More Responses to the Fusion Net Gain

At the Washington Post Megan McArdle is elated:

This is a long way from the dream of nuclear power that is safe (no worries about what to do with spent fuel rods!) and so abundant that it will be “too cheap to meter.” Scientists have been chasing this dream since the 1950s, so long that it has become a mordant joke: “Fusion is the energy of the future … and always will be.” For now, that old saw remains true; the reaction would have to generate hundreds or thousands of times more energy than went into it to begin to be an economical source of power. The hurdles to get there are enormous, possibly the most complicated engineering project humanity has ever undertaken.

So it’s probably premature for anyone to dance around the house in their bathrobe, singing “Clean, green energy for everyone!,” but … nope, actually, going to do the happy dance anyway. Scientists have accomplished a net energy gain from a fusion reaction. This is potentially the biggest news of the decade.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal are more reserved:

The news Tuesday that U.S. scientists have performed the world’s first controlled nuclear fusion reaction that generates a net energy gain is a refutation of American declinism. But don’t believe the hype that a fossil-fuel free world is near if only the government spends more.

Scientists have spent decades studying how to replicate in labs the nuclear fusion reactions that power the sun and stars. The fission reactions that power today’s nuclear plants involve splitting atoms and result in radioactive waste. Fusion entails combining atoms and theoretically could provide abundant, clean energy with no hazardous waste.

Hydrogen, fusion’s input, is the most abundant element in the universe, and no country dominates its supply, unlike some minerals used in lithium-ion batteries and wind turbines. The reactions also don’t generate CO2. But a stumbling block has long been figuring out how to generate more energy from the fusion reactions than is used to ignite them.

In the experiment that resulted in Tuesday’s breakthrough, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory used 192 lasers to heat and compress hydrogen atoms at more than 180 million degrees Fahrenheit. The reaction released 3.15 megajoules of energy for every 2.05 megajoules of input—with some major caveats.

The lasers are less than 1% efficient and used about 300 megajoules. As Lawrence Livermore director Kim Budil put it: “300 megajoules at the wall [socket], two megajoules at the laser.” Generating electricity from fusion would require such reactions to be performed every second of the day, a vast increase in laser efficiency and reduction in their size.

There’s good reason to be excited about the breakthrough, but the Biden Administration is overselling its immediate impact. “This milestone moves us one significant step closer to the possibility of zero-carbon abundant fusion energy powering our society,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said.

What the experiment proved is that scientists can recreate the physical reactions in stars. But scaling the technology and making it commercially viable by most scientists’ accounts will likely take another few decades.

while at Big Think Ethan Siegel is even more negative:

For the first time in history, that milestone has now been achieved. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) has reached ignition, a tremendous step towards commercial nuclear fusion. But that doesn’t mean we’ve solved our energy needs; far from it. Here’s the truth of how it’s truly a remarkable achievement, but there’s still a long way to go.

[…]

There are a myriad of takeaway points from this new developments, but here’s what I think everyone should remember about nuclear fusion as we move forward into the future.

  • We really have passed the breakeven point: where the energy incident on a target — the key energy that triggers a fusion reaction — is less than the energy we get out of the reaction itself.
  • That threshold is just over 2.0 megajoules of incident laser energy, far less than many who asserted 3.5, 4, or even 5 megajoules would be required to achieve the breakeven point.
  • A new facility, one with lenses and apparatuses designed to withstand these new energies, must be constructed.
  • A prototype energy-generation plant will need to leverage still-developing technologies: safely chargeable capacitor banks, large systems of lenses so that successive fusion-generating shots can be fired with a new set of lenses while the recently used set can be “healed,” the ability to harness and convert the released energy into electrical energy, energy storage systems that can hold and distribute the energy over time, including during the time between successive shots, etc.
  • And the dream of a home fusion plant that lives in your backyard will have to be relegated to the far future; residential homes cannot handle megajoules of energy being pulsed through them, and the needed capacitor banks would create a substantial fire/explosion hazard. It won’t be in your backyard or anyone’s backyard; these fusion generating endeavors belong in a dedicated, carefully monitored facility.

Even with this undoubted breakthrough I doubt we’ll see practical fusion in my lifetime. It’s still on the horizon. The horizon is a little closer now but it’s still on the horizon.

3 comments… add one
  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    For an view on the achievement from a physicist aimed at a semi-technical audience, I recommend this one by Daniel Jassby.

    To put it in perspective; with nuclear fission, the concept of a nuclear reactor was postulated in 1933, the key theoretical scientific concepts were discovered in 1938, the first artificial nuclear reactor (Chicago Pile-1) was activated in 1942, and the first commercial nuclear reactor was activated in 1957.

    I think the announcement puts us somewhere between 1938 and 1942 with regards to fusion. It isn’t quite Chicago Pile-1 in demonstrating a practically complete system, but shows important parts of it are scientifically feasible. (As an aside, its quite bonkers the first nuclear reactor was built in the middle of a metropolis in the basement of university building).

    At the minimum, based on fission, fusion commercial viability is 15 years away, and given every achievement in fusion has taken several times the equivalent for fission, its probably more like 15-20 * 3 = 45-60 years away.

    That’s if fusion is commercially viable. Fusion is attractive because its fuel is hydrogen which is practically infinite (technically deuterium which is actually far more rare). But the cost, limits of fuel isn’t what hobbles nuclear fission power. Uranium is a small portion of the cost of nuclear power; and the Earth has centuries worth of uranium; we even throw away 90% of the uranium used for nuclear power. Nuclear power’s issues is the steep initial costs of building the plant, which is due to the fear of radiation. Nuclear fusion shares the problem of radiation.

  • steve Link

    Visited number one son at MIT last week. While he is doing computer stuff I dont understand he has also been talking with some of the physics people. They are also thinking this is still a ways off. Of note, they were generally pro nuclear and thought we should have more fission power also. Were all fairly liberal it seemed and fans of DeWan, the nuclear engineer from there that does the pro-environmentalism-pro nuclear TED talks.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    The energy in/energy out calculations are suspect. Best to wait to see if the claim holds. Also note, they sustained it for billionths of a second……….not 30 seconds or 5 minutes.

    The primary technical problem is creating the pressure required to create the reaction. Stars have unimaginably high pressures due to unimaginably high mass. Recreating that is no small matter. (see what I did there)

    BTW – If it was true, and commercialized, electric cars would suddenly make all the sense in the world. The problem would be reduced to infrastructure and battery storage, and eliminate electricity source CO2 emissions.

    I suspect this is more PR and seeking funding (Lawrence Livermore gets a fraction of what we waste on solar grants) than a practical breakthrough.

Leave a Comment