• Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We really should stop talking about “net energy gain” and not taking into account ALL the energy that goes into the process, just the initiation.

    It’s like saying you get net energy gain from pushing a boulder down a hill, not taking into account having to get the boulder up the hill, but just the pushing itself.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s good news, but misleading.

    • methleper@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      The objective number will never be net positive. All that energy has been around in some form since the big bang started. Any measure of the energy “we” put in is subjective by definition. That said, I don’t think the scientists are trying to spin some bullshit. If you’re designing an experiment that measures energy, your starting point must be well defined and precisely measurable or it wouldn’t be repeatable. You don’t want to muddy up the results worrying about where all the materials and equipment come from. That’s the engineering that comes after the science.

      • quicksand@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t say never, but you’re right that we should measure the system based on it’s output once it starts running. The important thing is to prove that the concept can be net positive. If you can get a long enough life out of it then the manufacturing impacts are negligible

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Slightly misleading, but… look, when up until now the boulder would just fall back crushing you each time you tried to push it down the hill… then having it roll down a few feet is an accomplishment. Not a great accomplishment, not particularly practical either… but still a big difference from getting crushed by it 🙂

    • Pseu@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, the typical way of measuring q does measure the energy it takes to get the boulder up the hill, but not the inefficiency of the machine to get the boulder up there and the ineffency in extracting its energy as it goes back down.

      There’s a lot of unsexy research that could make fusion come a whole lot sooner. More efficient powerful lasers, better cooling methods and design for superconducting electromagnetics, more efficient containment methods and more thought on how to extract energy from the plasma efficiently, and then making it cheap enough to build and maintain that we can actually afford to build them.

      • Oliver@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of incredible science would be involved. And much much more money and a lot of time.

        If we (humanity) could achieve that, that would be really cool.

        But: how much solar-, wind- and battery-farms could we built with the same money and in much less time?

        Fusion is great, but it will probably not be the solution of the energy demand we currently have. Nevertheless it’s something we should pursue furthermore. But we shouldn’t bet everything on it.

        • interolivary@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But: how much solar-, wind- and battery-farms could we built with the same money and in much less time?

          Why would it have to be either / or? Fusion research funding is frankly ridiculously low as it is, so it’s not like it’s eating into funds that could be used for building renewable power stations.

            • interolivary@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah it’s mind-boggling how underfunded fusion research is, considering the potential payoff. Fission is great in many ways, but it requires finding and handling spicy rocks & their by-products that will make your DNA fall into pieces if you’re not careful, which is not so great.

              Fusion would be clean and damn near free energy (in the sense that the fuel isn’t rare or expensive), and unlike renewables you’d get output practically 24/7 and at massively better W/m2 (eg wind generator parks take up a lot of space). We need both renewables and a reliable and non-polluting steady state generation method, and regular nukes have a lot of downsides (even the modular designs.)

    • SamboT@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think scientists care about how lamens percieve their accomplishments.

      Edit: lemons not lamens