Hypernaut:

If only Big Oil would let that happen.

Big Oil has been losing their grip for the better part of a decade. It's becoming just a little too obvious, and some of them are actually investing in alternative solutions, because they know they can't operate forever, so it's either adapt to changing markets or fade into obscurity.

fantaskarsef:

They shouldn't forget the energy needed to build the reactor in the first place, which can and will never be equal or less than what they get out. Because this would mean abundant energy that comes out of nothing, and that runs forever, as long as we'd keep that reactor running, right? And we all know by basic high school classes, perpetuo mobiles can't be built in this reality.

I suggest you read up on modern fusion solutions; there's more ways to achieve fusion than a Tokamak reactor. This article discusses of several nuclear fusion methods that is already able to achieve a net gain. The ITER reactor is already being constructed (in France). That one just happens to be a Tokamak, but there are apparently enough tweaks to make it a functional power plant, which to my understanding, ITER intends to be.

Meathelix1:

What a bunch of bull, for Australia to even consider replacing coal stations we would need 8000 solar panels a day to be built and 50 Wind Turbines a month for 8 years straight!!! Just to equal our coal. Think of all the land needed the materials needed, the time and money...

A few things: 1. Nuclear fusion is often regarded the holy grail of energy production. What you consider outrageous for solar and wind, the same could be said of coal when compared to the theoretical output of fusion. The fact there are already multiple proof-of-concepts is a major breakthrough, since as fantaskarsef suggested, it has been deemed a pipe dream for the better part of a century. 2. 70% of Australia is semi-arid or arid. Solar is getting cheaper and more efficient every year. Solar makes a lot more sense as supplemental power or for people who want to live off-grid, than to power a whole metro area. It's pretty easy and cost-effective to make the average business or home to be totally self-sufficient during the day, and then depend on the grid at night. So, even though solar-powered buildings are still depending on fossil fuels, the fact that they're cutting the usage by more than half is a fantastic way of being sustainable. 3. Supposing you're right about the statics you mentioned (I have my doubts), what's to say coal's energy needs to be matched? Fossil fuels are very energy dense but you don't need to unleash all of it at once. 4. There will be enough coal in our lifetimes but it is finite. Better take steps to reduce our dependency while there's still plenty of time.

Germany has been trying to go green for over 10+ years, yet they are still finding it super hard to replace their energy with green energy. 🙂

Germany has been doing what I just said: taking steps to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Not leaps, because that's not cost effective. No sane government, municipality, or industry is going to just switch their entire infrastructure overnight. Ironically, Germany (as well as much of western Europe) has been pushing alternative power sources (including solar) into overdrive, due to "that situation" that I shall remain vague about.

Btw the Lithium resources are meant to run out by 2025, so good luck.

Yeah and they said the same about crude oil several times. When there's a will, there's a way. There have been several lithium-rich locations identified within the past few years that should help. As solid-state batteries and non-lithium energy storage devices become more prevalent, our dependency on lithium will proportionately decrease; demand is still going to skyrocket no matter what.

I don't believe any of this green stuff until the prices are half the price of what it currently is.

Of course, if you're comparing to coal, any alternative solution is going to cost a lot. Australia is in a pretty good situation right now, where they have lots of access to coal in a market where coal is low in demand. While Australia is a better-than-most candidate for alternative energy sources, there is no real incentive for it to switch.

Netherwind:

It may be too late by that time.

Brasky:

LOL!

Well... not that LOL in my humble opinion because... it's already too late, most people don't know it yet, that's the thing.

schmidtbag:

I suggest you read up on modern fusion solutions; there's more ways to achieve fusion than a Tokamak reactor. This article discusses of several nuclear fusion methods that is already able to achieve a net gain. The ITER reactor is already being constructed (in France). That one just happens to be a Tokamak, but there are apparently enough tweaks to make it a functional power plant, which to my understanding, ITER intends to be.

I did not read up on fusion reactors in the last few months, that's true, thank you for your suggestion.

heffeque:

Well... not that LOL in my humble opinion because... it's already too late, most people don't know it yet, that's the thing.

As well known, the rich and powerful don't care, because they are usually older and they'll be dead before it happens.

heffeque:

Well... not that LOL in my humble opinion because... it's already too late, most people don't know it yet, that's the thing.

You're right of course but why bother with people writing "LOL" to such a statement.

@Netherwind I'll bet you 1$ that in 30 years, if you or I don't die from natural causes, everything will be fine. And I won't even gloat about how the Doom and Gloom crowd was wrong as usual.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

According to a story in the Financial Times, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory may have reached a new record high for fusion reactions, finally more energy output than input.... Scientists are set to announce a major finding on fusion energy

As I understand it they got 2.5MJ out and put 2.1MJ into the sphere with the lasers. HOWEVER that 2.1MJ of laser energy took 500MJ of electricity to make. These lasers are extremely inefficient. Overall, the system needs approx 1,000x more energy in than you get out.

RealNC:

Unfortunately, the "more out than in" thing in fusion energy has been a lie, at least so far. The scientists get very creative with numbers and make it look like there's a net surplus. There isn't. So I'm very pessimistic about this one.

This is the first time, to my knowledge, that the actual energy of the laser was less than the energy produced. So if you measure the laser's output energy its something like 2 MJ, but 3MJ were produced by the reaction. That doesn't account for the fact that the laser requires 300MJ to run... But the justification there is that the experimental facility wasn't set up with laser efficiency in mind, it's more so a proof of concept.

Kaarme:

I do wish this would lead somewhere. The traditional tokamak model being tested in Europe seems to be highly complicated and expensive, which is not good for commercial use. How to make it last for a significant enough time is a big question. So, if the American laser technology offered a simpler solution, it would be great. That being said, the American model doesn't seem to shorten the magical 30 years any better than the international one.

it will but right now the issue is materials science as the containment vessel and much of the nearby equipment is destroyed in the process. not an expert by any means but Lawrence Livermore Labs are in the Bay Area and the local market is very technically sophisticated so each step in the progress makes local news.

Finding out that a plasma is magnetic is a huge thing but the problem is the heat created which is a plasma hotter than the suns surface. So running these things for less than a second is all they've done and doesn't allow the temps to reach very high. Running them 24/7 is a distant dream. We all know about CPU cooling here and these things are no different. They are built to superheat water and then use that steam for power generation. Spreading the heat out on these is the key to success. In testing things are gonna melt. Containing the plasma in a magnetic field for long periods is also very hard but is whats needed. One little error in that field and there will be dangerous hot spots to deal with.

tunejunky:

it will but right now the issue is materials science as the containment vessel and much of the nearby equipment is destroyed in the process.

Yes, that's actually what I was referring to with how to make it last, not how to make the fusion reaction last. But how can the reactor withstand so long that replacing parts won't cost more than the power station would earn the owners. Replacing reactor parts would be the most expensive and cumbersome task because they are the radioactive components of the facility.

Brasky:

@Netherwind I'll bet you 1$ that in 30 years, if you or I don't die from natural causes, everything will be fine. And I won't even gloat about how the Doom and Gloom crowd was wrong as usual.

We'll see how the planet looks like in 30 years then.

Netherwind:

We'll see how the planet looks like in 30 years then.

Yeah, it won't change, this technology is a dream until it is widely used. It's no different from flying cars, said they were going to come in 2020, never happened. Germany needs Russia's power to stay afloat lol, working well for them. By the time any of this becomes a reality and is used on a mass scale, the world will have flying cars.

in 50 years when this happens is we can all have 1000 watt gpus in each computer... I will be dead like most of before this becomes the normal. by the time this happen the damage will of been done to environment, but hey we can hope it happens sooner the later

Reddoguk:

Finding out that a plasma is magnetic is a huge thing but the problem is the heat created which is a plasma hotter than the suns surface. So running these things for less than a second is all they've done and doesn't allow the temps to reach very high. Running them 24/7 is a distant dream.

PWM on a battery of fusion chambers to the rescue? :P

Meathelix1:

Yeah, it won't change, this technology is a dream until it is widely used. It's no different from flying cars, said they were going to come in 2020, never happened.

Flying cars already exist, but there's far more than technology (or price) preventing their wide use. Mainly legislation. In the strictly organised developed countries you need a pilot certificate to be able to fly powered vehicles. It's also an open question how and where you park a flying car. How does it affect the general air traffic especially in populated areas. In the 1950's scifi, where in the year 2000 every decent and willing household would have a flying car, nobody really considered all this. This is why flying taxis seem to be the form in which we'll see them first. Such a taxi would be under professional supervision and fly only between predetermined locations. There also wouldn't be a sky full of them. That's why they can also be crewless to save a lot of energy. Who knows when the laws will be willing to allow households to possess a flying car, which isn't actually directly flown by any human but by an AI, and thus none of the people inside would require a pilot certification. Even the use of remote controlled quadcopters has actually been facing more restrictions due to mishaps and problems, real or potential, so I'm sure lawmakers aren't in a hurry to allow a wild west in the sky for private flying cars. Lawmakers would be willing to lick boots to get functional fusion power investments, though, I'm sure of that.

@Kaarme illegally parking on your neighbor's roof would be funny the first time ! :P

https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/zlh9qz/ysk_the_recent_fusion_breakthrough_at_nif_is_not/ YSK: the recent fusion breakthrough at NIF is NOT a self sustaining fusion device, and we're nowhere close. Context: "researchers at the US National Ignition Facility created a reaction that made more energy than they put in" - a headline sweeping the world since its official announcement days ago. That’s a lie (sort of). Why YSK: “It’s a big milestone, but NIF is not a fusion-energy device,” says Dave Hammer, a nuclear engineer at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York ([1](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7)). The term "ignition" is being thrown around a lot, but it's being used incorrectly. The reaction is not self-sustaining, and it doesn't provide a *total* net positive. Fusion is years away, but our climate disaster is here. Waiting for fusion isn't going to solve our problems, but pretending it soon will negate all the progress we've made toward actual clean & sustainable energy sources. **What did the NIF researchers actually achieve?** They achieved what's known as *breakeven*, which "compares the total energy being given off to the energy being used to heat the fuel ([2](https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/)). "while the fusion reactions may have produced more than 3 megajoules of energy — more than was delivered to the target — NIF’s 192 lasers consumed 322 megajoules of energy in the process" (ibid 1). **Isn't that a good thing?** Of course, it's an amazing breakthrough! The most recent record was only able to achieve 72% energy gained back from how much was put into heating ([3](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion#cite_note-55)). **But it's not a net positive..** 'Nuclear ignition' is the term we're hearing tossed around a lot, but that phrase only applies when the *total energy output is greater than the total energy input* ([4](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition#cite_note-9)). According to Wikipedia: "Ignition should not be confused with breakeven, a similar concept that compares the total energy being given off to the energy being used to heat the fuel. The key difference is that breakeven ignores losses to the surroundings, which do not contribute to heating the fuel, and thus are not able to make the reaction self-sustaining." "Fusion breakthrough is a milestone for climate, clean energy" isn't quite true, but thanks for trying [AP](https://apnews.com/article/science-business-california-climate-and-environment-d6cb7b048ce916e04be809482fd9cbe6). **Why are these headlines so dangerous?** The scientific community is in near unanimous agreement that we're headed toward climate disaster in the coming decades, and likely in our lifetime. Saying that nuclear fusion is just around the corner when our greatest achievements can only output a [small percentage]([youtube=LJ4W1g-6JiY]) of total energy input can lead people to falsely believe that we don't need to invest in other sources of clean energy. But the truth is we should have years ago. We may already be past the point of no return, and waiting decades and possibly beyond our lifetime for the holy grail of nuclear fusion, no matter how possible, is going to fuck us all over. **For those that don't believe me, let me ask you a question:** Who stands to gain the most from the reduced interest in renewable resources with false claims of net energy gain from fusion? Is it the country that pumps [$81 billion per year just to protect their oil investments](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/us-spends-81-billion-a-year-to-protect-oil-supplies-report-estimates.html&ved=2ahUKEwiMm4qDn_j7AhWnm-AKHZxSBwkQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0MG_iZabX2kcKzuh68gb0l)? Or maybe the oil companies worth [trillions](https://www.google.com/search?q=saudi+aramco+net+cap&client=ms-android-tmus-us-rvc3&sxsrf=ALiCzsYpgEFCJCj0R35TKeWoX_a-X99LwQ%3A1670991182694&ei=Tk2ZY67-KaaJgge4qpqwCg&oq=saudi+aramco+net+cap&gs_lcp=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&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp)? It couldn’t possibly be the companies headed toward a [$40 trillion market cap](https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/nuclear-fusion-market-could-achieve-a-40-trillion-valuation/), could it? **You're just a pessimist, this is the beginning of a new era!** I'm certainly not the most qualified person to say this, so instead take a look at this [report done by the European Parliment](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqa0tVTkFBYkdaQ195NFRXRTB3NkdKczJxNjA4d3xBQ3Jtc0tuelVPOUpudVJZQ1BVT19CSUVJdldnTUxlc3YtaW94MGxwSWwxWmxnNTB4QzFFbUtpcnA3dUFPY09paUJRVl94ZjVvTU9XUjNZMzBmS2c1cVpFOXVwalNESXR0RnZWekVPbWpJY09vYmx4OVp3b2hlRQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F10593062.pdf&v=LJ4W1g-6JiY) stating that nuclear fusion has potential, but is in no way a short term solution and is unlikely to reach commercial use by the 2050s at the earliest. tl,dr: the recent fusion breakthrough by US researchers at NIF is being falsely hailed as a "net positive energy gain", when in reality the gain (while impressive) is only a very small part of the total energy input.

Here you go guys. I left a link Critical Thinking Skills For Dummies eBook : Cohen, Martin: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

Meathelix1:

What a bunch of bull, for Australia to even consider replacing coal stations we would need 8000 solar panels a day to be built and 50 Wind Turbines a month for 8 years straight!!! Just to equal our coal. Think of all the land needed the materials needed, the time and money... Germany has been trying to go green for over 10+ years, yet they are still finding it super hard to replace their energy with green energy. 🙂 Btw the Lithium resources are meant to run out by 2025, so good luck. I don't believe any of this green stuff until the prices are half the price of what it currently is. "Places coal in BBQ" Yummy.

It's not like Australia is going to run out of space soon, being that most of it is deserted. That said, when you build a house you place a roof on top. Said roof generally has enough space to place solar panels for the needs of said home and maybe export. The green generation hasn't been born yet, many tech needs to evolve until we can go full green. Meanwhile refrain from making silly forum publications and keep chugging your coal.