In fusion reactors there is a lot of talk about the temperatures they reach and the time it manages to work, but all this corresponds more to propaganda publications. The real problem is achieving net energy production and at this point they are not much further ahead than the fusion reactor built by a boy in a garage a few years ago. Achieving nuclear fusion is not that complicated, it is complicated to do it by extracting more energy than invested and this is still a minimum of 10 years away.
The main parameter that determines if a fusion reactor generates net power is called its triple product, equal to the product of the plasma density, temperature, and confinement time. So setting records of time spent at operating temperatures is making important progress towards net power production.
It feels like there’s a lot more positive stories coming out about fusion lately :)
Shoot, maybe it’s finally 9 years away
The only thing fusion can’t do is leave the lab.
KSTAR, KFE’s fusion research device which it refers to as an “artificial sun,” managed to sustain plasma with temperatures of 100 million degrees for 48 seconds during tests between December 2023 and February 2024, beating the previous record of 30 seconds set in 2021.
Wait, but hold on…
I guess technically 120 million != 100 million…
Well, clearly, to be China is against the rules.
I’m honestly more impressed about that last line, running at 70 million for 17.5 minutes. Duration/stability being the key to this tech, that’s pretty impressive.
Does this contribute to warming the planet? 😁
No.
Hopefully it will contribute to warm up everyones home one day.
No, nuclear is a viable addition to other clean energy initiatives.
Particularly nuclear fusion, which doesn’t generate long-lived radioactive isotopes as byproducts of energy production. Nuclear fission still has a place to be sure, but once we crack the dilemmas with fusion all bets are off when it comes to generating huge amounts of clean energy.
Fission gets a bad rap. The amount of waste it produces is minuscule compared to the amount of waste generated by fossil fuels, and it’s generally easier to deal with too. Just needs actual proper maintenance and care.
Biggest and just about onliest problem with nuclear fission is how expensive it is to dry it up, both in terms of time and money.
People acting like coal isn’t radioactive or extremely toxic for everyone around
I don’t think there are too many people arguing against fission who are in favour of coal
You say that but that’s practically Australia in a nutshell, nuclear is explicitly banned for the purposes of energy production
The coal plants are decommissioning due to costs, renewable energy is booming, and (obviously due to the ban) there is no local nuclear industry or expertise. Even if you manage to lift the ban, which nobody is trying to do*, nuclear would not be replacing coal plants here, but might divert renewable funding. In other countries I have no doubt building more nuclear could offset coal, not here.
* The coalition claims to be in favour of nuclear power, but they’ve spruiked it before in opposition, and nothing gets tabled when they’re in power. It’s got as much chance of happening as high speed rail.
It warms one small part of the planet by about 100 million degrees.
It really throws off the average though
Temperature is an average
Climate is an average, temperature is instant.
Temperature is the average measure of kinetic energy across all the matter in the sample
The goal is to get it as hot as McDonald’s coffee
Just hot enough to fuse labias shut
