• Krik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -94 months ago

    Doesn’t sound that impressive when Wendelstein 7-X achieved 17 minutes of plasma in 2021.

    • @Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Agreed. Plus, when talking about that reactor you get to say “stellarator”, which is always fun.

    • @Naz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      234 months ago

      Yes but 22 minutes is longer than 17 minutes

      Think of it like a pizza oven

      How well done is your pizza?

    • @Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      124 months ago

      I can’t find a reference to that but China did 17 minutes in January this year. I think you’re confusing the announcement that they increased power by 17x while maintaining plasma.

      This test was 20 minutes at a higher power setting without being incredibly destructive, that’s their milestone.

    • Pumpkin Escobar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      774 months 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.

    • Sceptiksky
      link
      fedilink
      English
      54 months 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
        34 months ago

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

    • @Obelix@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      64 months ago

      I’m sceptical. Even if somebody would present a working fusion reactor today, what would the timeline to replace everything based on fossil fuels even be? Build several thousand of expensive fusion reactors in every country of the world, even in geopolitical rivals like China, Russia or North Korea or war-torn third world countries? Replace every car with an electrical one? Replace home heating everywhere? Rebuild every ship and airplane worldwide?

      • @LostWon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        I was just making an abstract sci-fi joke based on how cold fusion has been presented like a Holy Grail in the past. Obviously a better source of energy isn’t going to solve all our problems, no matter how good it is.

      • @CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        Progress is progress, and it’s good to be skeptical (I literally just posted a comment saying “I’m skeptical”!), but progress is good. 🙂 What other alternatives are there?

        If it doesn’t make dollars, it doesn’t make sense. That’s why the electric car movement is having a hard time really taking off rn; it is hard to justify & all the tech, all our builds, aren’t exactly super economical yet. And they’re not built for tough conditions, heavy towing, long commutes, and easily workable & recyclable components.

        …but things are, indeed, getting better. If you look at it from a macro view. Lithium recycling can be done even a decade ago, but IIRC it was relatively small scale & the lithium could be refreshed “most of the way”, not fully. The right things will catch on when their time is right & its viability is realized.

        Man’s greatest strength is our shared knowledge, technology, science, and innovation. I encourage you to make good decisions in your personal life and be positive. 🙂

      • @JayObey711@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months ago

        I mean yea that’s the plan. What are the other options? Force every countrie to stop producing instead to reduce carbon emissions that way? Wich one Sounds more realistic? And I feel like you assume that fusion reactors are dangerous because your comments about war torn countries. But it’s not possible to turn them into weapons. They run on hydrogen. And if they ever oberheat or something the magnets stop working and the reaction stops.

      • @frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        154 months ago

        If there were a practical fusion reactor shown today, it’d be 10 years before it could be started to be deployed at commercial scale.

        More to the point, fascism isn’t going away just because we have better electricity sources. Cheap power is a problem in capitalism.

        • @Obelix@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          84 months ago

          But pushing for more renewables can also be a way to stop fascism. Those texan oil barons are funding Trump exactly because they want to keep their business. Putin is funding all those right wing parties because he wants to keep selling gas. And the Saudis, Qataris and other dictators are also not to keen on not selling oil and gas.

          • @frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            64 months ago

            Techbros are ready to pick up where the oil barons left off. Finding capitalists to fund fascism is never a problem.

        • @azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          The EU stopped using increasing amounts of power around 2010 despite continued economic growth (yes, even if you account for imported goods).

          Not that consumerism and the exploitation of the global south aren’t existential tragedies for our species, I’m just pointing out that while capitalism does require never-ending growth, it is interesting to note that it empirically doesn’t require ever-increasing power to do so.

          Fascism is a byproduct of capitalism but unrelated to energy prices. Doesn’t matter if gas is 1€/L or 2€/L when Musk, Murdoch, or Bernard Arnault decide what gets voted, printed and shown on TV.

  • @Placebonickname@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1504 months ago

    Meanwhile in America we’re trying to make macdonalds cheaper by bundling an extra sandwich to go along with a value meal…

  • @Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    24 months ago

    This is so cool. I remember seeing that Europe is working on a massive mega project to build an even bigger reactor for more experiements. Its costing like 75 trillion

  • @DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -103
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Guarantee you they weren’t generating a whole lot of power though… And if you can’t do that part then what’s the point?

    • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      204 months ago

      It was about 1800 years between the first steam engine and a practical steam engine. I’m sorry that one or two generations is too long for you.

        • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          84 months ago

          Well, there were a lot of fundamental steps that had to be completed first, not least of which was a high pressure vessel. This all took a lot of materials science, advancement in seemingly unrelated fields, etc., etc. Not unlike fusion technology… The difference is we have 2000 years more advancement than they had when they invented the steam engine.

      • @Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        64 months ago

        Well, the first ones didn’t fly at all, they usually just killed the inventor.

        That’s basically where we are today with fusion, they don’t work at all yet. Luckily it’s not killing people.

      • @DarkCloud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -99
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yeah, and we measured them to the purpose of flight… Not wingspan, or how soft the wheels were.

        So maybe we should measure technology that’s about generating power by…

        I’ll let you fill in the blank.

        P.S I have a “perpetual” motions machine that can run for 30 minutes (8 minutes longer than this fusion reactor), are you interested in investing?

        EDIT: Four years ago the British Fusion reactor (J.E.T. originally built in 1984) produced “59 megajoules of heat energy” none of which was harvested and turned into electricity. The project was then shutdown for good after 40 years of not generating power.

        • @glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          214 months ago

          It’s almost as if fusion is a significantly more difficult problem to solve than powered flight

        • @cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          724 months ago

          LLNL has achieved positive power output with their experiments. https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st

          No fusion reactor today is actually going to generate power in the useful sense.

          These are more about understanding how Fusion works so that a reactor that is purpose built to generate power can be developed in the future.

          Unlike the movies real development is the culmination of MANY small steps.

          Today we are holding reactions for 20 minutes. 20 years ago getting a reaction to self sustain in the first place seemed impossible.

          • @DarkCloud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -52
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Predicted fusion energy and energy actually harvested and converted to usable electricity are not the same thing. Your article is about “fusion energy” not experimentally verified electrical output.

            It’s a physicist doing conversion calculations (from heat to potential electricity), not a volt meter measuring actual output produced.

              • @grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                If you’re not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.

                Leaving the arguments up to this point aside (because I am not agreeing with or supporting @DarkCloud), your comment on its own doesn’t make much sense. In general, the beauty of of a steam turbine electrical generator is that you don’t have to care how the heat gets generated. You can swap it out with any heat source, from burning fossil fuels, to geothermal, to nuclear, to whatever else and it works just fine as long as the rate of heat output is correctly calibrated for the size of the boiler.

                • @tburkhol@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  84 months ago

                  That’s my point: fusion is just another heat source for making steam, and with these experimental reactors, they can’t be sure how much or for how long they will generate heat. Probably not even sure what a good geometry for transferring energy from the reaction mass to the water. You can’t build a turbine for a system that’s only going to run 20 minutes every three years, and you can’t replace that turbine just because the next test will have ten times the output.

                  I mean, you could, but it would be stupid.

              • @Llewellyn@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -22
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                We were absolutely not sure how fire really works (low temperature plasma dynamics and so on) when we used it in caves eons ago.

                • @scarabic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  154 months ago

                  We also did not build turbines then.

                  Also, a campfire is not plasma, so you probably shouldn’t be building any turbines either.

        • @Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          174 months ago

          Not equivalent. Let’s measure the aircraft performance by its ability to carry passengers between capital cities.

          It’s baby steps and we need to encourage more investment. Not dismiss the Wright brothers for being unable to fly from New York to London after ten years of development.

        • @NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          204 months ago

          A fusion reactor has already output more power than its inputs 3 years ago. Running a reactor for an extended period of time is still a useful exercise as you need to ensure they can handle operation for long enough to actually be a useful power source.

          • @DarkCloud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -394 months ago

            Generating massive amounts of heat and harvesting that and converting it to power are two (or three) different problems.

            • @NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              204 months ago

              Agreed. But just to go along with the flight analogy proposed earlier, it took hundreds of years from Da Vinci’s flying machine designs to get to one that actually worked.

              • @DarkCloud@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -354 months ago

                In 1932, Walton produced the first man-made fission by using protons from the accelerator to split lithium into alpha particles.[5]

                We’ve been at this for coming up to 100 years too.

                Let me know when they actually generate power. I don’t want another article about a guy jumping off the eifle tower in a bird suit. A successful flight should be measured by the success of the flight.

                Power generators should be measured by the power generated.

                0 watts. Franz Reichelt went splat on the pavement having proven nothing.

                America, the UK, France, Japan, and no doubt other places have been toying with fusion “power” for 90 years… We’ve created heat and not much else as far as I can tell.

                • @NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  13
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Fission isn’t fusion, the first artificial fusion was two years later in 1934. That gives us a mere 332 years to beat the time from Da Vinci’s first design to the Wrights’ first flight

                  0 watts. Franz Reichelt went splat on the pavement having proven nothing

                  He demonstrated pretty clearly his idea didn’t work.

                • @JGrffn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  174 months ago

                  At least learn a little bit about the technology you’re criticizing, such as the difference between fission (aka not fusion) and fusion (aka…fusion), before going on a rant about it saying it’ll never work.

                  None of the reactors are being built with output capture in mind at the moment, because output capture is trivial compared to actually having an output, let alone an output that’s greater than the input and which can be sustained. As you’ve clearly learned in this thread, we’re already past having an output, are still testing out ways to have an output greater than an input, with at least one reactor doing so, and we need to tackle the sustained output part, which you’re seeing how it’s actively progressing in real time. Getting the energy is the same it’s always been: putting steam through a turbine.

                  Fission is what nuclear reactors do, it has been used in the entire world, it’s being phased out by tons of countries due to the people’s ignorance of the technology as well as fearmongering from parties with a vested interest in seeing nuclear fail, is still safer than any other energy generation method, and would realistically solve our short term issues alongside renewables while we figure out fusion…but as I said, stupid, ignorant people keep talking shit about it and getting it shit down…remind you of anyone?

        • @SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          224 months ago

          Yes, but you’re asking how much cargo it can take while we’re barely off the ground. Research reactors aren’t set up to generate power, they’re instrumented to see if stuff is even working.

          • @DarkCloud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -37
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Verified electrical output, the answer is verified electrical power generated.

            …as in we should measure power generation experiments by how much power they generated.

            Isn’t that obvious?

            • @hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              264 months ago

              They weren’t trying to generate electricity in this experiment. They were trying to sustain a reaction. As you said in another comment, they are different problems.

              Converting heat to electricity is a problem we already understand pretty well since we’ve been doing it basically the same way since the first power plant fired up. Sustaining a fusion reaction is a problem we’ve barely started figuring out.

              • @DarkCloud@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -23
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Converting heat to electricity is a problem we already understand pretty well since we’ve been doing it basically the same way since the first power plant fired up.

                I don’t think we do have a means of converting this heat energy into electrical energy right now. With nuclear we put radioactive rods into heavy water to create steam and drive turbines…

                What’s the plan for these fusion reactors? You can’t dump them into water, nor can you dump water into them… I don’t believe we have a means of converting the energy currently.

                Even if we could dump water into them it would explosively evaporate because they run at 100 million degrees Celsius. That would be a very loud bang and whatever city they were in would be gone.

                • @count_dongulus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  15
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  The idea is to have water or molten salt cool the walls of the torus from outside, and those drive ordinary turbines like any other generator. The main issue is that particles fly out of the confined plasma donut and degrade the walls, whose dust flys into the plasma and reduces the fusion efficiency. They’re focusing on the hard part - dealing with the health of plasma sustainment and the durability of the confinement walls over time. Hot thing that stays hot can boil water or salt to drive regular turbines, that’s not the main engineering challenge. I get your frustration where it feels from news coverage that they’re not focusing on the right stuff, but what you’ll likely eventually see is that the time between “we figured out how to durably confine a healthy plasma” will quickly turn into “we have a huge energy output” much like inventors puttered around with flight for hundreds of years until a sustained powered flight design, however crappy, finally worked. From that point, it was only 15 years until the first transatlantic flight.

                • @hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  64 months ago

                  Most fission plants transfer the heat away from the reactor before boiling water. The same can be done with fusion.

                  The main difference with fusion is you have to convert some of the released energy to heat first. Various elements have been proposed for this.

                • @FauxLiving@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  74 months ago

                  The walls get hot, you absorb the heat from the walls with a fluid. You use the fluid to heat water, you use the steam to drive a turbine, you use the turbine to turn a permanent magnet inside of a coil of wire. In addition, you can capture neutrons using a liquid metal (lithium) which heats the lithium, which heats the walls, which heats the water, which makes steam, which drives a turbine, which generates electricity.

                  If you poured water onto them they wouldn’t explode. 100 million degrees Celsius doesn’t mean much when the mass is so low compared to the mass of the water.

  • Match!!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1074 months ago

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

  • @meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    94 months ago

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

    🐱🐱🐱🐱

    • @ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months 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.