Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j07zef4 wrote

Reply to comment by jrkib8 in [OC] Cost of Carbon Zero - Historical Look At U.S. Funding of Fusion Energy by Metalytiq

Yeah, but they used 300MJ to produce those 3MJ. This whole calculation is just a joke. And the containment method worked.. for a trillionth of a second. IRL the expectation is to contain for 60 years with less than 1 in a million chance of failure.

2

jrkib8 t1_j081y4y wrote

That 300 MJ was to start the reaction, you don't need to continually pump in 300 MJ. Scaling this up by like 1000x and you surpass that one time input. And the scale would likely need to be far higher for commercialization.

Nobody is saying we're there yet, but to deny how remarkable this breakthrough is, is pretty short sighted. It doesn't mean we decommission any existing fission reactors or even stop planning their construction. It does mean that if $38 billion can produce a net positive (and yes this proved net positive by all practical definitions) reaction, any government subsidies or research into hydrocarbon derived fuel needs to be phased out. That's $20 billion annually for oil alone in the US. God knows how much towards corn for ethanol. This announcement justifies a substantial amount of that phased out and put towards fusion.

2

[deleted] t1_j0865uk wrote

I don't think you understand how thus technology works. There's no way to actually scale it up 1000x without putting 1000x as much energy in to achieve ignition.

1

jrkib8 t1_j0868xo wrote

And you do?

1

[deleted] t1_j086lxi wrote

Yes, it's very simple. The lasers impart an insane amount if energy on a tiny area creating the conditions necessary to achieve fusion. Just think of it like using a spark plug to ignite fuel in your cars engine.

1

jrkib8 t1_j087bd4 wrote

Anddd? That amount of energy scales up by 10% with mass as.only 10% of the material is required to turn into plasma to start the reaction, as I've stated. Increasing the density lowers the amount of energy required, as I've also stated (and cited).

1

Brittainicus t1_j083sof wrote

/s? We hit 150% return for fairly instantaneous reactions now. We generally are expecting to do fusion sort of like a combustion engine with many short burst of on and off. If we can get a few seconds of sustainable reactions we looking at many orders of magnitude returns.

We broke even last year, it was pretty big news and all this fusion post is in response from latest break through.

1

[deleted] t1_j085dc4 wrote

No, we got 1% return in reality. It's only 150% in theory if you assume no loses which obviously isn't real.

1