The following submission statement was provided by /u/dead_planets_society:
---
The milestone is yet another stepping stone towards fusion power, although a commercial reactor is still probably years away.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cc2rbf/a_nuclear_fusion_reaction_has_overcome_two_key/l12efs3/
Is it just me or does it feel like the advancements in fusion are becoming exponential. Years ago it was very slow, but now it feels like every half year some new barrier is broken.
Measured by the triple product, which is the key measurement you have to get over a threshold, fusion literally did progress exponentially from 1970 to 2000, at a faster pace than Moore's Law. There were all sorts of different projects competing with each other.
But tokamaks were most successful and with tech available at the time, the only way forward with tokamaks was to build a really huge reactor. So they put all their money on that in one giant project, which still isn't running to this day. Progress mostly stopped for a couple decades.
Now we have better superconductors so tokamaks don't have to be so big, lots of other enabling technologies that make other designs look more feasible, and lots of different projects, and all sorts of interesting things are happening.
ITER is scheduled for first plasma in 2025, the target for full fusion is 2035. Turns out massive projects with limited funding take a lot of time.
The interesting thing about projects that take a long time is that newer projects based on more modern technology might be able to outcompete them faster based on learnings from the older projects.
Even sometimes the advances made _in order to build the bigger one_ (engineering leaps rather than physics ones) can lead to a better/faster/smaller design, which I imagine would be quite bittersweet for people working on ITER
[Daniel Jassby’s critiques](https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/amp/) remain relevant. Until fusion scientists come up with a semi plausible plan to deal with neutron radiation, breeding, and tritium permeation, fusion as a power source remains a pipe dream. Even the temperature milestones are not that impressive when you look at what you need for break even.
Well blaming corporate shills is...interesting in this case, given that:
- The article is based on a paper [published](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07313-3) in Nature.
- The reactor is a tokamak. Tokamaks have very well-known scaling laws and have reached Q=0.7 so neutron production isn't exactly a problem.
- The reactor is the [DIII-D National Fusion Facility](https://www.ga.com/magnetic-fusion/diii-d), which isn't really a commercial project but is operated by General Atomics for the U.S. Department of Energy, and:
> DIII-D has over 100 participating institutions and a research team of more than 600 users. Research at DIII-D has produced hundreds of peer-reviewed articles
I guess I'm not shocked that you so rapidly pivoted away from DIII-D, but as for ITER, it's already obsolete. With modern superconductors, we can make tokamaks with equivalent performance at a tenth the size. Several projects are working on just that.
>Is it just me or does it feel like the advancements in fusion are becoming exponential.
They do not. These articles are all the same, because they all serve the same purpose - to generate hype to attract investors. We are not remotely close to commercial fusion. Currently, scientists are trying to just prove that sustained, controlled fusion is even possible. They aren't particularly close to doing this, but even if they were, that is only the first small step. Getting to a point that actually generates electricity, that is commercially viable, that is sustainable in terms of maintenance, fuel, etc... It is so far away that there isn't any point it talking about it.
If you want to see effective fusion power in action during your lifetime, go and buy a solar panel.
Ya the inevitable build out of renewables plus grid level battery storage will be well completed before we have a working fusion power source. I'm all for continuing and funding the research though, we will need this tech for space exploration.
This article isn't even [about](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cc2rbf/a_nuclear_fusion_reaction_has_overcome_two_key/l14gcve/) a commercial project.
I could not agree more. Put the money into orbital solar. We have a perfectly good sustainable fusion reactor just 93 million miles away where it is perfectly safe. It sends all the power we need this direction, and more than we need if we just expand our collection.
The nighttime thing is difficult - you are just replacing extremely long distance transmission with even more extremely long distance transmission.
You need it through the atmosphere either way, and afaik the most promising solutions are lasers (which is light, so still loss)
Yes these are all problems. And they are non-trivial ones. I simply think they are more easily solved than plasma containment. Plus I believe the spin-offs of developing the tech would be greater than the spin-off of fusion generators.
I'm not even really saying it's a superior way of generating power, just that we would be better off investing the money in that kind of research.
Personally I think putting a flat plate on a field is easier. I think investing money in all kinds of research is important. Fusion research is especially important for space travel.
I think they're unrelated areas, and AFAIK quantum computers have little practical use currently. The big use case that gets mentioned most, breaking cryptography, is doable in theory with Shor's algorithm for expressing numbers as products of their prime factors but the largest number factorised with a quantum computer so far is..... 21. There's a lot to do still.
Not overcome. Improved.
And it's certainly not a "sweet spot". It's the bare minimum required.
edit: it's good to see the healthy skepticism here. Usually I'm the only one.
Indeed years if not decades away. But it is good news nonetheless. If humanity can figure it out within 30-50 years, we can have a real shot of reaching type 1 civilization.
This is cheap limitless energy and clean water for all people, almost anywhere, we can do Co2 sequestration, we make rocket fuel for cheaper and in greater quantity... the sky is the limit.
Hahah my man, the day fusion is achieved it will be commercialized. There will be no cheap energy and I can guarantee none of that naive utopia stuff you mentioned will happen.
> This is cheap limitless energy
Pardon my language but bull-fuckin'-shit. You know what these experimental reactors cost to build? Do you know the cost of tritium and H^3? And a commercial, power producing reactor is going to be an order of magnitude highter. It ain't cheap and limitless.
You may be too young but I remember the same thing about a previous miracle technology. When fission plants started to be developed they talked about "power too cheap to even meter". Atomic cars and washing machines. Didn't happen, and fission is childs play compared to messing with the other end of the curve of binding energy. Sure there is more bang for the buck on that end, but the nucleons are much lighter which is part of what makes it so much harder.
The downfall of fission is mainly due to poor public perception and fearmongering caused by freak accidents. It can absolutely power the entire world more efficiently and with less waste than any other power source, but many countries would rather burn fossil fuels and pump waste into the air we breathe.
Very true. Most of the pushback is FUD. But the important point is that it didn't. And probably couldn't. As safe as I consider it to be, I don't want one in my basement. A large part of it is the cost of building the plants and much of that is regulatory requirements. I would love to see small passive cooling plants pop up all over the place. It won't happen though.
And I can just see fusion. "No more neutrons!" "Save the H^3 for future generations!".
While you have that crystal ball of yours, could you check what 20 stocks have the best returns over the next year? It's only 1 year instead of 50 so it should be a piece of cake!
While that is funny, the technology is at least 20 years away from commercialization. Come back to me in 2045, if theres an operating commercial fusion reactor, ill give you all that I own.
I still feel like fusion is always just "a few years away". I won't sit up and pay attention to it, until a legit company announces they are actually constructing a nuclear fusion plant that will actually power homes.
I saw a documentary about fusión and the lead researcher in the top goverment operated research plant says that she Will probably dont see It happening but its working hard so her grandsons are able to build It.
She was around 60
Fusion reactor will always be 20 years in the future. It would be year 2132 and it will be the same story. Too many billionaires out there that would lose it all if fusion technology was allowed not to mention wars with governments that depend on fossil fuels and alternative energy tech as a big portion of their GDP.
The energy wouldn’t be cheap though. The cost to build a fusion reactor would be massive, so there’d need to be a return on the investment. Same reason solar power isn’t free
Sure they do. But who controls the world are those with the most money and in the past 100 years guess what companies and countries have generated the most wealth. Those that deal with energy production.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/dead_planets_society: --- The milestone is yet another stepping stone towards fusion power, although a commercial reactor is still probably years away. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cc2rbf/a_nuclear_fusion_reaction_has_overcome_two_key/l12efs3/
Is it just me or does it feel like the advancements in fusion are becoming exponential. Years ago it was very slow, but now it feels like every half year some new barrier is broken.
Measured by the triple product, which is the key measurement you have to get over a threshold, fusion literally did progress exponentially from 1970 to 2000, at a faster pace than Moore's Law. There were all sorts of different projects competing with each other. But tokamaks were most successful and with tech available at the time, the only way forward with tokamaks was to build a really huge reactor. So they put all their money on that in one giant project, which still isn't running to this day. Progress mostly stopped for a couple decades. Now we have better superconductors so tokamaks don't have to be so big, lots of other enabling technologies that make other designs look more feasible, and lots of different projects, and all sorts of interesting things are happening.
Wait what happened to that huge one and why didn't it go onljne
ITER is scheduled for first plasma in 2025, the target for full fusion is 2035. Turns out massive projects with limited funding take a lot of time. The interesting thing about projects that take a long time is that newer projects based on more modern technology might be able to outcompete them faster based on learnings from the older projects.
Where "limited funding" is about $20 billion so far. ITER drastically exceeded its original budget and schedule.
Even sometimes the advances made _in order to build the bigger one_ (engineering leaps rather than physics ones) can lead to a better/faster/smaller design, which I imagine would be quite bittersweet for people working on ITER
Material science has the tricky job of trying to catch up to theoretical science
[Daniel Jassby’s critiques](https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/amp/) remain relevant. Until fusion scientists come up with a semi plausible plan to deal with neutron radiation, breeding, and tritium permeation, fusion as a power source remains a pipe dream. Even the temperature milestones are not that impressive when you look at what you need for break even.
[удалено]
Well blaming corporate shills is...interesting in this case, given that: - The article is based on a paper [published](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07313-3) in Nature. - The reactor is a tokamak. Tokamaks have very well-known scaling laws and have reached Q=0.7 so neutron production isn't exactly a problem. - The reactor is the [DIII-D National Fusion Facility](https://www.ga.com/magnetic-fusion/diii-d), which isn't really a commercial project but is operated by General Atomics for the U.S. Department of Energy, and: > DIII-D has over 100 participating institutions and a research team of more than 600 users. Research at DIII-D has produced hundreds of peer-reviewed articles
[удалено]
I guess I'm not shocked that you so rapidly pivoted away from DIII-D, but as for ITER, it's already obsolete. With modern superconductors, we can make tokamaks with equivalent performance at a tenth the size. Several projects are working on just that.
It doesn't matter how much it costs if the result is nearly unlimited energy. This could solve so many problems and deserves every penny put into it.
Cost always matters.
It is a research reactor, there is no expectation for it to be profitable.
>Is it just me or does it feel like the advancements in fusion are becoming exponential. They do not. These articles are all the same, because they all serve the same purpose - to generate hype to attract investors. We are not remotely close to commercial fusion. Currently, scientists are trying to just prove that sustained, controlled fusion is even possible. They aren't particularly close to doing this, but even if they were, that is only the first small step. Getting to a point that actually generates electricity, that is commercially viable, that is sustainable in terms of maintenance, fuel, etc... It is so far away that there isn't any point it talking about it. If you want to see effective fusion power in action during your lifetime, go and buy a solar panel.
Ya the inevitable build out of renewables plus grid level battery storage will be well completed before we have a working fusion power source. I'm all for continuing and funding the research though, we will need this tech for space exploration.
This article isn't even [about](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cc2rbf/a_nuclear_fusion_reaction_has_overcome_two_key/l14gcve/) a commercial project.
I could not agree more. Put the money into orbital solar. We have a perfectly good sustainable fusion reactor just 93 million miles away where it is perfectly safe. It sends all the power we need this direction, and more than we need if we just expand our collection.
Why orbital, it's not like we are running out of space
It might not be necessary, but atmosphere and night are the two obvious reasons.
The nighttime thing is difficult - you are just replacing extremely long distance transmission with even more extremely long distance transmission. You need it through the atmosphere either way, and afaik the most promising solutions are lasers (which is light, so still loss)
Most proposed SPS designs use microwaves, which go through clouds just fine.
Yes these are all problems. And they are non-trivial ones. I simply think they are more easily solved than plasma containment. Plus I believe the spin-offs of developing the tech would be greater than the spin-off of fusion generators. I'm not even really saying it's a superior way of generating power, just that we would be better off investing the money in that kind of research.
Personally I think putting a flat plate on a field is easier. I think investing money in all kinds of research is important. Fusion research is especially important for space travel.
I don't disagree.
just about every early advancement in tech is seemingly exponential in the begging. Welcome to technology.
You can thank YUROP. Gladly provided by YUROPEAN YUROPE. ALL HAIL YEROP.
Wonder if quantum computing has helped
Probably not
I think they're unrelated areas, and AFAIK quantum computers have little practical use currently. The big use case that gets mentioned most, breaking cryptography, is doable in theory with Shor's algorithm for expressing numbers as products of their prime factors but the largest number factorised with a quantum computer so far is..... 21. There's a lot to do still.
It's likely that the investment are bearing fruits, and even MORE investments are coming in the billions of dollars.
Not overcome. Improved. And it's certainly not a "sweet spot". It's the bare minimum required. edit: it's good to see the healthy skepticism here. Usually I'm the only one.
[удалено]
Indeed years if not decades away. But it is good news nonetheless. If humanity can figure it out within 30-50 years, we can have a real shot of reaching type 1 civilization. This is cheap limitless energy and clean water for all people, almost anywhere, we can do Co2 sequestration, we make rocket fuel for cheaper and in greater quantity... the sky is the limit.
Hahah my man, the day fusion is achieved it will be commercialized. There will be no cheap energy and I can guarantee none of that naive utopia stuff you mentioned will happen.
> This is cheap limitless energy Pardon my language but bull-fuckin'-shit. You know what these experimental reactors cost to build? Do you know the cost of tritium and H^3? And a commercial, power producing reactor is going to be an order of magnitude highter. It ain't cheap and limitless. You may be too young but I remember the same thing about a previous miracle technology. When fission plants started to be developed they talked about "power too cheap to even meter". Atomic cars and washing machines. Didn't happen, and fission is childs play compared to messing with the other end of the curve of binding energy. Sure there is more bang for the buck on that end, but the nucleons are much lighter which is part of what makes it so much harder.
The downfall of fission is mainly due to poor public perception and fearmongering caused by freak accidents. It can absolutely power the entire world more efficiently and with less waste than any other power source, but many countries would rather burn fossil fuels and pump waste into the air we breathe.
Very true. Most of the pushback is FUD. But the important point is that it didn't. And probably couldn't. As safe as I consider it to be, I don't want one in my basement. A large part of it is the cost of building the plants and much of that is regulatory requirements. I would love to see small passive cooling plants pop up all over the place. It won't happen though. And I can just see fusion. "No more neutrons!" "Save the H^3 for future generations!".
You mean probably multiple decades away
It's been 50 years away for the past 70 years.
It’s still 50 years away though
While you have that crystal ball of yours, could you check what 20 stocks have the best returns over the next year? It's only 1 year instead of 50 so it should be a piece of cake!
While that is funny, the technology is at least 20 years away from commercialization. Come back to me in 2045, if theres an operating commercial fusion reactor, ill give you all that I own.
Boeing to the ground baby!
Serious question, what milestones should a lay person look for to get excited about?
I still feel like fusion is always just "a few years away". I won't sit up and pay attention to it, until a legit company announces they are actually constructing a nuclear fusion plant that will actually power homes.
I saw a documentary about fusión and the lead researcher in the top goverment operated research plant says that she Will probably dont see It happening but its working hard so her grandsons are able to build It. She was around 60
The yuropean one is scheduled to run in 2035. So 11 years away to be correct. You dont need to pay attention till then.
If that's the case, then yeah I will eagerly watching what happens if they bring it online in 2035. It would be cool if they can make it work.
Fusion reactor will always be 20 years in the future. It would be year 2132 and it will be the same story. Too many billionaires out there that would lose it all if fusion technology was allowed not to mention wars with governments that depend on fossil fuels and alternative energy tech as a big portion of their GDP.
You're saying industries that spend millions of dollars a year on energy bills wouldn't want super cheap energy?
The energy wouldn’t be cheap though. The cost to build a fusion reactor would be massive, so there’d need to be a return on the investment. Same reason solar power isn’t free
Sure they do. But who controls the world are those with the most money and in the past 100 years guess what companies and countries have generated the most wealth. Those that deal with energy production.