As a layman, I have heard that fusion is the answer to our energy needs, that it doesn't leave harmful byproducts like fission does. So, what is the significance of this breakthrough? How close are we to that sunny shore? https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60312633 European scientists say they have made a major breakthrough in their quest to develop practical nuclear fusion - the energy process that powers the stars. The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen. If nuclear fusion can be successfully recreated on Earth it holds out the potential of virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy. The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power). This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997. It's not a massive energy output - only enough to boil about 60 kettles' worth of water. But the significance is that it validates design choices that have been made for an even bigger fusion reactor now being constructed in France.
We really need to keep investing in this direction, like we have been for decades. The payoff holds too much potential to ignore. On the down side, every new estimate of how long before it's commercially available has been at least 10 years, like it is today. Here's a great article on fusion energy issues that includes a timeline. It notes that a company called General Fusion estimates a commercial plant in the early 2030's. That is, in the "how long until commercially available" dimension, we haven't made any real progress since 1997. It's an incredibly hard problem.
Oh, brother ... thanks for letting me know! https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-021-03401-w/index.html
I've been hearing that Fusion is just around the corner my entire life. At this point, I'll believe it once there is a commercial plant plugged into the grid. In the meantime (which could be decades to never) we should be using the technology we already have.
Fusion power will not be commercially viable for at least the next 50 years, and probably longer than that...
All true, at least for the youngsters among us! And, obviously this should make no impact at all on our work to provide energy. But, I do believe we need to keep investing - like Europe, private corps, and others are doing.
As you said yourself, there has been no real progress in the past 20+ years. They've just now figured out how to produce enough power to boil a few kettles of water, one time. No matter how "clean" or "efficient" it is, the eco-terrorist will be against it because it is still nuclear power...
Sadly, I'm not a youngster. So this has been a promise a long time coming. But I'm not opposed to continued research in this area. If it works in any commercially viable way, it will be a boon. But in the meantime we need to get along without it.
Well, I specified that there is no progress in the projected dates of arrival. That's not the same as saying there hasn't been engineering progress. I have no mortal idea what your last sentence was intended to mean. If you are trying to slam those concerned about climate, dirty cities, breathing impairment, etc. and who are interested in increasing employment in the energy field, being competitive world wide, etc., I'd point out that there are many who see nuclear as necessary, so we can reduce the use of the culprits - fossil fuels. Fission reactors do have a reasonably serious PR problem. But, I think we'll be investing in new fission plants. We just need to do a lot better at issues such as location, safety, environmental impact, etc.
Hate to tell you, but we aren't getting away from petroleum until it's all gone. There are thousands of everyday products that depend on it. You wouldn't even have the device you used to post on here without it. Now, can we potentially eliminate petroleum as a primary fuel source? Sure, but we will still need petroleum and it's byproducts for tens of thousands of various things. Until other technologies and materials emerge to replace it, there's no getting away from it. Every form of "clean, renewable energy" cannot be produced or maintained without using petroleum and it's byproducts. Not a single one...
??? Everybody knows this. Nobody is trying to stop all use of fossil fuels, including oil. For example, even totally eliminating oil as a transportation fuel would only reduce oil consumption by about 2/3. And, that's not going to happen, either, at least for quite some time. Not only that, but there isn't anything CLOSE to a realistic plan for removing fossil fuel from electric power generation. So, I agree TOTALLY with what you are saying. BUT, those who think they have to actually SAY stuff like this hit me as those who are unaware of what we CAN accomplish while increasing jobs, lowering the cost of transportation, allowing for meaningful home generation (thus reducing the power bills of citizens), and continuing the explosion of wind energy throughout our central region and beyond. There is a big win-win to be had - even if you don't give a hot turd about our well documented climate problem.
Here's a tip. Whenever a nuclear fusion article gets written one must be cautious of what they have to say whether they have produced more energy than has gone into making the reaction or not. Ignore all language of revolutionary steps and progress if they only broke an old record but have not yet produced more power than has gone into the process. I didn't see where it says that more energy came out of the reaction than has gone into making it. However, I'm taking the 60 boiling kettles to mean that yes they actually produced more energy than has gone into the process. It's just a low amount of surplus power. Now, we just need to wait multiple decades for the large version of this type of reactor to be built and tested. I didn't see a timetable for these future energy plants. We have been building bigger versions of Fusion plants for multiple decades and not a one has reached production status. Spoiler: For the more conspiracy minded Rumors have it that the Navy already has a functional mini fusion engine already patented and in use. Spoiler: For the even more conspiracy minded! Rumors also have it that Dr. White created an actual warp bubble in his lab and if true it means that we'll be able to produce clean, limitless power in the future without needing to fight nature to get difficult to achieve fusion power.
Good points about maintaining a healthy level of skepticism. I will point out that there is a timeline at the end of the Nature article I posted. Commonwealth Fusion Systems says it will have a fusion reactor that produces more than it consumes by 2025. There are a couple other companies claiming future milestones. And, I would be SHOCKED if they didn't slip. Progress made does not mean no more slips!!
We have been hearing pie-in-the-sky claims about fusion my entire life. While the claims about its potential are generally true, making it practical has been illusive. I note here that they don't specify the net energy gain - the number that matters the most. They just mention the total energy output which could be much smaller than the energy input required to achieve that. I would bet this is still not producing a net energy gain. So it is still just pie in the sky.
