• Baggie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Idk dude, we already have the sun and wind but they hate that stuff too, despite it being very close to free. Hell they’ll probably bitch about fusion causing a surplus of power outside peak loads.

      If it doesn’t perpetuate the broken ways we currently do things it doesn’t give their buddies money, so it’s woke or something else bullshit.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well, if I lived in the world of American liberals and conservatives I was taught about growing up, the game would be over the moment fusion power became cheap, and everybody would be happy.

      In the real world though? We’ll wait way too long, then get excited when it finally starts to happen, and then right before The Big Day some smooth brained asshole will blow up part of the reactor or fly a plane into the facility or something.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Plastic Straws. Plastic cups. Wrapping indvidual food items in plastic and then putting them in a larger plastic bag which you carry home in an even larger plastic bag.

      • njordomir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The food has been impregnated with microplastics as well. This machine runs on sugar, but someone put oil in the tank. :-/

        • EndRedStateSubsidies@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          The ironic thing is the human body runs on fat and a huge portion of our illness stems from the insane amount of sugar we consume.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cST99piL71E&list=PLE8LmUoWei5Qp5Nz7C4FMNs6hGNx7M3Jg&index=2

          Summary: In 1984 our group published the first modern study of the effects of adapting to a low carbohydrate high fat diets on athletic performance. I have spent the next 31 years expanding on this research. In my presentation I will present the results of that research program and conclude with our exciting new evidence for the role of low carbohydrate diets and ketosis in the prevention of whole body inflammation in athletes training daily at very high loads. I will also present evidence to show that elite ultra-endurance athletes have an unexpectedly high capacity to oxidize fat during exercise and so potentially to run at fast paces for prolonged periods without the need to ingest exogenous fuels.

          The 1928 Bellevue Stefansson Experiment McClellan W, et al. JBC 87:651,1930 http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.f… Keto-adaptation Demonstrated Vermont Study Phinney et al JCI 66:1152, 1980

          • njordomir@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Thanks for sharing. As a frequent cyclist who loves cheese and doesn’t drink soda or eat many sweats, I feel like this will be an interesting read.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      How ks the drill baby drill crowd going to compete against mini stars in a can?

      Nu-Cu-Lar Bad? That’s…about as far as they’ll make it. To be fair, that might be as far as they need to. It’s all the oil companies will approve of them learning, at least.

      Of course, it sounds like the big problem of how to remove more power from it than you spend keeping it reacting remains an issue, presuming they can continue to extend reaction lifetimes to be functionally unlimited.

  • Placebonickname@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Meanwhile in America we’re trying to make macdonalds cheaper by bundling an extra sandwich to go along with a value meal…

    • Jericho_Kane@lemmy.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      America would blow up a fusion reacto, call it dangerous, elon musk has a lot of things to say about it and then it would be illegal worldwide. Have you guys heard about coal? We already fixed it, just burn coal.

        • weker01@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          That was such a culture shock when I went to the us for the first time.

          In Germany and many places in Europe do not think of burgers as sandwiches. I was so confused when I ordered a sandwich and got something like a burger.

          I expected something like this

          I expected something like this. My confusion must’ve been quite the sight, the waitress even seemed concerned. Tasted great though.

          • catloaf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Only difference between that and a burger is a burger is usually on a roll, not slices of bread. (And a burger is always hot, but then so are some sandwiches.)

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      IIRC it was expected because previous record from China was essentially a trial for this one. It all happens under ITER project so it’s not that much of a race.

      • ZJBlank@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Good shit. I’d rather this be a global cooperative effort rather than a jingoistic dick-waving contest.

        • Sceptiksky@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s several cooperative and competitives projects. Diversity is not bad for science anyway. ITER itself involve tons of countries.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Good. The only thing that was quite good about the cold war was the competition.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s not what this is, and even then, that competition wasn’t even good. You had two countries hoarding technological advancements for themselves, with everything having to be discovered twice.

        This is a worldwide collaboration, where each assists the others, and it’s a much better way of making progress. See ITER.

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I should’ve replaced ‘quite’ with a more clear ‘remotely’ but you’re absolutely correct

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Guarantee you they weren’t generating a whole lot of power though… And if you can’t do that part then what’s the point?

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well, the first ones didn’t fly at all, they usually just killed the inventor.

        That’s basically where we are today with fusion, they don’t work at all yet. Luckily it’s not killing people.

      • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yeah, and we measured them to the purpose of flight… Not wingspan, or how soft the wheels were.

        So maybe we should measure technology that’s about generating power by…

        I’ll let you fill in the blank.

        P.S I have a “perpetual” motions machine that can run for 30 minutes, are you interested in investing?

        • Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not equivalent. Let’s measure the aircraft performance by its ability to carry passengers between capital cities.

          It’s baby steps and we need to encourage more investment. Not dismiss the Wright brothers for being unable to fly from New York to London after ten years of development.

          • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Verified electrical output, the answer is verified electrical power generated.

            …as in we should measure lower generation experiments by how much power they generated.

            Isn’t that obvious?

            • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              They weren’t trying to generate electricity in this experiment. They were trying to sustain a reaction. As you said in another comment, they are different problems.

              Converting heat to electricity is a problem we already understand pretty well since we’ve been doing it basically the same way since the first power plant fired up. Sustaining a fusion reaction is a problem we’ve barely started figuring out.

              • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                I don’t think we do have a means of converting this heat energy into electrical energy right now. With nuclear we put radioactive rods into heavy water to create steam and drive turbines…

                What’s the plan for these fusion reactors? You can’t dump them into water, nor can you dump water into them… I don’t believe we have a means of converting the energy currently.

                • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  The idea is to have water or molten salt cool the walls of the torus from outside, and those drive ordinary turbines like any other generator. The main issue is that particles fly out of the confined plasma donut and degrade the walls, whose dust flys into the plasma and reduces the fusion efficiency. They’re focusing on the hard part - dealing with the health of plasma sustainment and the durability of the confinement walls over time. Hot thing that stays hot can boil water or salt to drive regular turbines, that’s not the main engineering challenge. I get your frustration where it feels from news coverage that they’re not focusing on the right stuff, but what you’ll likely eventually see is that the time between “we figured out how to durably confine a healthy plasma” will quickly turn into “we have a huge energy output” much like inventors puttered around with flight for hundreds of years until a sustained powered flight design, however crappy, finally worked. From that point, it was only 15 years until the first transatlantic flight.

                • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  The walls get hot, you absorb the heat from the walls with a fluid. You use the fluid to heat water, you use the steam to drive a turbine, you use the turbine to turn a permanent magnet inside of a coil of wire. In addition, you can capture neutrons using a liquid metal (lithium) which heats the lithium, which heats the walls, which heats the water, which makes steam, which drives a turbine, which generates electricity.

                  If you poured water onto them they wouldn’t explode. 100 million degrees Celsius doesn’t mean much when the mass is so low compared to the mass of the water.

                • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Most fission plants transfer the heat away from the reactor before boiling water. The same can be done with fusion.

                  The main difference with fusion is you have to convert some of the released energy to heat first. Various elements have been proposed for this.

        • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          LLNL has achieved positive power output with their experiments. https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st

          No fusion reactor today is actually going to generate power in the useful sense.

          These are more about understanding how Fusion works so that a reactor that is purpose built to generate power can be developed in the future.

          Unlike the movies real development is the culmination of MANY small steps.

          Today we are holding reactions for 20 minutes. 20 years ago getting a reaction to self sustain in the first place seemed impossible.

          • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Predicted fusion energy and energy actually harvested and converted to usable electricity are not the same thing. Your article is about “fusion energy” not experimentally verified electrical output.

            It’s a physicist doing conversion calculations (from heat to potential electricity), not a volt meter measuring actual output produced.

            • tburkhol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              If you’re not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                If you’re not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.

                Leaving the arguments up to this point aside (because I am not agreeing with or supporting @DarkCloud), your comment on its own doesn’t make much sense. In general, the beauty of of a steam turbine electrical generator is that you don’t have to care how the heat gets generated. You can swap it out with any heat source, from burning fossil fuels, to geothermal, to nuclear, to whatever else and it works just fine as long as the rate of heat output is correctly calibrated for the size of the boiler.

                • tburkhol@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  That’s my point: fusion is just another heat source for making steam, and with these experimental reactors, they can’t be sure how much or for how long they will generate heat. Probably not even sure what a good geometry for transferring energy from the reaction mass to the water. You can’t build a turbine for a system that’s only going to run 20 minutes every three years, and you can’t replace that turbine just because the next test will have ten times the output.

                  I mean, you could, but it would be stupid.

              • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                We were absolutely not sure how fire really works (low temperature plasma dynamics and so on) when we used it in caves eons ago.

                • scarabic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  We also did not build turbines then.

                  Also, a campfire is not plasma, so you probably shouldn’t be building any turbines either.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s almost as if fusion is a significantly more difficult problem to solve than powered flight

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          A fusion reactor has already output more power than its inputs 3 years ago. Running a reactor for an extended period of time is still a useful exercise as you need to ensure they can handle operation for long enough to actually be a useful power source.

          • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Generating massive amounts of heat and harvesting that and converting it to power are two (or three) different problems.

            • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Agreed. But just to go along with the flight analogy proposed earlier, it took hundreds of years from Da Vinci’s flying machine designs to get to one that actually worked.

              • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                In 1932, Walton produced the first man-made fission by using protons from the accelerator to split lithium into alpha particles.[5]

                We’ve been at this for coming up to 100 years too.

                Let me know when they actually generate power. I don’t want another article about a guy jumping off the eifle tower in a bird suit. A successful flight should be measured by the success of the flight.

                Power generators should be measured by the power generated.

                0 watts. Franz Reichelt went splat on the pavement having proven nothing.

                America, the UK, France, Japan, and no doubt other places have been toying with fusion “power” for 90 years… We’ve created heat and not much else as far as I can tell.

                • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Fission isn’t fusion, the first artificial fusion was two years later in 1934. That gives us a mere 332 years to beat the time from Da Vinci’s first design to the Wrights’ first flight

                  0 watts. Franz Reichelt went splat on the pavement having proven nothing

                  He demonstrated pretty clearly his idea didn’t work.

                • JGrffn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  At least learn a little bit about the technology you’re criticizing, such as the difference between fission (aka not fusion) and fusion (aka…fusion), before going on a rant about it saying it’ll never work.

                  None of the reactors are being built with output capture in mind at the moment, because output capture is trivial compared to actually having an output, let alone an output that’s greater than the input and which can be sustained. As you’ve clearly learned in this thread, we’re already past having an output, are still testing out ways to have an output greater than an input, with at least one reactor doing so, and we need to tackle the sustained output part, which you’re seeing how it’s actively progressing in real time. Getting the energy is the same it’s always been: putting steam through a turbine.

                  Fission is what nuclear reactors do, it has been used in the entire world, it’s being phased out by tons of countries due to the people’s ignorance of the technology as well as fearmongering from parties with a vested interest in seeing nuclear fail, is still safer than any other energy generation method, and would realistically solve our short term issues alongside renewables while we figure out fusion…but as I said, stupid, ignorant people keep talking shit about it and getting it shit down…remind you of anyone?

        • SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes, but you’re asking how much cargo it can take while we’re barely off the ground. Research reactors aren’t set up to generate power, they’re instrumented to see if stuff is even working.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Hey jackass.

      Net energy production has been achieved. At this point, fusion is a set of engineering problems to be solved. What fuel to use, what material to make the walls out of, how to keep the plasma stable… different tests are experimenting with different aspects of the overall problem and net energy production isn’t the goal of every experiment. If you want to sit in a folding chair next to the scientists yelling “NOPE” every single day until the first commercial reactor opens, feel free, but wow… what a fantastically stupid way to waste your life.

      • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Go suck a dick cunt face. P.S I didn’t read your message or click your link. So your sub-human behavior served no one.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It was about 1800 years between the first steam engine and a practical steam engine. I’m sorry that one or two generations is too long for you.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well, there were a lot of fundamental steps that had to be completed first, not least of which was a high pressure vessel. This all took a lot of materials science, advancement in seemingly unrelated fields, etc., etc. Not unlike fusion technology… The difference is we have 2000 years more advancement than they had when they invented the steam engine.

  • sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Didn’t read the article.

    I have no clue wtf that technology is in detail but wouldn’t it be easy to have a longer reaction time by supplying enough energy? The news should not be how long the reaction lasted but how long it lasted selfreliant.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I read thorough it for the details.

      It was net negative power, requiring 2MW of power to maintain fusion. The major achievement of this particular experiment was doing so without the fusion reaction damaging the containing assembly.

      It was purely a test/demonstration of the containment of fusion-like conditions.

        • Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          You need to be the right amount of high to properly understand fusion. Too far either way, and it doesn’t make sense.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Eh, fusion isn’t that complicated. You push things together and heat them up until they get even hotter on their own. That’s all that’s happening.

        • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Seems like the person wants to learn something, but with zero effort. (i.e. won’t read the article; and certainly won’t look for additional context or information.) So maybe it would be better to post the question into an AI chatbot. You can just ask whatever question, and get some plausible but possibly-bullshit answer; then feel good for satisfying your curiosity.

        • brad_troika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I haven’t read the original comment and don’t know anything about how conversations work but would it not be easier to Google chatgpt?

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why don’t we use “shatters world record” like the pro-China articles where they did this for 16 minutes?

    I know why.

  • meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    France’s 22-minute plasma reaction is a bold stride toward sustainable fusion energy but remains experimental.

    🐱🐱🐱🐱

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is so cool. I remember seeing that Europe is working on a massive mega project to build an even bigger reactor for more experiements. Its costing like 75 trillion

  • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Well, I’m still skeptical, but I have far more trust in France’s reporting than Chinese claims.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, just like all that anti-white sentiment towards the US because we elected a president who almost passes for off-white.

        Though I suppose there could be other reasons if we dig deep enough.

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        China: Spews blatant and obvious lies about everything that does or does not cast a shadow. Heavily censors any source.

        Some guy: I don’t trust information coming from China.

        China (and shills): That’s sinophobic!!

          • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I never said “our” Government wouldn’t lie to us (unless you’re Chinese, in which case they definitely will). I just said that the Chinese government constantly lies, which is easily seen by anyone with eyes.

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        huh, I learned a few new words today

        for others who want to know

        • Jingoism: noun

          1. Extreme Nationalism characterized by a belligerent foreign policy

          2. A bellicose patriotidm; aggressive chauvinism; belligerence in international relations

        • Bellicose: adjective

          1. warlike or hostile in manner or temperment

          2. inclined to war or contention

          3. warlike in nature/aggressive;hostile

        • Chauvinism: noun

          1. Militant devotion to and glorification of one’s country; fanatical patriotism.

          2. Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one’s own gender, group, or kind.

          3. Blind and absurd devotion to a fallen leader or an obsolete cause; hence, absurdly vainglorious or exaggerated patriotism.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        China had a long history of fraudulent science that they need to dig out of to gain a good reputation.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nothing like the very highly reliable pharmaceutical “science” done in the US, amirite?

          Its not like we ever had “science” come from the US that said an extremely powerful opioid wasn’t addictive, amirite?

        • cybersin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Because a shit ton of fraudulent science hasn’t come out of the US or Europe. Nope. No sir.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              You don’t think uncritical and nationalistic dismissal of the “enemy’s” achievements as they must be both strong and weak has a place under “aggressive or exaggerated patriotism?”

              I guess that just makes them a racist then.

              • Tja@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                As far as I can tell by their comment history they are American, so I don’t know how is trusting France to be “nationalistic”. Or “patriotic”. Or aggressive, for that matter. Not a hint of militarisitc feeling either.

                I might be racist too, because I don’t trust what comes out of China as much as what comes from France. Or Germany. Or Switzerland. Or Japan. Or south Korea. Or Australia. Or India. Or Kenya. Yes, it must be racism.

                • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Yes.

                  It must.

                  O R

                  J I N G O I S M, you jackass, because it allows for the inclusion of allies within their nationalist tribalism.

                  Just an FYI, you racist lackwit speaking on topic they couldn’t be bothered to do a surface level reading on:

                  Both tests were done as a part of international collaboration project with the goal of progressing to DEMO:

                  https://www.iter.org/fusion-energy/after-iter