Researchers claim they produced a nuclear fusion reaction with a 50-percent net energy...

[Daniel Sims]

Why it matters: Nuclear fusion has long been considered a holy grail of clean, renewable energy, possibly providing near-limitless power without the drawbacks of fossil fuels or nuclear fission. The jury is still out on whether fusion power will ever be viable, but scientists have made a significant early step on the long road to finding out.

Researchers have achieved the first nuclear fusion reaction that produced more energy than it took to start the reaction. The result represents a significant milestone in nuclear fusion energy development, but we're probably still many decades away from fusion power plants.

The US Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration announced that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory achieved what it calls "fusion ignition" or "scientific energy breakeven." On December 5, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in Livermore, California, used 192 lasers to deliver 2.05 megajoules of energy to a tiny fuel pellet to trigger a fusion reaction generating 3.15 megajoules.

The experiment didn't yield a lot of energy, and it took hundreds of megajoules to power the lasers. However, it shows that a net energy gain from fusion could be possible. Future research would require scientists to design more efficient lasers, then figure out how to create sustained fusion through rapid-fire bursts. If they accomplish all that, perhaps they could discover more cost-effective methods for mass production and integration into the current energy infrastructure.

Other facilities across the globe are also researching nuclear fusion using strategies other than lasers. The DIII-D facility in San Diego operates a donut-shaped "Tokamak" chamber to turn fuel into superheated plasma where fusion reactions might happen.

Nuclear fusion is the process that powers the sun and other stars. In a star, it occurs when hydrogen nuclei — stripped of their electrons by the massive pressure of the star's interior — collide to create helium atoms. Helium atoms have a little less mass than the hydrogen atoms that made them, and the difference is released as energy, which fusion rectors hope to harness.

The NIF accomplishes this by firing lasers at a tube to heat its walls to millions of degrees Celsius, creating X-rays inside. A fuel pellet inside contains the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, and the X-rays force the isotopes to fuse, making helium.

Nuclear fusion can theoretically create enormous amounts of energy compared to current fuel sources without generating greenhouse gases or dangerous waste. However, it remains to be seen if the technology will ever be economically workable.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/96960-scientists-announce-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough.html

 

[VitalyT]

Considering that with the lasers they still ended up spending a lot more energy than they produced, this is a failed proof of concept.

I'm not a disbeliever, but to a casual reader, there's no breakthrough here. The latter would require a successful POC, producing more energy than consumed, in actuality (not in theory).

 

[yRaz]

Considering that with the lasers they still ended up spending a lot more energy than they produced, this is a failed proof of concept.

That's the thing, it was a "net energy gain" It took 2.05MJ to start the reaction and the reaction put out 3.15MJ of energy. The problem is we don't have a way to collect that energy, we can only measure it in labs.

 

[human7]

Considering that with the lasers they still ended up spending a lot more energy than they produced, this is a failed proof of concept.

I'm not a disbeliever, but to a casual reader, there's no breakthrough here. The latter would require a successful POC, producing more energy than consumed, in actuality (not in theory).

There's a couple different aspects to this which makes it both a breakthrough and a net loss of energy at the same time.

1. The amount of energy required to power the lasers: hundereds of megajoules.
2. The amount of energy delivered from the lasers to the fuel pellet: 2.05 MJ.
3. The amount of energy produced by the fusion reaction: 3.15 MJ.

It's going from step 2 -> step 3 that is the breakthrough: previously the amount of energy in step 3 would always be less than step 2.

The next problem (apart from just getting more out of step 3) is increasing the efficiency of the lasers: even though the lasers were powered with tons and tons of energy, only a small fraction of it was output and delivered to the fuel pellet. So the net energy status of the whole system is a loss, but the latter portion of it is the breakthrough.

 

[Vulcanproject]

It's proof of controlled fusion on Earth working in practice, although really we already knew it works on paper.

ITER is what will move the bar if it can be moved. That is what matters most on this path in the near future. It'll either prove within the next ten years or so it is a workable concept on the road to future commercial power generation or it'll collapse on itself and put fusion power back in the box for another 100 years. One way or another ITER should make it clear.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Yeah real annoyed this story when out in mass media stating fusion power is here.
I think this one is where they use a diamond encasement for lasers costing $1 million dollars

They need to be repeatable , high reliability etc .
Traditional designs heat up copper coils for magnets - causing problems

Yes there is a lot of venture capital going into Fusion - with go fast , break things companies - 3 Billion plus I thing - I'm sure most of these investors are just putting a some excess cash in hope and pray - as trillion dollar reward.
Anyway with so many ideas being tested , old ideas now feasible due to superior tech ( faster computers, faster more accurate machinery, better materials - newer magnets etc ) - next decade should really tell if here soon or still 50 years away

 

[bviktor]

Uh, it's not "cold fusion", and that term is never once mentioned in the source article. Cold fusion is 100% physically impossible, according to our best knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

 

[bviktor]

It's proof of controlled fusion on Earth working in practice, although really we already knew it works on paper.

ITER is what will move the bar if it can be moved. That is what matters most on this path in the near future. It'll either prove within the next ten years or so it is a workable concept on the road to future commercial power generation or it'll collapse on itself and put fusion power back in the box for another 100 years. One way or another ITER should make it clear.

It already worked not just on paper but also in practice since 1958. Yes, you read that right.

What didn't work is to get out MORE energy than what we put in. Since a "power plant" is not a power plant per se if it's not producing power but eliminating it.

That's what changed now.

 

[bviktor]

Considering that with the lasers they still ended up spending a lot more energy than they produced, this is a failed proof of concept.

I'm not a disbeliever, but to a casual reader, there's no breakthrough here. The latter would require a successful POC, producing more energy than consumed, in actuality (not in theory).

Yeah, there's no breakthrough, except for achieving something that no one else could in the last 100 years of research on the matter.

 

[Vulcanproject]

It already worked not just on paper but also in practice since 1958. Yes, you read that right.

What didn't work is to get out MORE energy than what we put in. Since a "power plant" is not a power plant per se if it's not producing power but eliminating it.

That's what changed now.

I wouldn't call thermonuclear explosions particularly controlled.

ITER is more important because it has to show a Q factor (fusion energy gain) massively higher than anything before, including this. With the ability to sustain it to boot. This is an extremely short demonstration and not really the hard part. The field has crept towards this landmark steadily. If you asked those involved years ago if it was possible to show these modest results they would say yes, it was likely and realistic. The problem is everything afterwards.

This only shows what was already generally accepted, it was possible. You need to be able to show you can unlock vastly more energy than you put in to even think about designing a way to capture that energy.

Otherwise fusion power is dead and buried for our lifetime. The reality is this all looks like a very big, very expensive and very impractical science experiment. Just how hyperloop looks great in a small scale model but hilariously impractical on the much larger scale you actually need.

I think the like of ITER must be attempted because even at such expense the potential makes it worth exploring. If ITER doesn't really work where you're pumping out Q = 10+ the costs to try again or something else will kill the concept for another few generations.

Some people think that throwing infinite money at technical problems fixes them. They cite big science like the Manhattan project. Truth is most are merely gambits and don't work.

 

[corvard]

Another fake achievement.

 

[Aus spot]

Can the author / quality control person please fix this article. This is not cold fusion! It is very very hot.

 

[neeyik]

Uh, it's not "cold fusion", and that term is never once mentioned in the source article. Cold fusion is 100% physically impossible, according to our best knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Can the author / quality control person please fix this article. This is not cold fusion! It is very very hot.

Thanks for the correction. For news items we also go through as many sources as we have time for, and a few had mentioned ‘cold’ - in retrospect, those sources were probably confused over the fact that the fuel and holder are cooled, but once hit by lasers they get super hot.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Thanks for the correction. For news items we also go through as many sources as we have time for, and a few had mentioned ‘cold’ - in retrospect, those sources were probably confused over the fact that the fuel and holder are cooled, but once hit by lasers they get super hot.

The 'featured article' box (or whatever its called; the group of links in the header of the front page) still calls it "cold fusion".

And all 'real' fusion reactions require cooling. "Cold fusion" does not require cooling, which is why its impossible. Cold Fusion is basically the idea that you can have a nuclear reaction without any waste heat generated, that the change in enthalpy is completely free of entropy, and that all energy from the fusion of two particles is captured as useful energy. If you ever see a system claim is requires "no cooling" (not "passive cooling", thats fine, "no cooling"), then you can safely categorize that system as impossible.

 

[neeyik]

The 'featured article' box (or whatever its called; the group of links in the header of the front page) still calls it "cold fusion".

Good catch - will pass it on to the team. Many thanks!

 

[gamerk2]

There's a couple different aspects to this which makes it both a breakthrough and a net loss of energy at the same time.

1. The amount of energy required to power the lasers: hundereds of megajoules.
2. The amount of energy delivered from the lasers to the fuel pellet: 2.05 MJ.
3. The amount of energy produced by the fusion reaction: 3.15 MJ.

It's going from step 2 -> step 3 that is the breakthrough: previously the amount of energy in step 3 would always be less than step 2.

The next problem (apart from just getting more out of step 3) is increasing the efficiency of the lasers: even though the lasers were powered with tons and tons of energy, only a small fraction of it was output and delivered to the fuel pellet. So the net energy status of the whole system is a loss, but the latter portion of it is the breakthrough.

Do remember though: In a working reactor the reaction should be self-sustaining once started, so you wouldn't have continuous input from the Laser to keep the reaction going. That's the entire point of achieving ignition.

So yes, while the system as a whole was a loss, if the reaction is self sustaining then the output should eventually recoup the energy that went into starting the reaction.

 

[human7]

Do remember though: In a working reactor the reaction should be self-sustaining once started, so you wouldn't have continuous input from the Laser to keep the reaction going. That's the entire point of achieving ignition.

So yes, while the system as a whole was a loss, if the reaction is self sustaining then the output should eventually recoup the energy that went into starting the reaction.

While nuclear fission is typically self-sustaining, I'm not sure nuclear fusion ever will be. The only reason it is self-sustaining in stars is because of their immense gravity. Something that keeps nuclear fusion possible without that gravity, in this case, lasers, still has to be present. The heat itself can't sustain it, since the heat would just cause the fuel to separate and not fuse. I may be wrong, but this is my understanding.

 

[neeyik]

Something that keeps nuclear fusion possible without that gravity, in this case, lasers, still has to be present. The heat itself can't sustain it, since the heat would just cause the fuel to separate and not fuse. I may be wrong, but this is my understanding.

You're not wrong but there's a little more to it. For the reaction to be continuously sustained, two constant aspects are required: pressure and fusible material. The former is needed to overcome the Coulomb barrier between the nuclei, to allow the strong nuclear force to bind the nucleons. In the case of stars, this pressure is applied via the gravitational attraction of the mass of the entire star, not just the fusible material.

In the case of the NIF, lasers heat the structure holding the fusible material. This results in a burst of X-rays being emitted, which in turn heats the surface of the fuel element. The rapid increase in temperature causes an outer layer to blow off and the reaction force to this generates a compressive force on the rest of the fuel. That pressure gets so high that the fuel is crushed to the density required (along with temperature) for the elements at the center to fuse. The reaction then carries on through the rest of the fuel element, releasing a shed load of heat.

So the lasers are only involved in a brief part of the process -- they're not on all the time, heating the material. However, once the reaction is over, the entire thing needs to be repeated again and again, on fresh fuel targets, so in essence, the lasers are going to be on 'all the time' in an NIF-style power station.

 

[mbrowne5061]

You're not wrong but there's a little more to it. For the reaction to be continuously sustained, two constant aspects are required: pressure and fusible material. The former is needed to overcome the Coulomb barrier between the nuclei, to allow the strong nuclear force to bind the nucleons. In the case of stars, this pressure is applied via the gravitational attraction of the mass of the entire star, not just the fusible material.

In the case of the NIF, lasers heat the structure holding the fusible material. This results in a burst of X-rays being emitted, which in turn heats the surface of the fuel element. The rapid increase in temperature causes an outer layer to blow off and the reaction force to this generates a compressive force on the rest of the fuel. That pressure gets so high that the fuel is crushed to the density required (along with temperature) for the elements at the center to fuse. The reaction then carries on through the rest of the fuel element, releasing a shed load of heat.

So the lasers are only involved in a brief part of the process -- they're not on all the time, heating the material. However, once the reaction is over, the entire thing needs to be repeated again and again, on fresh fuel targets, so in essence, the lasers are going to be on 'all the time' in an NIF-style power station.

If anyone ever reads the series The Expanse (highly recommend it), this is basically how the fusion reactors work in that universe. Pellet of fuse-able fuel gets dropped into a chamber (literally), hit with lasers as it falls through the center of the chamber, fusion happens and energy is released and captured, spent fuel pellet continues falling, repeat.
Imo, a tokamak or stellarator is a better candidate for commercial fusion power simply from a process engineering standpoint. But I suppose that will depend on the results of ITER, once that is online and running its experiments.

 

[Aus spot]

And all 'real' fusion reactions require cooling. "Cold fusion" does not require cooling, which is why its impossible. Cold Fusion is basically the idea that you can have a nuclear reaction without any waste heat generated, that the change in enthalpy is completely free of entropy, and that all energy from the fusion of two particles is captured as useful energy.

I have to disagree on this point. Cold fusion is merely that the reaction takes place at or near room temperature. Ie no plasma or lasers heating the nucleus up to create the reaction. The idea that the reaction creates no heat is as you say impossible to our current knowledge of the universe. I can find no definition that says cold fusion requires no cooling after fusion has occurred.

If you look at wikipedia. The experiment that coined the term produced excess heat.

 

[Arbie]

Anyone interested in this should go see Sabine Hossenfelder's Youtube video on nuclear fusion power. She explains how the "power out / power in" ratio is so often misstated. She has a video or two on cold fusion as well.

Hossenfelder is not a "contrarian". She's a highly-credentialed and experienced physicist who gives outstanding straight-shooter talks on interesting and relevant topics. On some of which eg. particle physics and cosmology she herself is an expert. Easily the best science vids I've seen.

 

[mcnabney]

The experiment produced about 1 MJ of energy gain.

Almost enough to run the computer I am typing this on.

It will totally be financially workable once electricity prices go over $50,000 per Kwh.

 

[mbrowne5061]

I have to disagree on this point. Cold fusion is merely that the reaction takes place at or near room temperature. Ie no plasma or lasers heating the nucleus up to create the reaction. The idea that the reaction creates no heat is as you say impossible to our current knowledge of the universe. I can find no definition that says cold fusion requires no cooling after fusion has occurred.

- Fusion of any particle releases energy; a change in enthalpy.

• - A change in enthalpy will result in some amount of entropy
• - Entropy will heat its surrounding environment
• - A heated environment requires cooling if it is to stay at its starting temperature, and the reaction that heated it is to continue.
• - If it doesn't stay at room temperature as a natural part of its reaction, its not "cold fusion"

• If you look at wikipedia. The experiment that coined the term produced excess heat.

  If I were to do that, I would see a scientifically discredited experiment, discredited because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. "Cold fusion" is no more scientifically sound than "perpetual motion".

 

[Aus spot]

- If it doesn't stay at room temperature as a natural part of its reaction, its not "cold fusion"

• 
  If I were to do that, I would see a scientifically discredited experiment, discredited because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. "Cold fusion" is no more scientifically sound than "perpetual motion".

You miss the point. Please supply evidence that cold fusion must stay cold. The point I am arguing is the definition of cold fusion.

My work team consists of phd’s that have worked in or around this field and they agree a fusion reaction causes heat as a by product. They also agree that cold fusion is not related to the action after the fusion is started, but the starting of the fusion process.

The experiment referenced in wikipedia is discredited, but it made popular and defined the term cold fusion. It was discredited as it could not be replicated. Not the terminology.

Now I point to every dictionary definition of cold fusion and the wikipedia article defining the term cold fusion. None of them saying the reaction once started must stay “cold” all stating the start of the reaction is at or near room temperature.

Also what energy are we looking to harvest in fusion? Heat! Just like fission. Just cleaner.

Then the next step is a continuation fusion to fission and back again, a perpetual energy machine. Also theoretical.

 

[Sir Sparkles]

I bet if the US government thought it could be or is being weaponized they would have it solved within a few years. No expense would be spared.