Submitted by FarmhouseFan t3_zmk8gt in Futurology
regrettinglastweek t1_j0d4s7h wrote
Reply to comment by TouchCommercial5022 in Nuclear fusion breakthrough: A physicist answers three vital questions by FarmhouseFan
These are all valid comments, but I would add that NIF was not designed for efficiency. Its primary purpose is as a research facility. Also, its laser technology is essentially 30 years old by now. Lasers have come a long way since then, and diode-pumped systems are significantly more efficient.
Getting break even in the sense of energy in vs energy out is a big deal, because this demonstrates scientific feasibility. There is no reason to think that this can’t be scaled or optimized. In fact only 2 years ago, peak yields were of order 150 kJ, so in that time the performance went up by ~20x.
This result has been compared to the Wright brother‘s demonstration of flight. And I think that comparison is appropriate. The first few flights were “only” 100 ft or so, which isn’t particularly useful, right? But it was the implication of that demonstration that changed the world. I really think the demonstration of the NIF results could have the same impact.
acidtalons t1_j0f2for wrote
Uranium is 9% of the cost to generate power in a fission plant. Turbines, containment, staff and maintenance make up 91% of the cost. Deuterium/Tritium fusion will produce significant neutron Flux which will require similar shielding to fission facilities (though to be fair less long term waste storage).
Even if it makes more heat you'll just need more turbines, tubing etc etc on the heat engine side.
Fission is costing 5x the cost of new solar and wind installs.
I don't see how this helps energy infrastructure and seems like it will be great for space or defense applications but the "future of limitless free power" seems to be overselling it (btw we did the same thing with fission in the 50s).
doawk7 t1_j0fly3z wrote
Source? Wikipedias source has it at 24%. Operational costs aren't too much of a concern with nuclear to my knowledge anyway, capital expenditure is where the big issue is.
Human_Anybody7743 t1_j0g9let wrote
Wiki's source seems to be from 2007 when there was a massive Uranium price spike due to the highest grade mines getting flooded. Additionally enrichment methods have changed and it might not have included that.
World nuclear has it somewhere in the $2-5/MWh range.
EMI_Black_Ace t1_j0fh99d wrote
Diode-pumped systems are much more efficient, yes, but the reason they're using that old laser tech is power density, which laser diodes suck at in comparison.
davidmlewisjr t1_j0e2kyy wrote
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084827/
So Livermore’s laser array “NIF” dates from prior to 1982, when it was used as a filming site.
Their challenge has been repeatability and uniformity, the challenge is ongoing.
The state of art in Sci-Fi, as in the Rocinante’s ICF Fusion reactor are still Sci-Fi, as of the end of this week, and likely also this year.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments