• wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    We’ll probably be able to harvest solar power from space then beam it to Earth in a practical way first, than nuclear fusion becomes practical.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Wow, you’re right! We should just build a Dyson sphere around the sun. 100% efficiency achieved. What could possibly go wrong?

          • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Did you understand the person you respond to as saying its inefficient because the sun shines in other directions than the array proposed?
            I’m pretty sure the person talked specifically about the beam from the array to earth being inefficient.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Excluding all the ancillary services, including the lasers that maintained the plasma, which was the principle part of this latest test.

    Factoring everything in, they’re at about 15% return.

    This is still very good for this stage, but the publications are grossly misleading.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      If anything has been consistent about fusion its always them desperately trying to spin babysteps and monumental leaps forward and trying to make themselves seem super clean and safe especially compared to fission.

      • legofreak@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        If anything has been consistent about fusion its always them desperately trying to spin babysteps and monumental leaps forward

        That’s usually the media outlets sensationalising the results to the point where the articles are grossly misleading.

        trying to make themselves seem super clean and safe especially compared to fission.

        That’s just a fact, no need to try. The Fusion process is inherently safe the radioactive byproducts are generally short lived and easier to handle.

        • Rakonat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Fusion is not inherently safe. It has significantly higher rate of neutron discharge for the enegy produced which can damage the reactor vessel and potential to cause nonfuel material to become radioactive.

          Ontop of any power disruption of the system has the potential for radioactive plasma to escape with nothing even remotely equivalent of a SCRAM to bring it back under control.

          The only reason fusion appears safe right now is because its all still developmental phase and any issues are being handwaved as prototyping issues and not treated like the actual potential catastrophes they are.

          • legofreak@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            The total mass of reactants in the fusion chamber is below milligram, some of which is bound in stable isotopes. Even if all of it escaped, it would be far from catastrophic.
            The reaction itself cannot run away on its own because it requires a delicate balance in temperature and density, which will be immediately disturbed if there was a breach in containment.

            The walls will be activated by neutrons, but short of blowing the reactor up, there’s not much chance of materials escaping in a significant amount to pose a danger.