Live: Scientists herald nuclear fusion breakthrough that ‘could bring limitless clean energy’

The Telegraph ^ | 13/12/22

[Eleutheria5]

883 watching now Started streaming 72 minutes ago #nuclearfusion #energy #breakthrough A breakthrough in nuclear fusion could bring limitless clean energy and help the fight against climate change, experts have predicted.

On Tuesday, scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California are expected to announce that they have achieved the “holy grail” of getting more energy out of a fusion reaction than it took to trigger it.

The team reportedly used 2.1 megajoules of energy to create the conditions for the reaction, and achieved a 2.5 megajoules return – an achievement known as fusion ignition.

[Jeff Chandler]

In other news, a cure for cancer is right around the corner.

[HonorInPa]

No, it is a .4 megajoule gain which is 19% higher than 2.1 megajoules. Refer to the article about California colleges considering dropping the math requirement because too many kids can’t pass algebra.

[Rurudyne]

Midas World ... that heat has gotta go somewhere.

[Rurudyne]

Then so-called “progressives” happened. Rule by the hand wringing wuss class.

[TexasGator]

"Where’s the hydrogen coming from and how is it going to be produced?"

From water. E = MC²

[calljack]

nope

[TexasGator]

"We're using up all our hydrogen!" "

But slowing rising seas!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The earth is estimated to lose about 1,600 metric tons of hydrogen every year through natural means. It will take trillions of years for the earth to lose all its hydrogen, long after the sun burns out. Replacing all energy production with hydrogen fusion (at current rates) would require about 4 metric tons of hydrogen per year. Truly insignificant. For comparison, the mass of the earth is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons

[Ezekiel]

The team reportedly used 2.1 megajoules of energy to create the conditions for the reaction, and achieved a 2.5 megajoules return – an achievement known as fusion ignition.

1.21 gigawatt-hours = 4356000 megajoules

[TexasGator]

“Yes, but the energy required for hydrolysis has to be considered in determining the total yield of the fusion reaction.”

Miniscule. The amount of mass converted in the chemical reaction is far smaller than the mass converted in fusion.

[adorno]

From water. E = MC2

I'd bet you got a PHD in chemistry and another PGDin physics in order to come up with that answer.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

There is roughly 150,000,000,000,000,000 tons of hydrogen in the ocean. Four tons is not even a rounding error.

[TexasGator]

“I’d bet you got a PHD in chemistry “

Nope. I majored in Nuclear Engineering.

[adorno]

The two most common methods for producing hydrogen are steam-methane reforming and electrolysis (splitting water with electricity.

My question is really about energy.

It requires energy to get the fusion going. It requires energy to produce the hydrogen that would be used in the fusion.

Thus, we have energy expended in the production of the hydrogen and more energy to get the fusion 'sparked'.

So, what would be the net gain in energy from the fusion, after the production of the hydrogen and the fusion of that hydrogen?

[9422WMR]

This will revolutionize the world!
I give you
The Segway scooter!!!
Yea, we have heard these false promises before.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

An interesting fact. Fusion only occurs in the sun at its core. Most of the sun’s bulk is just hot hydrogen under pressure squeezing its reactor and acting as insulation. The specific energy of sun is about 0.25 Watts per cubic meter, less than a rotting hay bale. But there are a lot of cubic meters.

Still, the sun converts more than 4,000,000 tons of mass to energy every second. That’s 385,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Watts, coming out of 1,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters.

[Yossarian]

I congratulate the team on this achievement.

However, the amount of gain needed to make a power plant commercially viable is much, much higher.

First, you have to extract the energy in such a way that it can produce electricity.

Then, you have to factor in the cost of producing an initial, prototype power-producing plant, complete with controls and ability to dispose of waste products.

Then, you have to factor in the cost of producing an real, community-serving power-producing plant.

Real-world fusion power is still a long ways away. First it will be used in niche applications where cost doesn’t matter (space propulsion). But still, this is a welcome development.

[hanamizu]

“...environmentalists will fight to kill this with all of the resources they can gather.”

---

You are right, of course. Environmentalists do not want us to be warm in winter, cool in summer, and to be able to travel where and when we want. They want us dead.

[Eleutheria5]

No. Follow the science. Vaccines work. Give it to politicians first, then rich famous people, then the elderly, then teenage athletes, then pre-schoolers and pregnant women, then force truck drivers, soldiers, and anyone whom we can force. Follow the science here, too.

It works, so it’s commercially viable. Outlaw all fossil fuels yesterday! Use it for cars, trucks, seagoing vessels, passenger and military aircraft! It’s really, really hot cold fusion! Yeeeeeha!

[TexasGator]

"after the production of the hydrogen"

Negligible amount. E=MC²

Much less mass is converted in the chemical reaction.