363
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yes, net-positive fusion was achieved in August of last year:

Scientists achieve net energy gain breakthrough with nuclear fusion

Obviously, this will take a decade or two to develop into a viable commercial energy source, but the barrier has been overcome with regards to net-positive fusion.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 7 points 3 days ago

That's what I was talking about regarding the lasers. As far I understand that result, it's net energy in a physics sense, as in the reaction itself produced more energy than put in, but because the energy put in isn't electricity itself, and the conversion process between electricity and energy in the laser is inefficient, the entire machine as a whole isn't energy positive, just the reaction. It can't yet be used as an electric generator, unless the reporting I saw on this at the time was inaccurate

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I get what you’re saying, and you’re right on many ways (especially wrt the energy conversion), but the barrier to producing net-positive fusion has been overcome. And it’s just a matter of scaling it up at this point— which includes overcoming many new hurdles such as (more) efficient energy conversion.

But none will be so insurmountable as the initial creating of net-positive reactions. That was the big one, and we did it.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I guess my objection then is that I tend to take "just scale it up" to imply "all the tech development hurdles are done, we have a working prototype of the machine we want to build, we just need to construct a physically larger one", and so was taking the process of improving the efficiency of the reaction to useful levels and figuring out how to make a significantly more efficient laser as "we don't have this technology done yet, because we still have these milestones left". In other words, we're just arguing from confusion over different definitions of a word rather than the reality of what those words are referring to

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I never claimed that all of the development hurdles were done. Far from it. But if you wish to object to my phrase, “just scale it up“, then you can certainly criticize me for oversimplifying the matter.

[-] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Its been a decade away since 80's. We should have been working on MSR and make them sustainable before getting to the next stage

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

It’s not a binary, not really.

We have achieved net-positive fusion as of last year. That’s the achievement we needed to move to the next stage, and it’s the one which was always a hopeful “maybe”. But we finally did it. It’s imperfect and needs to be refined and scaled up (another Herculean effort, to be sure), but we’ve crossed from the “is it even possible?” to the “we proved it can be done, now let’s make this into a practical technology.”

So, when scientists claim 10-20 years from now, it’s no longer hopeful speculation but a well-educated projection based on current development.

this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
363 points (96.4% liked)

News

23143 readers
4313 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS