Korean nuclear fusion reactor achieves 100M°C for 30 seconds(shiningscience.com)
shiningscience.com
Korean nuclear fusion reactor achieves 100M°C for 30 seconds
https://www.shiningscience.com/2022/09/korean-nuclear-fusion-reactor-achieves.html
769 comments
When I was at school in Abingdon, Oxfordshire (UK) around 1988 my physics class (A level aged 17) was somewhat enlivened by a visit by a bunch of clever chaps from JET at the Culham labs from up the road.
This was the first time I heard the "nuclear fusion is 25 years away" joke and it was told as such. We were also shown a graph of how many orders of magnitude away from ignition (for want of the correct word) by date. It had an initial steep decline but then turned right quite sharply and had annoying looking tendency to avoid the magic value.
Now, once you have ignition, you have to sustain it and extract power from it. That's quite tricky too!
This was the first time I heard the "nuclear fusion is 25 years away" joke and it was told as such. We were also shown a graph of how many orders of magnitude away from ignition (for want of the correct word) by date. It had an initial steep decline but then turned right quite sharply and had annoying looking tendency to avoid the magic value.
Now, once you have ignition, you have to sustain it and extract power from it. That's quite tricky too!
> “This team is finding that the density confinement is actually a bit lower than traditional operating modes, which is not necessarily a bad thing, because it’s compensated for by higher temperatures in the core,” he says. “It’s definitely exciting, but there’s a big uncertainty about how well our understanding of the physics scales to larger devices. So something like ITER is going to be much bigger than KSTAR”.
This made me wonder when ITER was going to actually be up and running. From wikipedia:
> "The reactor was expected to take 10 years to build and ITER had planned to test its first plasma in 2020 and achieve full fusion by 2023, however the schedule is now to test first plasma in 2025 and full fusion in 2035."
So, it sounds like it'll start doing something within a few years, but it'll probably be a long time before it produces significant scientific results.
By the time ITER is running, maybe some other group will beat them to it (like the MIT ARC or SPARC reactors, which use more recent, better superconductors and don't need to be anywhere near as big).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
This made me wonder when ITER was going to actually be up and running. From wikipedia:
> "The reactor was expected to take 10 years to build and ITER had planned to test its first plasma in 2020 and achieve full fusion by 2023, however the schedule is now to test first plasma in 2025 and full fusion in 2035."
So, it sounds like it'll start doing something within a few years, but it'll probably be a long time before it produces significant scientific results.
By the time ITER is running, maybe some other group will beat them to it (like the MIT ARC or SPARC reactors, which use more recent, better superconductors and don't need to be anywhere near as big).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
China managed to reach 120 millions °C for 1000 seconds last year already
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-31/China-s-artificial-sun...
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-31/China-s-artificial-sun...
"While the duration and temperature alone aren’t records, the simultaneous achievement of heat and stability brings us a step closer to a viable fusion reactor – as long as the technique used can be scaled up."
Half of the engineers on HN right now:
[...as long as the technique used can be scaled up...](PTSD_Chihuahua.jpg)
Half of the engineers on HN right now:
[...as long as the technique used can be scaled up...](PTSD_Chihuahua.jpg)
I don't know everything about nuclear fusion so I have to ask: Is it actually renewable?
In other words, are the byproducts able to form back into the "fuel" at a reasonable rate with the energy input of the Sun? I know that a selling point of fusion is that there is such an abundance of fuel that this doesn't matter. But if we treat finite energy sources as infinite, exponential growth in our energy budget means that we will undoubtedly run out of energy, as is being done with forests and such.
After all, I have a feeling people at the dawn of the industrial revolution thought the amount of coal available in the world would serve their needs "practically forever," until energy consumption scaled up by thousands of times.
In other words, are the byproducts able to form back into the "fuel" at a reasonable rate with the energy input of the Sun? I know that a selling point of fusion is that there is such an abundance of fuel that this doesn't matter. But if we treat finite energy sources as infinite, exponential growth in our energy budget means that we will undoubtedly run out of energy, as is being done with forests and such.
After all, I have a feeling people at the dawn of the industrial revolution thought the amount of coal available in the world would serve their needs "practically forever," until energy consumption scaled up by thousands of times.
There was a positive fusion article in the WP a few weeks back. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/26/nuclear.... Looks like things are finally happening.
I completely support fusion efforts from a science point of view, but let's be honest, an economic reactor for electricity generation is still decades away, it may not even be feasible, and it certainly won't be as 'clean' as is being sold, using D-T fusion.
We should switch a good chunk of fussion funding towards 'clean' fission; travelling wave reactors, molten salt, small modular reactors, thorium, etc, etc. Some of these have a chance at being commercially viable and making a real impact this decade, not half a century or more hence.
We should switch a good chunk of fussion funding towards 'clean' fission; travelling wave reactors, molten salt, small modular reactors, thorium, etc, etc. Some of these have a chance at being commercially viable and making a real impact this decade, not half a century or more hence.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t a huge amount of released energy in this scale eventually heat up the planet?
I mean, doesn’t the atmosphere in our big greenhouse always retains a non-zero amount of energy, no matter the CO2 etc. in the air? If that is true, then so far the net energy out flux was positive, but now we see with rising greenhouse concentrations that it’s turning. If we then raise the stock of energy inside the greenhouse, it overheats, no?
I mean, doesn’t the atmosphere in our big greenhouse always retains a non-zero amount of energy, no matter the CO2 etc. in the air? If that is true, then so far the net energy out flux was positive, but now we see with rising greenhouse concentrations that it’s turning. If we then raise the stock of energy inside the greenhouse, it overheats, no?
Let's say they manage to scale this up. What effect would it have on humanity? Climate change is solved. What else?
Could someone please enlighten a physics noob?
As i understand it, nuclear fusion could (as soon as really achieved, i.e. there exist commercial plants) provide more energy than we are currently producing by all other methods. And if we can produce it, I have no doubt we would use more and more energy.
Which would mean that all this energy must end up somewhere somehow. What I would like to know is, don' we then (just in another form) contribute to the heating of the planet again? Are there any studies/theories about that? What would the impact of the ever increasing energy release/production be?
As i understand it, nuclear fusion could (as soon as really achieved, i.e. there exist commercial plants) provide more energy than we are currently producing by all other methods. And if we can produce it, I have no doubt we would use more and more energy.
Which would mean that all this energy must end up somewhere somehow. What I would like to know is, don' we then (just in another form) contribute to the heating of the planet again? Are there any studies/theories about that? What would the impact of the ever increasing energy release/production be?
100M Celsius? Does this contribute to the planetary heating? Sorry if dumb question but that is so hot.
How is the heat controlled? Is there any resource that explains this thermal part?
How is the heat controlled? Is there any resource that explains this thermal part?
What if the stars in the galaxy are the remnants of civilizations fusion reactor gone wrong ;p
"An error occurred during a connection to www.shiningscience.com"
Was it hosted at the facility?
Was it hosted at the facility?
What % chance do we feel that we will have fusion power within the next 50 years?
Does anyone know how do scientists measure such high temperatures?
I doubt a regular thermometer will scale at such levels.
I doubt a regular thermometer will scale at such levels.
What is the significance of this?
The Wikipedia article on Tokamaks is refreshingly approachable:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
> Malware and Phishing
> This site is blocked because it is a known security threat. Please contact your network administrator to gain access.
Higher quality source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2336385-korean-nuclear-...
Higher quality source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2336385-korean-nuclear-...
I'd love for commercial fusion power generation to be a reality but I'm skeptical that, at a minimum, hydrogen fusion will ever be practical. The reasons have remained a problem for considerable period of time:
1. Containing a hydrogen plasma involves containing a superheated turbulent fluid. This is inherently unstable that will be sensitive to very minor defects;
2. A superheated plasma produces a lot of high velocity particles. Those not contained by magnetic containment tend to destroy the container (ie "neutron embrittlement"); and
3. Possibly the biggest problem of all: neutrons represent energy loss by the system and there's no currently viable way of solving this problem.
To solve (2) and (3) various groups research so-called "aneutronic" fusion. I put that in quotes because it's just a lot less neutrons generally, not no neutrons.
Helium-3 fusion is one possibility but He-3 is exceedingly rare. The best source may be from the solar wind being collected on the Moon's surface. As you can imagine that presents it's own set of challenges to mine, contain and return.
Hydrogen fusion uses heavier isotopes of hydrogen (ie deuterium with 1 neutron and/or tritium with 2). Why? Because we currently need these neutrons to feed the fusion reaction.
And after all this we extract heat to boil water to turn a turbine. This too adds to cost and complexity.
Personally I think the future of humanity's energy production is space-based solar power collectors.
1. Containing a hydrogen plasma involves containing a superheated turbulent fluid. This is inherently unstable that will be sensitive to very minor defects;
2. A superheated plasma produces a lot of high velocity particles. Those not contained by magnetic containment tend to destroy the container (ie "neutron embrittlement"); and
3. Possibly the biggest problem of all: neutrons represent energy loss by the system and there's no currently viable way of solving this problem.
To solve (2) and (3) various groups research so-called "aneutronic" fusion. I put that in quotes because it's just a lot less neutrons generally, not no neutrons.
Helium-3 fusion is one possibility but He-3 is exceedingly rare. The best source may be from the solar wind being collected on the Moon's surface. As you can imagine that presents it's own set of challenges to mine, contain and return.
Hydrogen fusion uses heavier isotopes of hydrogen (ie deuterium with 1 neutron and/or tritium with 2). Why? Because we currently need these neutrons to feed the fusion reaction.
And after all this we extract heat to boil water to turn a turbine. This too adds to cost and complexity.
Personally I think the future of humanity's energy production is space-based solar power collectors.
If they can pull this for 30 seconds in 2022, they can do 30 minutes by 2025, 30 hours in by 2027 and then 30 weeks by 2030 being very optimistic here.
Right now things are bad in this world and will get worse but the future is filled with abundance and new levels of comforts not seen in human history.
Right now things are bad in this world and will get worse but the future is filled with abundance and new levels of comforts not seen in human history.
Fusion? I've got a new and different design that needs testing. If anyone is interested there is more information at http://www.DDproFusion.com
What if instead of this huge engineering efforts (with no end in sight) you can just put two rocks together and get heat/energy? That is called fission btw.
[deleted]
[deleted]
For reference, the core of the Sun is around 15M°C (cooling to ~5500°C at its surface).
Oh, and about 160M times bigger in diameter.
Oh, and about 160M times bigger in diameter.
For some reason this website gets flagged as a fishing site with an Orbit router.
Compare this to other tech news today.. a marginal iPhone upgrade. Our priorities are wrong.
Was this a successful ignition?
Web link is flagged by Avast has containing a malware payload.
> Lee Margetts at the University of Manchester, UK, says that the physics of fusion reactors is becoming well understood, but that there are technical hurdles to overcome before a working power plant can be built. Part of that will be developing methods to withdraw heat from the reactor and use it to generate electrical current.
> “It’s not physics, it’s engineering,” he says. “If you just think about this from the point of view of a gas-fired or a coal-fired power station, if you didn’t have anything to take the heat away, then the people operating it would say ‘we have to switch it off because it gets too hot and it will melt the power station’, and that’s exactly the situation here.”