• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Carbon-free fusion power could be ‘on the grid in 15 years’

NIF has other functions, but once in awhile they have to do what it was officially intended for to make it all less ominous.
Prometheus59650 said:
Tomorrow's announcement is an awesome step, but...50 years, not 15.
Click to expand...
that method of fusion would have never led to widespread use. There's a lot that can be learned from it, but its ability to displace existing energy sources is even less useful than ITER
 
I just saw the Energy Secretary say they "Hope to scale clean energy breakthrough within a decade".

She doesn't seem to think it's going to become the singular answer to energy needs though, it will only be another tool along with solar and wind to meet needs.

.
 
Last edited:
shapeshifter said:
She doesn't seem to think it's going to become the singular answer to energy needs though, it will only be another tool along with solar and wind to meet needs.
Click to expand...

And it won't until it's cheap and easy. Wind and sun are far cheaper and easier and will be for quite some time even after the first fusion plant that can power a cul-de-sac or a city goes online.
 
Yeah. The last two days have seen the airwaves filled with all the usual sunshine and rainbows about our finally being saved! Energy woes are finally coming to an end, soon!

Some of us remember the same once upon a time hype before. Blowing smoke.
 
All we need to do is build our very own Narada!

But yes, this new laser-based fusion is an important step which could unlock further progress. I also wouldn't underestimate the value of hype: it would continue to bring in much needed investments to further fusion research and engineering. I remain cautiously optimistic that fusion will be a big part of energy generation in the future.
 
Another advantage of deep geothermal may be that with all the superheated steam, there's a possibility to capture distilled water on the upcycle , with minimal treatment, that can be used at least for agricultural purposes. Depending on where one is, that could be extremely useful.
 
LaxScrutiny said:
Disagree with your math a bit.

@100% the reaction is self-sustaining. The remaining 20% is available for production. 33%efficiancy*20%=6.6% net production for distribution. Not amazing considering the cost of constructing the device in the first place, but still positive production.
Click to expand...
they seemed to have achieve their goal, though I am still not sure if it can be called ignition. I'm probably the most annoyingly positive fusion fan on earth, but NIF always struck me kind of being not-the-answer-even-if-it is.

The cynic in me thinks they finally went with the uranium coated hohlarum to get this result and put themselves in the history books before Helion, the MIT group or the Brits beat them to breakeven. Either way, this can finally get some of the "twenty years away and always will be harr harr harr" crowd to shut the fuck up.
 
LaxScrutiny said:
I think the takeaway is that drastically improving efficiency of transforming heat energy into electrical energy would change the world faster than fusion by itself. It would mean less carbon fuel could generate more electric power with lower emissions. It would knock a few years off fusion viability. Geothermal becomes more efficient. That would be the big news story. (I am excited about the latest fusion news.)
Click to expand...
Helion's process is direct electric output, no conversion losses, so hopefully that will work.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
XCV330 said:
fusion may not (I Think it will be a big chunk of the answer), but a spinoff of the technology could:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...chnology-innovator-ga-drilling-301513139.html
Click to expand...
I would like to see a combination of that and this technology for lateral drilling:
https://singularityhub.com/2021/12/...by-blasting-it-with-a-jet-of-superheated-gas/
I can see Great Lakes water moved to California..doing work along the way.

Lasers are getting faster with plasma mirrors
https://phys.org/news/2022-12-relativistic-mirror-plasma-kilohertz-repetition.html
A key element for this progress is the in-house developed kilohertz repetition rate terawatt laser, providing pulse durations down to <4 femtoseconds .

Still, this method of fusion will take awhile---but I think could be used for propulsion more quickly. As I am still bullish on space solar power---I can see that beaming energy to a back to back sail with a feed-horn emitter rod through it--a deformable Medusa type sail

-perhaps made of this:
https://phys.org/news/2022-12-team-protein-based-material-supersonic-impacts.html

Now there would be no on-board magnets or laser machines---just a sail with that pellet rifle rod through the middle off it. The beam focuses on a single point, which also pushes the sail reflector combo---the pellet rifle rod also acting as a feed horn.

The back sail can ride beams normally---or focus the energy on pellets and do a Johndale Solum Medusa----a Fusion Sail.

Being lightweight, this could achieve high speeds. Or maybe not...

As for fusion, old fashioned tin smithing could lead to cooling
https://phys.org/news/2022-12-mitigating-corrosion-liquid-tin-cooling.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-cooling-million-degree-plasma-hydrogen-neon.html

The SUNVOYAGER fusion spacecraft
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35539
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2023/01/11/sunvoyagers-pedigree-on-the-growth-of-interstellar-ideas/

Fusion really burns money for fuel—not helium 3, Princess
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-03-fusion-future-dollars-cents.html
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-fusion-simulations-reveal-multi-scale-nature.html

In the news
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-physicists-superconductivity.html
 
Last edited:
A New Way to Achieve Nuclear Fusion: Helion

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Starbrow said:
Write cheap and easy off your vocabulary. Europe had cheap and easy energy from Russia, instead they chose expensive and difficult from USA in form of LNG. This shows leaders are not interested in anything cheap or easy, they just want their Wars so they can show their powers, while people suffer all over Europe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Europe had cheap and easy gas from Russia for decades, so cheap and easy that they slowed their own journey towards energy independence because it was cheap and easy.

But the wind is not authoritarian with designs on rebuilding a dead empire and the sun is not a despot.
 
Starbrow said:
Specially when you drive Green and Carbon free fanatic policies, that are hurting economies and energy sector.
Click to expand...

Nature is driving green and carbon free policies because doing what has always been done is literally unsustainable.

So, sure, until every home can be Star Trek and have its own fusion reactor for power, the EU is probably going to have to supplement its resources with something from someone, somewhere.

But the cost of that being Russia is too high, no matter how cheap that gas station that only had the GDP of Italy before it lit its future on fire sells it for.
 
publiusr said:
Now to me---this is a bigger announcement than the NIF deal:
https://phys.org/news/2023-02-power-plasma-gigajoule-energy-turnover.html

Now the researchers have even achieved 1.3 gigajoules and a new record for discharge time on Wendelstein 7-X: the hot plasma could be maintained for eight minutes.
Click to expand...
Six gigajoules is roughly the energy obtained by combusting 1 barrel (159 litres) of petroleum. 3.6 gigajoules is the equivalent of one megawatt-hour of electricity. 1.3 gigajoules is about 360 kilowatt-hours, so the average power output in this run was 2.7 megawatts over eight minutes. A typical nuclear (fission) power station has a power output of 1 gigawatt. Some way to go still...
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Weak now…but the duration shows some stability. Not just a NIF pulse. Duration is what you need for power generation. O/T…I saw a 600 second RS-25 test recently.
Click to expand...
Do you know if the fusion energy gain factor (Q) was stated for this run? I agree 480 seconds is impressive, but how did the output energy produced compare to the input energy used to achieve that duration?
 
Nothing that I could see in the article.

They are probably focused on just ruggedizing the tech before attempting anything more….as opposed to just getting an over-unity result and trying to find a way to contain it later.

Getting to meet in the middle? Well…
How tall and narrow can a torus be?
Can you maybe feed a pellet stream into that?

I still wonder if vortex breakdown might be an answer. Seeing how narrow and intense tornadic suction vortices can be with no magnetic fields to contain them.

Fusion may need a combination of approaches.
 
Last edited:
It's easiest if you have the gravity of a star to contain the reactions. Even so, in a star such as the Sun, the fusion energy produced per cubic metre per second in the core is surprising low - about 275 watts per cubic metre. It helps that the core is darn big - its radius is about one quarter that of the Sun - so about 1/64th of the volume.

ETA: Somewhat counterintuitively, the net gravitational attraction at the centre of the Sun (or any spherical body) is zero, but the surrounding mass serves to ensure that the pressure, density, and temperature are high enough to support fusion containment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top