France runs fusion reactor for record 22 minutes - eviltoast
    • Baggie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 minutes ago

      Idk dude, we already have the sun and wind but they hate that stuff too, despite it being very close to free. Hell they’ll probably bitch about fusion causing a surplus of power outside peak loads.

      If it doesn’t perpetuate the broken ways we currently do things it doesn’t give their buddies money, so it’s woke or something else bullshit.

  • meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    France’s 22-minute plasma reaction is a bold stride toward sustainable fusion energy but remains experimental.

    🐱🐱🐱🐱

  • Match!!@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    1,337 seconds? That… that number used to mean something, but now i can’t recall what…

  • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Well, I’m still skeptical, but I have far more trust in France’s reporting than Chinese claims.

  • DataDisrupter@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    1 day ago

    I didn’t see any mention of the output in the article. 22MW injected, but does anyone know if the reaction was actually generating a positive output?

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sounds like the goal of the test wasn’t to vet ignition power in relation to output. These people are testing the durability of system designs that can maintain a reaction after ignition.

      If this was a car, they wouldn’t be testing the fuel efficiency, they’d be testing how long they could drive before the wheels fell off.

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      No magnetic confinement fusion reactor in existence has ever generated a positive output. The current record belongs to JET, with a Q factor of 0.67. This record was set in 1997.

      The biggest reason we haven’t had a record break for a long time is money. The most favourable reaction for fusion is generally a D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) reaction. However, Tritium is incredibly expensive. So, most reactors run the much cheaper D-D reaction, which generates lower output. This is okay because current research reactors are mostly doing research on specific components of an eventual commercial reactor, and are not aiming for highest possible power output.

      The main purpose of WEST is to do research on diverter components for ITER. ITER itself is expected to reach Q ≥ 10, but won’t have any energy harvesting components. The goal is to add that to its successor, DEMO.

      Inertial confinement fusion (using lasers) has produced higher records, but they generally exclude the energy used to produce the laser from the calculation. NIF has generated 3.15MJ of fusion output by delivering 2.05MJ of energy to it with a laser, nominally a Q = 1.54. however, creating the laser that delivered the power took about 300MJ.

      • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        The input energy doesnt matter that much. Nobody is going to use 1980s laser tech to power a real reactor. As with OP, inertial confinement is interested in very small nuanced science aspects, not making a power plant.

        • BalderSion@real.lemmy.fan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          23 hours ago

          OK, so we should be clear there are broadly two approaches to fusion: magnetic confinement and inertial drive.

          In magnetic confinement a plasma is confined such that it can be driven to sufficient density, temperature and particle confinement time that the thermal collisions allow the fuel to fuse. This is what the OP article is talking about. This Tokamak is demonstrating technologies that if applied to a larger the experiment could probably reach a positive energy output magnetically confined plasma.

          The article you referenced discusses inertial drive experiments, where a driver is directly pushing the fuel together, like gravity in the sun, a fission bomb shockwave in a hydrogen bomb, or converging laser beams in Livermore’s case.

          Livermore’s result is exciting, but has no bearing on the various magnetic confinement approaches to fusion energy.

      • DataDisrupter@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        I wasn’t aware of that distinction about the energy for the laser to generate the heat energy within the reaction not being factored into the Q value, very interesting, thank you! Would that energy for the laser still be required in a “stable reaction” continuously, or would it be something that would “trail off”?

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          Inertial confinement doesnt produce a “stable reaction” it is pulsed by it’s nature, think of it in the same way as a single cylinder internal combustion engine, periodic explosions which are harnessed to do useful work. So no the laser energy is required every single time to detonate the fuel pellet.

          NIF isnt really interested in fusion for power production, it’s a weapons research facility that occasionally puts out puff pieces to make it seem like it has civilian applications.

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              It would be more productive if you said how you think im wrong. Just saying ‘youre wrong’ doesnt really add anything to the discussion.

        • BalderSion@real.lemmy.fan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          In my experience the community will usually distinguished between “scientific Q” and “wall plug Q” when discussing fusion power gain. Scientific is simply the ratio of power in vs power out, whereas wall plug includes all the power required to support scientific Q. Obviously the difference isn’t always clearly delineated or reported when talking to journalists…

    • Sceptiksky@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      Article said 2.6GJ input, 2.6 output so 1Q, but I’m not certain it’s really the case.

      Edit: I can’t find my source back, so it’s likely false

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      31 minutes ago

      It’s always thirty years away because every time it gets close to 15 years away they cut the funding in half. Zeno’s Dichotomy in action.

  • tomkatt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is freaking awesome. Only a few years ago it was exciting to see a fusion reaction last a fraction of a second.

    • Thief@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      It is awesome. Whichever country develops it first will be remembered as the next ‘moon landing’ event forever.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      2 days ago

      The amusing thing is that the sun is actually quite a shit fusion reactor. It’s power per unit volume is tiny. It just makes it up in sheer volume. A solar level fusion reactor would be almost completely useless to us. Instead we need to go far beyond the sun’s output to just be viable.

      It’s like describing one of the mega mining dumper trucks as an “artificial mule”.

      • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think this energy density math really depends on whether only the core or the whole surface area is taken into consideration.

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Arguably, the nearby sun scale fusion reactor has been fairly useful for us. Nowadays we can convert its output directly into electricity using solar cells

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          I never said it wasn’t useful, just a very low efficiency reactor. Then again, if it was better, it would burn out faster, which would be bad for life on earth.

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              That’s part of the reason a moon base could be viable. The sun outputs a reasonable amount of helium 3, which is great for fusion reactions. Unfortunately it tends to sit at the top of our atmosphere and get blown away again. On the moon, it gets captured by the dust in collectable quantities.

    • yogurt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      They say “artificial sun” because that’s what it is though, there’s no fusion reactions here they’re just microwaving hydrogen to millions of degrees to study the kind of thing that would happen IF somebody runs a fusion reactor for 22 minutes.

  • LostWon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Maybe if it runs longer, we all get to jump to a better timeline. 😅

    • Sceptiksky@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      No tech will give you a better timeline, back on the floor please ^^ It’s a political problem before anything else, and energy production is far from being the first problem.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Scientists: invents commercial scale fusion Capitalist: hordes the almost free energy because why not? Poor people are only useful as a resource anyway.

    • Pumpkin Escobar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Or the world blows up and it’s all over. I guess what I’m saying is, no downside, fire it up and let’s see what happens.