Clean energy could be ‘closer than ever’ after a nuclear fusion machine smashed a record::JET’s final nuclear fusion experiment produced a record-breaking 69 megajoules of heat. Nice.

  • cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Actually capturing the heat for electricity, and getting more electricity out of it than required to run the reactor itself, remain massive open questions that this generation of research reactors does not even begin to tackle.

    • saruwatarikooji@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      IIRC, this is a big deal because they are achieving more energy out than they put in.

      If I’ve been reading these correctly they are achieving it with tiny amounts of fuel and slowly working up as they achieve success. I’m seeing these as proof of concept and fantastic steps in the right direction.

      • cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        In this context, the “energy that they put in” only counts the heating of the plasma. It does not include the energy needed to run the rest of the reactor, like the magnets that trap the plasma. If you count those other energy needs, about an order of magnitude improvement is still required. Possibly more, if we have to extract the energy (an incredibly hard problem that’s barely been scratched so far).

        So yeah, it’s nice to see the progress, but the road ahead is still a very long one.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I feel like the big scary problem is capturing the heat. The proposed method I’ve seen involves a beryllium “blanket” that captures the heat to send it off to a boiler. The problem is beryllium is quite expensive and quite limited in availability. And in fact we may only have enough beryllium (in the world) for a dozen or so reactors. But it’s worse, because these blankets absorb high energy neutrons, and become radioactive over time. And that means two problems, you need to replace the blanket and you need to dispose of radioactive waste.

          When you put all that together, I just think “shouldn’t we stick with fission power?”

          • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the problem that Uranium has a half-life of a couple hundred million years, while the half life of beryllium is less than a second?

            Only Beryllium-10 has a long half-life for beta decay. Adding another neutron drops that back down to a few seconds and additional neutrons drop it back to a fraction of a second. So as long as that specific type of Beryllium isn’t used, it would be fine, right?

            Edit: https://www.thoughtco.com/beryllium-isotopes-603868

            • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Those quick half-lives decay right away, losing a neutron, right? So that Berillium-11 just decays back into Berillium-10.

              The problem is that the blanket is constantly absorbing neutrons from the fusion reactions, that’s it’s job. So despite using simple berillium 5 to build your blanket, you end up with these heavy isotopes over time, and because the heavier ones quickly decay into lighter ones, you basically end up with a whole lot of berillium-10.

      • holycrap
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It doesn’t look like they’re generating electricity with that energy yet, so while you are correct the person you responded to is also correct in that we still need to prove we can harness it efficiently enough.

        I think they’ll get there, it just boils down to investment and time.