Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 23 2018, @01:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the plasma-conduits dept.

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

Experts were able to simulate the mechanism that stabilizes plasma in fusion reactors. This development could take humankind one step closer to a clean, unlimited source of fusion energy.

So...practical commercial fusion is still 50 years way (just like it's been for the past 60 years), right?

Source: https://www.techtimes.com/articles/232452/20180719/scientists-discover-how-to-stabilize-plasma-in-fusion-reactors.htm


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Monday July 23 2018, @01:09PM (4 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday July 23 2018, @01:09PM (#711194) Journal

    The new findings constitute a significant development in the quest for nuclear fusion energy

    I think we're all pretty jaded at this point (at nuclear, battery, etc. developments). Lockheed's "portable" fusion is going nowhere [nextbigfuture.com]. There are other companies working on compact fusion that could beat ITER to the punch but it is still a slow development process, even if they can be made to work.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 23 2018, @01:11PM (4 children)

    Well, that's nice. Let me know when they've managed both theory and practice though.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday July 23 2018, @04:02PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday July 23 2018, @04:02PM (#711279)

      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there is.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Monday July 23 2018, @06:10PM (2 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday July 23 2018, @06:10PM (#711357)

      They're pretty optimistic: I saw them herding in the spherical cows.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 23 2018, @09:19PM (1 child)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday July 23 2018, @09:19PM (#711446) Journal

        Those things are a bugger to keep in one place on that perfectly frictionless surface though. And they tend to explode in that perfect vacuum.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday July 23 2018, @09:30PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday July 23 2018, @09:30PM (#711452)

          I explained that concept a week ago to my kids, and they kept listening because it's funny to consider catapulting the spherical cows over the wall into the neighbor's trampoline, while discussing whether the neighbor would notice before it's too late (because in a vacuum, no-one will hear them Moo).

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @01:35PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @01:35PM (#711203)

    Just a few days ago right here on Soylent [soylentnews.org]...

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 23 2018, @02:09PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 23 2018, @02:09PM (#711225) Journal

      In other words, new news are dupe.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 23 2018, @02:03PM (13 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 23 2018, @02:03PM (#711219) Journal

    Every ten years the dream of fusion power becomes ever further away than it was ten years ago.

    time zero: fusion power could be here in only ten years!

    ten years later: fusion power could be here in only twenty years!

    Etc.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Rivenaleem on Monday July 23 2018, @02:43PM (12 children)

      by Rivenaleem (3400) on Monday July 23 2018, @02:43PM (#711248)

      On the upside they have a better understanding of the complexity of the problem now. The more they revise the timeline upwards, they more they understand how difficult making small-scale suns in a controlled manner might be.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 23 2018, @02:59PM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 23 2018, @02:59PM (#711259) Journal

        It's not terribly difficult to maintain fusion. Nature does it all the time. First, you need a proper containment vessel, just a little larger than Jupiter, with reliable electro-magnetic and gravitational controls. Light the fire, then stand back and enjoy the heat!

        The challenge, here on earth, is to find that properly sized containment vessel!

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @03:28PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @03:28PM (#711265)

          Size is not problem, gravity is. All you need is a small black hole in a box, supply hydrogen into the box, and fusion will be sustained near black hole's event horizon.

          • (Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:16AM

            by legont (4179) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:16AM (#711516)

            Creating a black hole is not a problem either. Keeping a *stable* one of reasonable size is.

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Monday July 23 2018, @06:22PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday July 23 2018, @06:22PM (#711366)

          Overheard on top of a mountain, recently "Dudes, I already provided the fusion generator. It's been burning for 4.5 billion years. You spent 20000 years using solidified buyproducts, that was expected. Since you finally learnt how to use electricity, and how to get massive quantities of electricity directly from my thermonuclear source, why do you bother with building another one? Do you not like mine, you morons? Let me get that book an remove the 'in my image' part..."

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday July 23 2018, @04:47PM (7 children)

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday July 23 2018, @04:47PM (#711306) Journal

        There's also the funding question...you can't very well make predictions about what you can build in 50 years without making some assumptions about your annual R&D budget for those same 50 years. These predictions are often made with an assumption of steady funding, but in reality funding has tended to decrease over time. Might be better to measure the time remaining in inflation adjusted dollars rather than years...although hopefully some of the decline in public funding will be overcome as it gets closer to commercialization and therefore becomes more acceptable for commercial research dollars.

        • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday July 23 2018, @05:18PM (6 children)

          by fritsd (4586) on Monday July 23 2018, @05:18PM (#711320) Journal

          Read this and sigh: This is how the richest country in the world behaves:

          https://www.aip.org/fyi/2018/national-academies-panel-warns-against-us-withdrawal-iter [aip.org]

          For years Congress has been haggling over funding for ITER, the international effort to build an experimental fusion reactor in southern France. In 2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee repeated previous years’ calls for the U.S. to end its participation in ITER.

          Since rejoining ITER in 2003, the U.S. has never come close to providing annual contribution levels commensurate with its 9 percent ownership share.

          (emphasis mine)

          Five member nations — China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Russia — have the same ownership share as the U.S., and Coblentz says those countries are pulling their weight. As the host, the EU is paying nearly half of ITER’s cost.

          I don't know why, though. The USA is on the same planet as the rest of us. Fusion could help.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Monday July 23 2018, @06:27PM (4 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 23 2018, @06:27PM (#711368) Journal

            You are suggesting that the US should pay its fair share like other nations do?

            I can hear it how: letting the government fund fusion development is socialism! (gasp!) But then I could mention Apollo, NHS, NWS, etc

            The US needs to be spending taxpayer money to help charter schools for unfortunate rich children who must attend them.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @07:30PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @07:30PM (#711404)

              USA on military matters: Ur not paying ur fair share NATO! Pay up!

              USA on scientific matters: Meh. We'll let the europussies fund it.

              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 23 2018, @07:42PM

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 23 2018, @07:42PM (#711409) Journal

                USA on military matters: Ur not paying ur fair share NATO! Pay up!

                Money going to US military warmongers.

                USA on scientific matters: Meh. We'll let the europussies fund it.

                They still pay, we benefit without paying.

                It sounds like both are consistent in a selfish kind of way.

                --
                People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
              • (Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:56AM

                We did fission, it's their turn.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @08:31PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @08:31PM (#711427)

              But then I could mention Apollo, NHS, NWS, etc

              Those are shameful stains in the history of USofA.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:36AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:36AM (#711531) Journal
            And what is supposed to be so magical about ITER that it should have money? It's way too expensive as a test platform for plasma experiments, and it's way too expensive as a demonstrator for a commercial fusion plant. This was known when it was conceived back in the 1980s.

            It since has consumed $14 billion and counting for a project that won't significantly improve our ability to do commercially viable fusion.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @03:35PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @03:35PM (#711267)

    another 10 years
    another 10 billion
    another generation of grad students
    another pile of papers & tenure

    ka ching!

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 23 2018, @05:21PM (2 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday July 23 2018, @05:21PM (#711321) Journal

      another AC pretending he's smarter than nuclear physicists

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @05:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @05:45PM (#711342)

        Nah it is the fault of all those shady professors trying to game the Big Fusion system for their own little slice of pork belly. /s

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:40AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:40AM (#711533) Journal

        than nuclear physicists

        Who have done what exactly?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:29PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:29PM (#711468)

      Would you bet on fusion or practical flying cars coming first?

      • (Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:22AM

        by legont (4179) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:22AM (#711522)

        Fusion. (See, I know how to fly. Hint: Google boys are morons.)

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Shire on Monday July 23 2018, @04:08PM (15 children)

    by The Shire (5824) on Monday July 23 2018, @04:08PM (#711286)

    Fusion energy generated just under 400GW of power in 2017 alone representing about 12% of electrical output worldwide and that capacity is increasing. Ok, technically it's solar power but really, that's just the suns fusion energy with a silicon based transfer conduit right?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by pvanhoof on Monday July 23 2018, @06:11PM (8 children)

      by pvanhoof (4638) on Monday July 23 2018, @06:11PM (#711358) Homepage

      All of the planet's energy eventually came from the Sun (or from other stars, which also have fusion going on). That implies that under your definition, fusion represented 100%.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 23 2018, @06:31PM (7 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 23 2018, @06:31PM (#711370) Journal

        Yep. And I think that is the key insight.

        All of our energy came / comes from the sun. Just via less efficient transfer means. Research should be on more efficient means to go straight to the source. Maybe even from orbit with energy transferred down to earth safely by carrier pigeons or something.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday July 23 2018, @09:11PM

          by acid andy (1683) on Monday July 23 2018, @09:11PM (#711441) Homepage Journal

          Ah but what would you feed the carrier pigeons? You're not thinking this through, man.

          --
          If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:13AM (5 children)

          by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:13AM (#711507)

          Even if we had operational fusion reactors right now, we still would only pull energy from it indirectly the same way all other power generation plants do it - heat water into steam to drive a turbine to spin a magnet to make the electrons move. From wood burning steam trains all the way to nuclear reactors, that's how it's done. Power from fusion via solar is no less decoupled than fusion reactor to steam.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dwilson on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:48AM (4 children)

            by dwilson (2599) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:48AM (#711541) Journal

            Fusion reactor -> steam -> electricity almost has to be much more efficient than sun-fusion -> solar panel -> electricity. This holds true even with a magical 100% efficient solar panel.

            The energy density of the sun is roughly the same as your average lizard or compost pile, by volume [abc.net.au]. To achieve sustainable fusion in something that fits in a building rather than something the size of a star, the energy density is going to have to be a lot higher than the sun's.

            Can we build a fusion reactor that actually works? I don't know. Lots of smart people seem willing to try. But if they do pull it off, the whole "solar is just fusion from the sun so we should all just use solar instead of worrying about fusion" stops being a serious argument. If it ever was.

            --
            - D
            • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:17AM

              by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:17AM (#711667)

              All i said was that we are already tapping fusion for energy. i made no efficiency claims. It's also pretty pointless to refer to efficiency when the power source is ubiquitous. I will say this though, regardless of efficiency it's safe to say solar is providing infinitely more power than man made fusion energy.

              That being said, I'd much rather eee us focused on gen iv nuclear which at least is a known clean and abundant power source.

            • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Tuesday July 24 2018, @09:38PM (2 children)

              by Murdoc (2518) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @09:38PM (#711950) Homepage

              I looked at that article, and I'm sure I have no grasp of the complex math behind this, but it looks like total BS to me.

              "The answer is surprising. The Sun does do nuclear burning of hydrogen atoms, but only very occasionally. How occasionally? On average, any given hydrogen atom will run into another hydrogen atom only once every five billion years."

              Once every 5 billion years?!? Given that the sun is 4.7 billion years old, that means that there is a less than 100% chance that it has even happened once so far! And yet:

              "Every second, the Sun burns 620 million tonnes of hydrogen and turns it into about 616 million tonnes of helium."

              That's an awful lot of matter being converted into helium yet somehow without hydrogen fusing into each other. How in the world is that supposed to work?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:41AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:41AM (#712060)

                Now multiply by the number of hydrogen atoms in the sun and you’ll have your answer.

                • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:59AM

                  by Murdoc (2518) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:59AM (#712186) Homepage
                  Ah, there was my mistake, thanks. "Any given hydrogen atom..." You know, I knew I shouldn't be posting so soon after waking up because this tends to happen, but I just couldn't see it. Now I know.
    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:11AM (1 child)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:11AM (#711496) Homepage Journal

      Terrible thing about solar, you have no electric at night. Goodbye night clubs. Goodbye casinos. Unless you build giant battery, like they did in High Tax Australia. Very expensive, folks. There's a better way. Nuclear and Beautiful Clean Coal. Great thing is, we already have the plants, they're built. They're running. Keeping our Energy Grid going around the clock -- so important. They don't shut down when the Sun goes down, so important. But so many are shutting down -- FOREVER. Because they're not making enough money. We need to stop that. And turn it around. With a subsidy for our Coal, for our Nuclear. Keep those plants running, replace the ones we lost. And make our Energy Grid great again!!!

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:10AM

        by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:10AM (#711506)

        My comment was not to infer that solar is the end all be all of clean energy generation, only that our own sun is a massive fusion reactor and we tap it for power - we're using fusion energy right now.

        I'm a strong proponent of nuclear, in particular Gen IV LFTR designs that are quite literally meltdown proof. I think the hysteria that surrounds nuclear has ironically resulted in massive amounts of CO2 the hippies are always howling about. Had we moved forward with nuclear and not burdened it with massive regulation, we would be in a far more energy independent situation right now.

        Meanwhile China has both pebble bed and thorium test reactors operating - and we gave them the IP for it.

        It also pisses me off that we can't touch most of our own rare earth deposits (essential for modern electronics) because thorium tends to be deposited there too and the NRC wont let any mining companies process it. Never mind you can't make a bomb out of it and never mind it's so weakly radioactive that if you had two atoms of it when the big bang occurred you'd probably still have both of them now.

        But I digress - fusion would be great, but it's taking far too long. Lets invest in nuclear again, get that going as a nice clean stop gap energy source and then we can switch over to fusion when they get it all figured out.

    • (Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:25AM (3 children)

      by legont (4179) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:25AM (#711524)

      How much oil was spent to achieve this result? (Hint: more efficient to just burn oil)

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:26AM (2 children)

        by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:26AM (#711668)

        I'm going to need a source on that, I don't believe thats at all true. It's certainly more expensive but manufacturing solar panels does not consume more oil than the equivalent in lifetime power generation.

        • (Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:51PM (1 child)

          by legont (4179) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:51PM (#711716)

          Even if I give you sources, you are not likely to accept them, sorry.

          Anyway, in addition to manufacturing, solar panels need to be delivered, repaired, and disposed. The current model is to manufacture abroad and, hopefully, dispose abroad. Transportation is also partially abroad. What powers all of this?

          The whole "green" part of solar is simply exporting dirt to China. One day, and this day may already came, China stops accepting other countries shit.

          That bring me to disposal (yes, they are made of some nasty stuff). Do you think consumer will pay the price of solar panels again to dispose of them? No, they are going into the woods nearby and clean up will eventually cost a lot.

          The whole green idea, as it is implemented now, is simply export of pollution in space and time.

          --
          "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
          • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:06PM

            by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:06PM (#711743)

            >Even if I give you sources, you are not likely to accept them, sorry.
            Not sure why you would say that. I'm always looking to be persuaded that I'm wrong about things, how else does anyone find out whats actually right?

            I think you would be very surprised how little fuel per unit is burned transporting thousands of cargo containers from China to the US or how little fuel is burned by an 18 wheeler to deliver those panels to their install location. Fuel costs money and companies don't like spending money, they just like taking money.

            But as I've said in other posts, if I had my druthers we would be heavily reliant on nuclear right now. We literally have tons of material already mined and ready to burn. And nuclear can not only produce electricity, it's also quite good at producing hydrogen which is another great fuel option for cars. It's a shame so many react emotionally when you say "nuclear". We should be pushing hard for it, it's very clean.

(1)