to tease out policy differences, even if you buy the analysis (which I think is interesting but far short of convincing). Constraining energy use has not been a consistent global priority, sadly.
Looking at what happens when governments emphasize energy efficiency, though, shows a big effect.
so those states like MA and CA really do just import embedded energy in spades.
This is circular reasoning. You're using an analysis that reports an average (and an average of a different metric, at that), then using that to deny that variation exists.
This is sort of the lefty version of what many Texans do when someone points to California energy numbers--they mutter something about air conditioning, without actually caring about how much of the difference can be conceivably attributed to air conditioning usage. They simply start with the belief that government policy can't improve things, then rationalize away differences post hoc.
posted by mark k at 8:32 PM on December 13, 2022
Solar power [incl. wind] = fusion power. Stop trying to do it artificially and use what we already have plenty of.
posted by beagle at 6:00 AM on December 14, 2022
posted by beagle at 6:00 AM on December 14, 2022
I wonder if anyone here can answer a few questions I'm surprised not to see asked around this:
- What is the maximum possible power yield from the amount of hydrogen in an NIF shot? We got ~3MJ out of this for a Qplasma of ~1.5 in this test but what's the highest that could possibly go with perfect execution?
- Assuming NIF can reliably reproduce this result, how general might the insights be to other typs of fusion? Obviously, a lot of it will be specific to inertial confinement generally or the existing hardware in particular but are there general "oh, actually this is useful to Tokamak fusion, too" physics that we might learn?
I will be more cynical than anyone here. This thing is not for fusion energy research at all. It uses the world’s most powerful lasers which have to be charged up for hours to generate a single pulse (well, several pulses at once from different lasers) that releases the same or greater amount of energy in instant and which will need to be efficiently captured and stored also in an instant. That is just no way to design a power plant.
But it is a damn good way to study fusion explosions in a world where you can’t explode actual bombs. Nuclear weapons are terrible but we can’t afford to lose the knowledge of designing them when others can. So you need to train generations of scientists who can do that work but you can’t do that by having them study ancient texts like medieval monks. They have to do actual relevant science. And this is what that’s all about. Probably some useful fundamental science in there too that might be useful for future practical energy generation, but that will look nothing like this setup. Nothing at all.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:35 PM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
But it is a damn good way to study fusion explosions in a world where you can’t explode actual bombs. Nuclear weapons are terrible but we can’t afford to lose the knowledge of designing them when others can. So you need to train generations of scientists who can do that work but you can’t do that by having them study ancient texts like medieval monks. They have to do actual relevant science. And this is what that’s all about. Probably some useful fundamental science in there too that might be useful for future practical energy generation, but that will look nothing like this setup. Nothing at all.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:35 PM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
But it is a damn good way to study fusion explosions in a world where you can’t explode actual bombs.
Yes, and that is precisely why the Department of Energy launched the the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in the late 90s. When Clinton's secretary of energy, Federico Pena, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1998, here is what he had to say about starting up the NIF. (Note: not one word about limitless clean power generation.) Emphasis added.
The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is one of the most important new tools that DOE will need to ensure the safety and reliability of the stockpile under a CTBT. The facility, now under construction at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is on schedule and on budget. NIF is designed to produce for the first time in a laboratory setting conditions of temperature and density of matter close to those that occur in the detonation of nuclear weapons. The ability to study the behavior of matter and the transfer of energy and radiation under these conditions is key to understanding the basic physics of nuclear weapons and predicting their performance without underground nuclear testing.
Experiments at the NIF will test the simulation codes developed under the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) and demonstrate how aged or changed materials in weapons could behave under the unique conditions of nuclear weapons detonation. Two JASON panels, which are comprised of scientific and technical national security experts, have stated that the NIF is the most scientifically valuable of all programs proposed for science-based stockpile stewardship. The first experiments on the NIF will be conducted in FY 2001 using the first eight lasers.
Construction will be finished by FY 2003 and full operating capability, using all 192 laser beams will be achieved in FY 2004.
posted by beagle at 1:51 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Yes, and that is precisely why the Department of Energy launched the the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in the late 90s. When Clinton's secretary of energy, Federico Pena, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1998, here is what he had to say about starting up the NIF. (Note: not one word about limitless clean power generation.) Emphasis added.
The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is one of the most important new tools that DOE will need to ensure the safety and reliability of the stockpile under a CTBT. The facility, now under construction at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is on schedule and on budget. NIF is designed to produce for the first time in a laboratory setting conditions of temperature and density of matter close to those that occur in the detonation of nuclear weapons. The ability to study the behavior of matter and the transfer of energy and radiation under these conditions is key to understanding the basic physics of nuclear weapons and predicting their performance without underground nuclear testing.
Experiments at the NIF will test the simulation codes developed under the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) and demonstrate how aged or changed materials in weapons could behave under the unique conditions of nuclear weapons detonation. Two JASON panels, which are comprised of scientific and technical national security experts, have stated that the NIF is the most scientifically valuable of all programs proposed for science-based stockpile stewardship. The first experiments on the NIF will be conducted in FY 2001 using the first eight lasers.
Construction will be finished by FY 2003 and full operating capability, using all 192 laser beams will be achieved in FY 2004.
posted by beagle at 1:51 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Just for fun, Cleo Abrams and Simone Giertz assemble a small fusion reactor.
posted by clawsoon at 2:36 PM on December 14, 2022
posted by clawsoon at 2:36 PM on December 14, 2022
I intentionally linked a thread that discusses the recent small decoupling, mark k, but the article discusses how global energy usage tracks inflation adjusted gross world product (GWP) extremely closely over long periods, and the thread suggests the recent small decoupling due to fraudulent reporting.
It's true efficiency permits us to do more, but there are three stories here which cover different situations:
First, we often solve problems by throwing more energy at them, so time efficiency for some humans, but energy inefficiency. All of modern agriculture works like this. Air travel, cars, etc. GPT-3. We've massive embedded energy in produces consumed in MA and CA in part because so many of those product wind up being shipped all over the world, not just as finished products, but as components.
Second, energy efficiency gains typically remain comparatively small, provided products stay the same. Instead, real efficiency gains come from making different compromises: tax meat production, regenerative agriculture, avoid cars, planes, etc., kill off bitcoin, etc.
Third, GWP does not measure energy or resource efficiency per se, as they change prices under market conditions, but when GDP picks up efficiency, then it does so for the wrong reasons! In particular, Jevons paradox says efficiency gains rarely deliver the desired social benefits, but this winds up beneficial for GDP.
As a species, our survival depends upon a radical economic transformation, in which improved efficiency matters, but only represents a portion of the total, while the rest must come from using less energy, less resources, and less land, aka less GWP.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:57 PM on December 14, 2022
It's true efficiency permits us to do more, but there are three stories here which cover different situations:
First, we often solve problems by throwing more energy at them, so time efficiency for some humans, but energy inefficiency. All of modern agriculture works like this. Air travel, cars, etc. GPT-3. We've massive embedded energy in produces consumed in MA and CA in part because so many of those product wind up being shipped all over the world, not just as finished products, but as components.
Second, energy efficiency gains typically remain comparatively small, provided products stay the same. Instead, real efficiency gains come from making different compromises: tax meat production, regenerative agriculture, avoid cars, planes, etc., kill off bitcoin, etc.
Third, GWP does not measure energy or resource efficiency per se, as they change prices under market conditions, but when GDP picks up efficiency, then it does so for the wrong reasons! In particular, Jevons paradox says efficiency gains rarely deliver the desired social benefits, but this winds up beneficial for GDP.
As a species, our survival depends upon a radical economic transformation, in which improved efficiency matters, but only represents a portion of the total, while the rest must come from using less energy, less resources, and less land, aka less GWP.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:57 PM on December 14, 2022
"[fusion] energy source that, when it arrives, will be clean, cost-free, and close to limitless"
You are describing the virtues of a not yet existing aparatus and using its promised virtues to sell us on inventing it. You say it will be clean? how do you know. you say the energy it produces will be cost free and nearly limitless. well, we can't live on the promises of your perpetual motion machine.
Will it need cement, steel, rare earth metals and hugh amounts of enegy and money to build? to run? This non-breakthrough PR stunt runs on tritium. Where do we get that? what in the theoretical physics suggests that the cost of operation will be less than the market value of the enery it produces. Airplanes use air moving over wings to fly, air os cheap, flying is not.
Fusion for civilian power is more real than metichlorines and healing amulets, less real than bigfoot. At least with bigfoot we have rough estimates of size and location and appearance. With fusion that makes more energy than it costs, we have only promises.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:05 PM on December 14, 2022
You are describing the virtues of a not yet existing aparatus and using its promised virtues to sell us on inventing it. You say it will be clean? how do you know. you say the energy it produces will be cost free and nearly limitless. well, we can't live on the promises of your perpetual motion machine.
Will it need cement, steel, rare earth metals and hugh amounts of enegy and money to build? to run? This non-breakthrough PR stunt runs on tritium. Where do we get that? what in the theoretical physics suggests that the cost of operation will be less than the market value of the enery it produces. Airplanes use air moving over wings to fly, air os cheap, flying is not.
Fusion for civilian power is more real than metichlorines and healing amulets, less real than bigfoot. At least with bigfoot we have rough estimates of size and location and appearance. With fusion that makes more energy than it costs, we have only promises.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:05 PM on December 14, 2022
If I seem harsh, i offer two quasi-facts. for $250,000 amazon can deliver to me 1megawatt of solar pv (or a similar amount of wind) before christmas. Is there even a price tag yet? a waiting list to sign up for to buy this latest nuke industry snake oil? Maybe a small fission plant? fast breeder? Dilithium crystals? Where do i sign?
Every news aggregator site has multiple stories about this "breakthrough". It has recieved a ton of coverage in 2 days, it is to give people a technological hope so that they can remain passive about what must be done to end fossil fuels now, not 'someday"when the philosophers stone is found.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:12 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
Every news aggregator site has multiple stories about this "breakthrough". It has recieved a ton of coverage in 2 days, it is to give people a technological hope so that they can remain passive about what must be done to end fossil fuels now, not 'someday"when the philosophers stone is found.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:12 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
The news on this has basically been press release stenography. This research has nothing to do with fusion energy and everything to do with weapons development. The “break even” milestone is only interesting in fusion energy, but that’s not what this is about at all.
it’s sad that they issued a press release that implied this was a breakthrough in fusion energy (it isn’t). And it’s depressing that the press amplified that for engagement.
posted by sjswitzer at 8:42 PM on December 14, 2022
it’s sad that they issued a press release that implied this was a breakthrough in fusion energy (it isn’t). And it’s depressing that the press amplified that for engagement.
posted by sjswitzer at 8:42 PM on December 14, 2022
The news on this has basically been press release stenography. This research has nothing to do with fusion energy and everything to do with weapons development. The “break even” milestone is only interesting in fusion energy, but that’s not what this is about at all.
Can you explain the weapons development implication of this? It seems a horribly inefficient way to use fusion power to destroy stuff--especially since we also have means of doing that.
I briefly knew a Lawrence Livermore researcher who was on the fusion side; I realize they do a lot of weapons research as an institute, but this wasn't that, back then.
posted by mark k at 8:46 PM on December 14, 2022
Can you explain the weapons development implication of this? It seems a horribly inefficient way to use fusion power to destroy stuff--especially since we also have means of doing that.
I briefly knew a Lawrence Livermore researcher who was on the fusion side; I realize they do a lot of weapons research as an institute, but this wasn't that, back then.
posted by mark k at 8:46 PM on December 14, 2022
Modern nuclear bombs get most of their explosive force from fusion reactions; getting really good at characterising fusion reactions helps you characterize the performance of a nuclear bomb. You can do a lot in simulation but you want measurements of real fusion plasmas to validate your simulations. You can get data from blowing up a nuke, but that's illegal, so you build a huge laser array to initiate fusion the very hard way.
Will it need cement, steel, rare earth metals and hugh amounts of enegy and money to build? to run? This non-breakthrough PR stunt runs on tritium. Where do we get that?
That's just describing technological civilization as we know it generally. Everything needs cement and steel and big energy inputs to build, including renewables (solar panel factories!). You don't get anything for free. But if fusion power somehow works out you'll have big industrial plants sending electricity to the grid, all day and all night, with basically zero emissions of any kind. That would be legitimately great, we don't have a technology that can do that. I don't think it's very likely to show up early enough to help out with global warming but if it did, it would be helpful. If we'd somehow been building fusion reactors for the last 20 years we'd be well on our way to decarbonizing.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:01 PM on December 14, 2022
Will it need cement, steel, rare earth metals and hugh amounts of enegy and money to build? to run? This non-breakthrough PR stunt runs on tritium. Where do we get that?
That's just describing technological civilization as we know it generally. Everything needs cement and steel and big energy inputs to build, including renewables (solar panel factories!). You don't get anything for free. But if fusion power somehow works out you'll have big industrial plants sending electricity to the grid, all day and all night, with basically zero emissions of any kind. That would be legitimately great, we don't have a technology that can do that. I don't think it's very likely to show up early enough to help out with global warming but if it did, it would be helpful. If we'd somehow been building fusion reactors for the last 20 years we'd be well on our way to decarbonizing.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:01 PM on December 14, 2022
I started catching up on old NIF news articles to do the below response, but it really emphasizes how slow the process has been. It went online seven years late, and even taking that into account this milestone was expected in 2012. There were researchers in 2011 saying they have a "clear path" to get there. (Narrator: They did not.)
The main accomplishment for most of this period seems to have been that the lasers didn't explode when you turned them on. (This is only a slight exaggeration--they are very powerful and an "engineering marvel" in and of themselves.)
It doesn't change my opinion of fusion either way--I tend to think things taking a long time show that it's hard, not that people are stupid--but 20 years late for a very meh milestone is why the classic joke exists . . .
[Military applications] explained clearly here.
I missed that in the thread, and didn't realize that part of of the project was so central.
But to be clear that is not "nothing to do with fusion energy." That is the claim that it has important military applications, which is true but also (if you're testifying before a Republican controlled Armed Services Committee) is probably what you want to emphasize. Reading into what is not mentioned in half-dozen sentence summary their isn't a good way to draw conclusions.
There's a long history of defense projects being made to sound attractive to civilians--but also a long history of getting research funding by trying to make it sound attractive to defense agencies.
Here's a report from 2012 that talks about the NIF role in fusion energy research strategy and worrying it's too dominant in that context. Here's an earlier one that talks about "twin goals."
posted by mark k at 8:19 AM on December 15, 2022
The main accomplishment for most of this period seems to have been that the lasers didn't explode when you turned them on. (This is only a slight exaggeration--they are very powerful and an "engineering marvel" in and of themselves.)
It doesn't change my opinion of fusion either way--I tend to think things taking a long time show that it's hard, not that people are stupid--but 20 years late for a very meh milestone is why the classic joke exists . . .
[Military applications] explained clearly here.
I missed that in the thread, and didn't realize that part of of the project was so central.
But to be clear that is not "nothing to do with fusion energy." That is the claim that it has important military applications, which is true but also (if you're testifying before a Republican controlled Armed Services Committee) is probably what you want to emphasize. Reading into what is not mentioned in half-dozen sentence summary their isn't a good way to draw conclusions.
There's a long history of defense projects being made to sound attractive to civilians--but also a long history of getting research funding by trying to make it sound attractive to defense agencies.
Here's a report from 2012 that talks about the NIF role in fusion energy research strategy and worrying it's too dominant in that context. Here's an earlier one that talks about "twin goals."
posted by mark k at 8:19 AM on December 15, 2022
Reading into what is not mentioned in half-dozen sentence summary their isn't a good way to draw conclusions.
OK, agreed, and that was 1998, 24 years ago. So let's go straight to the source, today, to draw our conclusions. Here's the NIF's own website. Assuming that the page, and trhe language on it, is arranged somewhat in priority order, here's what they say the facility is about:
1. THE WORLD’S LARGEST AND HIGHEST-ENERGY LASER — with a description of the machinery, including this: "NIF’s unique energy and power enable cutting-edge research to help keep America safe and secure, explore new frontiers of science, and lay the groundwork for a clean, sustainable source of energy." So, three purposes, the first being weapons, the third being power generation.
2. MAINTAINING THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT. "to maintain the reliability, security, and safety of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without full-scale testing." All about weapons, obviously.
3. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ON A MISSION: "Pursuing ignition, exploring new horizons." "The drive toward ignition helps ensure the reliability of the nuclear deterrent, while also opening new frontiers in laboratory astrophysics, materials science, hydrodynamics, and many other scientific disciplines." Did I miss the mention of power generation there?
4. GROUNDBREAKING SCIENCE: "Discovery science, energy security" — At last, 75% down the page: "the potential for virtually unlimited safe and sustainable clean energy by harnessing the power of the sun and stars."
They make it pretty clear this facility is about energy generation only in a tangential way.
posted by beagle at 9:58 AM on December 15, 2022
OK, agreed, and that was 1998, 24 years ago. So let's go straight to the source, today, to draw our conclusions. Here's the NIF's own website. Assuming that the page, and trhe language on it, is arranged somewhat in priority order, here's what they say the facility is about:
1. THE WORLD’S LARGEST AND HIGHEST-ENERGY LASER — with a description of the machinery, including this: "NIF’s unique energy and power enable cutting-edge research to help keep America safe and secure, explore new frontiers of science, and lay the groundwork for a clean, sustainable source of energy." So, three purposes, the first being weapons, the third being power generation.
2. MAINTAINING THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT. "to maintain the reliability, security, and safety of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without full-scale testing." All about weapons, obviously.
3. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ON A MISSION: "Pursuing ignition, exploring new horizons." "The drive toward ignition helps ensure the reliability of the nuclear deterrent, while also opening new frontiers in laboratory astrophysics, materials science, hydrodynamics, and many other scientific disciplines." Did I miss the mention of power generation there?
4. GROUNDBREAKING SCIENCE: "Discovery science, energy security" — At last, 75% down the page: "the potential for virtually unlimited safe and sustainable clean energy by harnessing the power of the sun and stars."
They make it pretty clear this facility is about energy generation only in a tangential way.
posted by beagle at 9:58 AM on December 15, 2022
The Problem with Nuclear Fusion
Good overview of a pioneering approach. Main concern seems to be the overall cost, which makes sense considering the thousands of patents which must be involved.
posted by Brian B. at 10:30 AM on December 15, 2022
Good overview of a pioneering approach. Main concern seems to be the overall cost, which makes sense considering the thousands of patents which must be involved.
posted by Brian B. at 10:30 AM on December 15, 2022
nuclear bombs get most of their explosive force from fusion reactions; getting really good at characterising fusion reactions helps you characterize the performance of a nuclear bomb.
This hasn't been the case since the trend from using large multimegaton bombs. In currently deployed weapons, the fusion is there more as a neutron generator than anything, so that less weapon mass/size is required to get to the few hundred kilotons of yield they actually want. The fusion neutrons promote more complete fission of the primary and are capable of causing the uranium 238 bomb case to fission as well. Since you need the case and the primary regardless, it allows weapons to be made much smaller and lighter.
Even in the big bastard bombs of the 50s and early 60s, they were only getting about 50% of the yield from fusion.
posted by wierdo at 12:36 PM on December 15, 2022 [3 favorites]
This hasn't been the case since the trend from using large multimegaton bombs. In currently deployed weapons, the fusion is there more as a neutron generator than anything, so that less weapon mass/size is required to get to the few hundred kilotons of yield they actually want. The fusion neutrons promote more complete fission of the primary and are capable of causing the uranium 238 bomb case to fission as well. Since you need the case and the primary regardless, it allows weapons to be made much smaller and lighter.
Even in the big bastard bombs of the 50s and early 60s, they were only getting about 50% of the yield from fusion.
posted by wierdo at 12:36 PM on December 15, 2022 [3 favorites]
Smaller and smarter might get there before absurdly huge and ridiculously expensive. A New Way to Achieve Nuclear Fusion: Helion
posted by flabdablet at 11:20 PM on December 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 11:20 PM on December 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
« Older Time for you to hit the road and start a new... | Au revoir Mutable Instruments! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- huge technical achievement
- not obvious it will lead to energy production even in decades, def not soon
- uses tritium (hard to get!)
- press gonna oversell
Thread from an astrophysicist with sci-comm chops laying out why this is yet another overhyped story.
It's newsworthy, but it's just another incremental step, and we're nowhere near anything productive or sustainable.
posted by ursus_comiter at 8:47 AM on December 12, 2022 [31 favorites]