• cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    5 days 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
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days 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.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

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

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days 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
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days 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
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days 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
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            5 days ago

            We also did not build turbines then.

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