© 2019-2025 Triple Product Inc. Content available under CC BY-NC 4.0. Terms of Use
0 items
-
$0.00
0
© 2019-2025 Triple Product Inc. Content available under CC BY-NC 4.0. Terms of Use
Be the first to know the latest updates
Whoops, you're not connected to Mailchimp. You need to enter a valid Mailchimp API key.
13 Comments
actinium226
Why is the last plot basically empty between 2000 and 2020? I understand that NIF was probably being built during that time, but were there no significant tokamak experiments in that time?
edran
This is a great update! I hope the authors continue publishing new versions of their plots as the community builds up towards facility gain. It's hard to keep track of all the experiments going on around the world, and normalizing all the results into the same plot space (even wrt. just triple product / Lawson criteria) is actually tricky for various reasons and takes dedicated time.
Somewhat relevant, folks here might also be interested in a whitepaper we recently put up on arXiv that describes what we are doing at Pacific Fusion: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10680
Section 1 in particular gives some extra high-level context that might be useful to have while reading Sam and Scott's update, and the rest of the paper should also be a good introduction to the various subsystems that make up a high-yield fusion demonstration system (albeit focused on pulser-driven inertial fusion).
arghandugh
Maybe someday we’ll finally achieve the ultimate dream: an extremely expensive nuclear power plant that needs vast amounts of coolant water and leaves radioactive waste behind.
CGMthrowaway
I heard that NIF was never intended to be a power plant, not even a prototype of one. It's primarily a nuclear weapon research program. For a power plant you would need much more efficient lasers, you would need a much larger gain in the capsules, you would need lasers that can do many shots per second, some automated reloading system for the capsules, and you would need a heat to electricity conversion system around the fusion spot (which will have an efficiency of ~1/3 or so).
Any truth to that?
UltraSane
The money being spent on fusion should be being spent building next generation fission power plants and liquid salt reactors.
dale_glass
It should be noted that "breakeven" is often misleading.
There's "breakeven" as in "the reaction produces more energy than put into it", and there's breakeven as in "the entire reactor system produces more energy than put into it", which isn't quite the same thing.
NervousRing
I've heard of q-plasma and q-total. What is q-science?
gene-h
This will probably need to be updated soon. There are rumors NIF recently achieved a gain of ~4.4 and ~10% fuel burn up. Being able to ignite more fuel is notable in and of itself.
damnitbuilds
Hmm.
How much of this progress is really progress to actual useful fusion power ?
I want to believe, but this does not make that easier.
jamiek88
I’m excited about the new Squids design from the max Planck institute, it’s a design using the lessons learned from the existing stellarator the W7x.
londons_explore
Are there any betting odds on "On-Earth Fusion makes up more than 1% of the world energy supply by 2100?"
0xbadcafebee
Amazing! Commercial fusion energy is only 30 years away.
(it's been 30 years away for 50 years already, but as long as I'm not dead 30 years from now, it's still a good investment…)
deadbabe
If you don’t need a mobile power plant why bother with fusion power instead of something like geothermal? At the end of the day we’re just turning water into steam.