“Near limitless energy”. …
OK what are the limits? Preferably absurd answers please…
They boiled 10 kettles of water with this energy.
Ultimately, if everything is optimized, its probably only limited by the number of kettles available.
Could we somehow capture the steam from all the kettles to turn a turbine? I see zero problems with this plan.
Coal or nuclear, it’s all steam baby
I know this is probably tongue in cheek, but I genuinely thought the same until recently. There’s a company called Helion which is developing a really cool fusion process that doesn’t use steam as an energy transfer mechanism. Obviously it has its own set of drawbacks and roadblocks, but still really cool tech in the making.
Here’s the video I saw going into detail on it if anyone’s interested:
I hope this actually pans out, but I am suspicious that it won’t. Mostly just because of they way they have this air of tech bro hype around them; hopefully I just learned about it through poor sources because it would be freakin cool if it worked
Yep, this was pretty much my exact reaction as well. I haven’t really dug into it since, but it was an interesting twist on fusion that would be sweet if it made some progress!
Oh yeah I’ve seen that one.
Honestly I don’t have high hopes, they believe their next model will solve the shortcomings they face with it’s size, but that could reveal a whole other set of issues.
Same, expectations are definitely in check, but cool none the less! I feel like there are a lot of hiccups here that would need to be smoothed out before this would become anything remotely feasible.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/_bDXXWQxK38?si=iBpHfDxhRgHHRtN2
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The UK will become an energy powerhouse.
Limitless only for the same visit. 1 customer per reaction.
No repeat visits or sharing allowed!It’s nearly limitless because they used nearly 200 lasers. If they built a new one with the full 200 lasers, who knows what could happen.
Like, they used 198 lasers, or they used 98% of each of the 200 lasers?
There is 1.4E21 kg of water on Earth. 0.03% of hydrogen is deuterium, a suitable fusion fuel. H2O has an atomic mass of 18 and O has an atomic mass of 16, so Earth has 4.7E16 kg of deuterium readily centrifuged out of ocean water.
D-D fusion converts about 0.1% of mass to energy (4 MeV / c^2 / 4 Daltons). E=mc^2. So we have 4.2E30 (420E28) Joules of fusion fuel ready for us on Earth. We used 2400 TWh of energy last year. If we used this amount indefinitely then we would have 485 billion years of fuel.
Bonus: deuterium depletion would have virtually no environmental effect.
This is the answer we all needed.
The flamingo population must remain constant for ignition to function.
You know how the sun radiates an incredible amount of power through millions and millions of tonnes of material undergoing nuclear fusion every minute, and the sun is expected to last for millions of years?
Well, not that much. But it’s still a lot!
One limit less.
You would have enough power to play a game of Civ II to completion.
It’s near limitless in the sense that the fuel for it will not run out. … But to be honest, the ‘unlimited energy’ thing is mostly marketing hype. If we were worried about fuel running out, then solar would be the obvious go-to. That’s even less likely to run out than fusion power, and it has the advantage that we can already build it. And fusion, like solar and everything else, still requires land and resources to build the power plants. There are hopes that fusion power plants might be be more space efficient or something, but that obviously isn’t the case currently. Currently the situation is that people have been working on this for generations and the big breakthrough is that we can now momentarily break-even with power on a small scale with state of the art equipment. So I think it’s a bit too soon to claim it will have any advantages over solar. Right now it is not viable at all, and any future advantages are just speculation.
That said, fusion power is technology worth pursuing. It’s not complete garbage green-washing (unlike “carbon capture and storage”, which really is complete garbage), but the idea that fusion it’s some holy-grail of unlimited power is … well … basically just good marketing to keep the research funds flowing.
Only on Tuesdays between the times of 04:04 and 04:27 UTC
Ah, my childhood ISP is still luring around.
UTC? Absurd!
You have to sign up for a two year initial contract. After that there’s tons of limits.
The limits are only your imagination.
I wonder what sort of problems having near-unlimited energy at our disposal would bring. Like, light and noise pollution are already bad enough. But would people be even more careless with that? And if we manage to automate most things and energy isn’t an issue, how would we live and occupy ourselves? How would that change industries and the world? How would that change things like war and power struggles in general? What about science and electronics?
It’s a bit concerning but also fascinating
We live in a post-scarcity world - yet people are still starving ans stilll dying from easy curable diseases.
I won’t be holding my breath.
Yup. The rich will use it to consolidate power and wealth, while the poor still have to go to work and grind for 50+ hours a week just to scrape by. Nothing will change, because the issue isn’t a lack of resources; The issue is resource distribution.
I wish I could remember the origin, but I had perhaps 1 hour of contiguous sleep last night so I’m operating at 10% normal acuity.
The TL;DR was, even with adequate distribution, we would still be operating at above sustainable levels in terms of emissions.
If Amazon can supply dildos to the civilized world with 2 hour notice, i think the technology exists.
Thinking of the hypothetical scenario where in a short timeframe energy would become near unlimited and almost free:
On the positive side: with no energy limitations, Direct Air Capture technology could be scaled massively. That’s one really promising technology that can take carbon off the air and use it for other things (like sustainable air fuels) or removing it altogether.
Also this would accelerate the transition to electric cars and well, electric everything: why pay for fuel for your car, your stove or boiler, when they can be almost free? That has a potential for good effects on the environment too.
On the negative side: this opens the door for more, cheap transport. If people don’t have to pay for fuel, they’d be more willing to take the car everywhere. This would mean more roads, more infrastructure, more destruction of ecosystems, less space for pedestrians… A trend that is already too difficult to reverse in a world of expensive fuels.
In terms of economics, I could see this accelerating the gap between countries. Those who could benefit from semi-free energy first would have an immense competitive advantage and also lower their manufacturing costs, leaving worse-off countries in a position where they can’t compete because of technology nor because of cheap labour.
Honestly, we won’t likely see cheap energy in our lifetimes. A fusion powerplant could come online that is able to power the entire eastern seaboard of the US with some leftover for millionths of a cent per kW and we would still be getting charged just as much if not more for it. The general populace will never see the benefits of nearly infinite, nearly free power because the company that owns it will just see it as a higher profit margin. Sure, they may underbid fossil fuels or other renewables by just enough that they can’t operate, but it will still be orders of magnitude more than we should be charged. The only way the population sees the benefit is if the reactor is publicly owned and the government is prevented from converting it over to privatization because that has ever gone well for us.
I agree with you, prices will still be market driven. However I was replying to a comment about a hypothetical scenario, which I think is useful to explore however unlikely it might be.
I can tell you, unequivocally, without a doubt, light and noise pollution are much better than energy shortages.
Yeah, I meant more along the lines of what those unknown problems could look like. For example, whales get very disturbed by sound pollution in the water and I can just imagine that a lot of other animals do as well. Not to mention that we ourselves apparently risk mental health from all the noise in the city. How would that change if we have more electronics at our disposal? Or maybe it’ll be the opposite and we can build more quiet EVs.
I’m just over here waiting to hear that the USAF has had fusion in the form of bombs for a decade but let us all keep struggling.
Yeah, why didn’t they provide hydrogen bombs for everyone?
Mmmmm my own personal demon core… :)
Unlimited for our current needs or on a planetary scale, but nowhere near enough at the scale of a solar system of galaxy. I doubt it would be enough energy to for example open a wormhole or accelerate a spaceship to even 1/3 of light-speed. Not only is the amount important, but also the ability to sustain the output.
We’ll just be on the first rung of the Kardashev scale. Of 3. However, the jumps between the rungs are huge (logarithmic). Complete control of planet, star, galaxy.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
What’s the alphanumeric sequence at the end of your comment?
It’s like a signature one would’ve used on the old BB forums. Added a link
Ah. Good luck with that.
Creative commons tag.
It’s good to see some progress in this area. It’s something people have been working on for a very long time. I just wish they wouldn’t keep pitching it as a ‘solution to climate crisis’. It isn’t.
Fusion power is not currently viable. Progress is being made, but a lot more research is required before actual usable power plants can be designed; and then a lot more time will be required to actually build them. And even then, we’re only guessing about how good these power plants might be. They could be really great and clean, but currently they don’t exist at all. People have been working this this technology for a very long time, and it is yet to succeed. So the claims about problems it will solve are just hopeful speculation.
Climate change was once a distant future problem for which fusion power sounds like a good answer, but that was a long time ago now. Today, climate change is a right now problem and fusion power is still a distant future technology. We must not gamble the planet we all live on for a bet that fusion power is just around the corner and will somehow fix all our power needs. That would be a really bad bet to make. Delaying actual meaningful action in the hopes that future fusion will save the world… would be a mistake. So lets not think of fusion as a solution to climate change.
Fortunately we already have a fusion reactor available to us, we just have to get better at harnessing the energy it produces.
Indeed. And we are getting better at that. A lot better. Improvement in solar power have been happening a lot faster than fusion power. It’s far better than it use to be, and has the advantage that it is already very good today.
Yes, the goal should be improving solar, wind, and fission until fusion is ready, which might be two decades from now, or never, but advancing beyond fossil fuels should always be a combined effort in multiple fields. If nothing else, they’re frequently quite synergistic.
Today, climate change is a right now problem
Only for a significant majority of humanity. And species in general. You just gotta hustle and get that bunker built and you’ll be all good. Climate change is a hoax anyway, I saw a picture once of the ocean in the 50s, and a recent picture with no reference to tides, and the water levels were the roughly the same from about 500 metres away.
It is also about the philosophy of many people who are focused on fusion as the future. If we just had unlimited cheap power that would solve alllll of our problems…. which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is really the crisis here.
While this is amazing and all, it’s always seemed to me that this approach of using hundreds of laser beams focused on a single point would never scale to be viable for power generation. Can any experts here confirm?
I’ve always assumed this approach was just useful as a research platform – to learn things applicable to other approaches, such as tokamaks, or to weapons applications.
I mean I assume you have to start somewhere to be able to improve, right? Like breakthroughs with TVs, no one would realistically use a vacuum tube when you can make an OLED display. But if we didn’t start with the vacuum tube we wouldn’t know what to improve on.
Once we know that we can do it, we can start working on how to do it easier.
deleted by creator
IMO the current best bet on who builds an actual fusion plant first is Proxima Fusion, a spin-out of the Max Planck institute. They’re planning on building a large Stellerator by 2030 based on their experiences with Wendelstein-7X, which exceeded all expectations (as in: It behaved exactly as predicted), proving that the concept scales without issue. Still some kinks to figure out but those are about economical efficiency, not achieving power output.
The NIF generally does research on nukes. I have a hard time believing them talking about civil applications is anything but marketing.
The first step is always the hardest. You have to start somewhere. You don’t start by having something fully scalable right away, you have to work towards it.
Yeah pretty much my understanding as well, I don’t think anyone has a notion of what it would take to generate power from inertial fusion and whatever if it would be practical.
Same, I never understood the scope of this lasers-on-a-pill approach, other than being a starter. I like the Polywell concept more.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Scientists in California shooting nearly 200 lasers at a cylinder holding a fuel capsule the size of a peppercorn have taken another step in the quest for fusion energy, which, if mastered, could provide the world with a near-limitless source of clean power.
This marks another significant step in what could one day be an important solution to the global climate crisis, driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
Brian Appelbe, a research fellow from the Centre for Inertial Fusion Studies at Imperial College London, said the ability to replicate demonstrates the “robustness” of the process, showing it can be achieved even when conditions such as the laser or fuel pellet are varied.
As the climate crisis accelerates, and the urgency of ditching planet-heating fossil fuels increases, the prospect of an abundant source of safe, clean energy is tantalizing.
Nuclear fusion, the reaction that powers the sun and other stars, involves smashing two or more atoms together to form a denser one, in a process that releases huge amounts of energy.
In December, the US Department of Energy announced a $42 million investment in a program bringing together multiple institutions, including LLNL, to establish “hubs” focused on advancing fusion.
The original article contains 740 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I thought the Z machine at Sandia produced more than it consumed? That was like 20 years ago
Nah, the Z machine never achieved ignition. That doesn’t mean it’s not a really cool facility though!
Hmm, I thought they were running fast ignition since like 2005?
They’ve been doing studies of what would be required for ignition for a while, but have never demonstrated ignition using the Z machine.
If they did have ignition, there’s no way they would’ve let LLNL claim to be first and enjoy all the media attention.
