Fusion Ignition Reached

[peakbagger]

Some articles are stating that it looks like controlled nuclear fusion was reached by the US National ignition Facility

Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as 'ignition' triggered in a lab

Ignition is a key process that amplifies the energy output from nuclear fusion and could provide clean energy and answer some huge physics questions.

phys.org

Other articles are less certain but it moves the ball closer to the goal. I just wonder is if the various competing billion dollar projects shut down at one point and concentrate on one or two viable technology's?.

 

[begreen]

Getting closer. There was some news about the same time in the development of a super-magnet needed to contain the plasma field.

Startup seeks breakthrough in power from nuclear fusion

A startup founded by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says it is nearing a technological milestone that could take the world a step closer to fusion energy, which has eluded scientists for decades.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[stoveliker]

Some articles are stating that it looks like controlled nuclear fusion was reached by the US National ignition Facility

Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as 'ignition' triggered in a lab

Ignition is a key process that amplifies the energy output from nuclear fusion and could provide clean energy and answer some huge physics questions.

phys.org

Other articles are less certain but it moves the ball closer to the goal. I just wonder is if the various competing billion dollar projects shut down at one point and concentrate on one or two viable technology's?.

Same here as on the PV thing. Exciting if it withstands scrutiny (proving ignition is not easy, especially if it's done with energy balances, i.e. temperatures, rather than particle physics) - but why shout it from the roof is the data analysis is not yet done...?

 

[HiroariTillWhen]

The data analysis may not be finished, but if the guys working there are aware of the fact that a fusion process happened in their lab, I think they can call dibs on it before they're done with the number crunching.

 

[stoveliker]

In science one is not sure about having achieved something unless and until the data have been analyzed to the required precision and rigor.

 

[HiroariTillWhen]

Checking and verifying everything is what allows scientists to say "mission accomplished" and to base further research on what's been achieved, but I'm fairly sure that Yuri Gagarin didn't wait until the debriefing to say he was in space, and that Oppenheimer claimed the success of the first atom bomb test before the mushroom cloud was gone.

 

[stoveliker]

Yes. But reaching fusion in a hot plasma is NOT something you can just "see and know". Trust me (I know), the majority of scientific discoveries die a quiet death during data analysis and before publication.

 

[stoveliker]

It is a "big" entity, and the likelihood that it's true is larger than that it dies this quiet death.
But too often (as in majority of the cases), big announcements were never solidified with a peer reviewed report.

Nature has now jumped on this too, though:
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02338-4

Though I note that the experiment has not even been replicated yet. I.e. this was the first and only time they (tentatively) reached this conclusion.

From that link: The ultimate test — whether the team can replicate its 8 August success — could come as early as October, say laboratory officials.

 

[georgepds]

Not break-even... but close... and a big step forward compared to past results

Researchers at the brink of fusion ignition at National Ignition Facility

After decades of inertial confinement fusion research, a record yield of more than 1.3 megajoules (MJ) from fusion reactions was achieved in the laboratory for the first time during an experiment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) National Ignition Facility (NIF) on Aug. 8, 2021...

phys.org

 

[peakbagger]

Not much use until they put a upper limit bar on the chart to show a universally agreed upon ignition point.

Yes they have made progress but if Florida is under the water and 2 degrees C rise is a memory, will the tech be of any use?

 

[begreen]

This should be the #1 collaborative priority for the G20. COP26 danced around the key fossil fuel issues instead of facing them head-on. Start by cutting subsidies. It's been said:

If your bathtub is overflowing, you don’t reach for the mop to soak up the overflow, you turn off the tap.​

 

[ABMax24]

I'm not really holding my breathe on Fusion being a viable energy source within my life time. Ignition seems to be the major hurdle of today, then there is the challenge of making the reaction stable, controllable and continuous. After all that it has to come in at a price that is affordable enough to make it a viable alternative to existing energy sources.

For me the last statement alone is enough to not bet the farm on it. Personally I think traditional nuclear fission needs to become a large energy source for the time being, the problem is it needs support from the government to happen, and it's a topic very few politicians are willing to touch. Renewables can and will be a large part of the energy market in the future, but I don't believe build-out of these technologies will happen fast enough to curb CO2 emissions. The problem is reactors need at least a decade to be planned and built, which means ground would need to be broken in the next couple years to have them online in time.

 

[stoveliker]

Not much use until they put a upper limit bar on the chart to show a universally agreed upon ignition point.

Yes they have made progress but if Florida is under the water and 2 degrees C rise is a memory, will the tech be of any use?

I think yield at ignition depends on system size. So there is no universal number.
The point is that it is clear if it's useful when more comes out than is put in. And this system will be batch rather than continuous (as ITER). So ignition (of a self-sustaining "fire") is a strange concept here.

The thing I'd like to know is how many joules they put in.

 

[begreen]

Helion is banking on reaching ignition on a commercial scale sooner than later. So is CFS mentioned earlier.

Helion Energy Has Promised Viable Fusion Energy by 2024 After Raising $500 Million - Interesting Engineering

We can soon 'count on fusion'.

interestingengineering.com

 

[stoveliker]

Helion had bee saying it'll be soon for many "soon periods".

Will this eventually work (one of the approaches to cold fusion), yes. Likely.

Will it be in 5 years? Unlikely imo.

Will it be actually viable for semicommercial power production? I won't bet my car on that. It takes a boatload of energy to get fusion. Trying to get more energy out is not easy even though fusion in principle produces a lot, getting it out in usable quantities and form is a big challenge.

 

[georgepds]

Not much use until they put a upper limit bar on the chart to show a universally agreed upon ignition point.

Yes they have made progress but if Florida is under the water and 2 degrees C rise is a memory, will the tech be of any use?

If use refers to the word fusion, that would-be energy in equal to energy generated. Differs for each device and method

If use refers to the graph, the simple point is an order of magnitude better energy generated by this method

If use refers to global warming, in the near future, It's much more useful to switch to non carbon sources.... But that looks difficult.. Friedman, NYT, points out "The global supply of renewables will grow by 35 gigawatts from 2021 to 2022, but global power demand growth will go up by 100 gigawatts over the same period. "

But then, suppose the optimistic projections are true, and some devices begin to come on line in the 30s... that wouldbe useful

That said, these devices have loads of other problems.

Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be

Long touted as the “perfect” energy source, fusion reactors share many drawbacks with fission—and even add a few new ones of their own.

thebulletin.org

 

[EbS-P]

I think yield at ignition depends on system size. So there is no universal number.
The point is that it is clear if it's useful when more comes out than is put in. And this system will be batch rather than continuous (as ITER). So ignition (of a self-sustaining "fire") is a strange concept here.

The thing I'd like to know is how many joules they put in.

“This experiment produced fusionyield of roughly two-thirds of the laser energy that was delivered, tantalizingly close to that goal.”

So 2MJ “in a few billionths of a second”

Think of that in Watts……….

 

[EbS-P]

If use refers to the word fusion, that would-be energy in equal to energy generated. Differs for each device and method

If use refers to the graph, the simple point is an order of magnitude better energy generated by this method

If use refers to global warming, in the near future, It's much more useful to switch to non carbon sources.... But that looks difficult.. Friedman, NYT, points out "The global supply of renewables will grow by 35 gigawatts from 2021 to 2022, but global power demand growth will go up by 100 gigawatts over the same period. "

But then, suppose the optimistic projections are true, and some devices begin to come on line in the 30s... that wouldbe useful

That said, these devices have loads of other problems.

Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be

Long touted as the “perfect” energy source, fusion reactors share many drawbacks with fission—and even add a few new ones of their own.

thebulletin.org

We have to get over our fear nuclear energy, allow reprocessing. And make the permitting/ approval process an efficient one This technology is available today and I don’t see any reason not to put 10s to 100 GW online in a decade. All the nuclear disasters have been terrible. But I’m hopeful we will see some new designs permitted and some ground broken. The alternatives I feel are worse than nuclear power expansion. Fission is still as it has been something we will keep working towards but I doubt the progress is fast enough to to make meaningful impacts on global warming.

 

[georgepds]

We have to get over our fear nuclear energy, allow reprocessing. And make the permitting/ approval process an efficient one This technology is available today and I don’t see any reason not to put 10s to 100 GW online in a decade. All the nuclear disasters have been terrible. But I’m hopeful we will see some new designs permitted and some ground broken. The alternatives I feel are worse than nuclear power expansion. Fission is still as it has been something we will keep working towards but I doubt the progress is fast enough to to make meaningful impacts on global warming.

My understanding is that reprocessing is inherently Refining, and makes weapon grade material more accessible.

IIRC, that is why reprocessing was abandoned in the late 70s in the US. France kept one reprocessing plant going for a while.

Is there a reprocessing method that does not have this problem?

Something on French reprocessing

France's Efficiency in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: What Can 'Oui' Learn?

With 58 nuclear power reactors producing nearly 72% of France’s electricity in 2018, France is one of the countries with the highest share of nuclear power in its energy production.

www.iaea.org

Something on reprocessing... it's more than just France

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.

world-nuclear.org

And finally the problem

Is U.S. Reprocessing Worth The Risk? | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

"There are two proliferation concerns associated with reprocessing. First, reprocessing increases the risk that plutonium could be stolen by terrorists. Second, countries with reprocessing plants or separated plutonium could produce nuclear weapons before an effective international response could be mobilized."

 

[begreen]

Chinese scientists are also working on achieving fusion, this time with a novel approach that could be much less expensive.

Chinese scientists strike early gold in race to nuclear fusion power

A project to replicate the sun’s energy process has shown promise after its first year of experiments, with a comparatively low-cost approach.

www.scmp.com

 

[georgepds]

Good review article of current fusion efforts from Nature

The chase for fusion energy

An emerging industry of nuclear-fusion firms promises to have commercial reactors ready in the next decade.

www.nature.com

 

[EbS-P]

Good review article of current fusion efforts from Nature

The chase for fusion energy

An emerging industry of nuclear-fusion firms promises to have commercial reactors ready in the next decade.

www.nature.com

I don’t buy the 10 year mark for availability of commercial reactors. They are looking for funding and will promise anything to get it. But I hope I’m wrong.

 

[begreen]

With the effects of climate change growing daily there's going to be a lot of fast-tracking going on.

 

[begreen]

More progress on the Chinese front:

https://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/chinas-man-made-sun-sets-new-world-record/QjsRhjNb

 

[peakbagger]

There is a good chance that the chinese may pull it off before anyone else. They have a pebble bed reactor on line and getting ready to go commercial. Odds are the fusion reactors are going to be huge baseloaded units and I do not know it they are going to fit into the concept of the US grid of the future. The reality is unless Chinese and India deploy these there is going to be a lot more coal generation going on line.