this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
255 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

59414 readers
3376 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

US scientists achieve net energy gain for second time in a fusion reaction::The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility achieved the feat using lasers to fuse two atoms

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] veroxii@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe the easiest method is to create the fusion reaction in space because then you don't need to worry about containment. Have a big ball of fusion going nonstop and then beam that energy to earth.

Then have collectors which receive that beamed down energy. You could put them everywhere... Maybe close to where you need the energy like directly on top of buildings and houses.

[–] persolb@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And blast the whole planet with radiation? Are you crazy?

[–] veroxii@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Won't someone think of the Irish people on beaches?

[–] Patius@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Admittedly, you'd need a layer of ozone (self sustaining so long as you don't have some kind of chemical that causes ozone to not form, but who'd have that?). And probably some kind of hot liquid metal contraption in the middle of the earth, sustained by, like Uranium decay or tidal friction or something, to generate a magnetic field to protect us.

Some Irish people would probably still die of radiation poisoning on beaches, but that's a sacrifice the rest of us are willing to make.

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You are adding quite a big layer of complexity there... As astronauts will tell you, even screwing a screw is pretty challenging out there. Maintaining an unrestrained fusion reaction looks like extra challenging

Edit. Sorry, I missed the joke

[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He’s making a joke. Talking about solar.

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ahhh, ok, thanks. Stupid me.

Nowadays people come up with the most weird stuff on the internet, I really thought it was a serious idea.

My bad

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago
[–] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 6 points 1 year ago

Yes, that's a good complementary energy source.

With it very low efficency and bad predictability, you still need a good stable and predictable baseline energy production.

[–] drspod@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It might be net energy gain when considering just the energy needed to sustain the reaction, but I doubt it accounts for the energy needed to power and cool all of the infrastructure that makes that reaction possible. They never mention that part.

In December, Lawrence Livermore first achieved a net energy gain in a fusion experiment using lasers. That experiment briefly achieved what’s known as fusion ignition by generating 3.15 megajoules of energy output after the laser delivered 2.05 megajoules to the target

The laser energy is not the only energy input (or even the largest part) required to run these experiments.

Here is a good (2 year old) video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

[–] Telcontar@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Here is another article that does actually mention the other energy requirements

Energy gain in this context only compares the energy generated to the energy in the lasers, not to the total amount of energy pulled off the grid to power the system, which is much higher. Scientists estimate that commercial fusion will require reactions that generate between 30 and 100 times the energy in the lasers.

[–] JoeClu@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Last time I heard about it, it was exactly like you mention. I find the articles very misleading.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 28 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


US scientists have achieved net energy gain in a nuclear fusion reaction for the second time since a historic breakthrough in December last year in the quest to find a near-limitless, safe and clean source of energy

Scientists at the California-based Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory repeated the breakthrough in an experiment in the National Ignition Facility (NIF) on 30 July that produced a higher energy yield than in December, a Lawrence Livermore spokesperson said.

The approach, which gives rise to the heat and light of the sun and other stars, has been hailed as having huge potential as a sustainable, low-carbon energy source.

In December, Lawrence Livermore first achieved a net energy gain in a fusion experiment using lasers.

The Energy Department called it “a major scientific breakthrough decades in the making that will pave the way for advancements in national defense and the future of clean power.”

Fusion energy raises the prospect of plentiful clean power: the reactions release no greenhouse gases or radioactive waste byproducts.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How 'Net' are we talking here?

I remember one video, maybe from Tom Scott or Thunderf00t or Veritasium that explained that the term 'net energy gain' in fusion reactors was being used a little too flexibly and when you look at the larger picture it's actually like -50% gain.

[–] Nioxic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

"Final results are still being analyzed"

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd be happy to see fusion power be viable in my lifetime

[–] Tatters@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

I hope you are relatively young, then.