Submitted by Rough-Lavishness-401 t3_zy8tjv in wallstreetbets
Gradius90 t1_j24fejy wrote
We have had nuclear fusion already. The issue is being able to have it occur at a rate that is energy positive instead of negative. So far, all attempts I know of have required a vast amount more energy added than has been produced. If you want to see the path toward the future for energy production, look up the Kirchave Scale. I miss spelt that like crazy I know.
ALovelyPoS t1_j24h04b wrote
They achieved energy positive nuclear fusion a few weeks ago
AustrianRocket t1_j24sos5 wrote
They achieved energy positive fusion only for apes who only read the headlines.
ALovelyPoS t1_j24suqq wrote
Did you listen to what he said? 2 in 3 out
AustrianRocket t1_j24u8bl wrote
No, it was more like 200 in, 2 hit the target, 3 out. We are far away from a commercial use of fusion power.
AustrianRocket t1_j24ulah wrote
Furthermore the "3 out" is thermal energy, which would have to be converted to electricity, which happens with additional energy losses.
x3lr4 t1_j25kdzl wrote
Actually a Q_total greater than 1 might be feasible. They didn't fully burn the pellet. If it fuses completely, there's 20 times more energy to be had. Also rebuilding the facility with newer lasers can make it 10 times more efficient. So overall a factor 200 is possible, which could give the entire facility a Q_total of 3. But yes, it still wouldn't be a power plant.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments