It looks like the next couple years could be very interesting.

I think ATM we just "broke even". So the energy coming out is more than the energy put in to the reaction.

But that still doesn't mean it's making energy. Because the tools are not efficient so they require even more energy provided to them in order to put the energy in to the reaction.

If that makes sense.

So 100 energy in = 50 energy in to the reaction = 70 energy out.

Love reading about fusion energy. It will be a huge breakthrough when it happens.

Peak fusion!



There I said it first, I own that one.

No.

Can we achieve fusion? Yes
Can we achieve self-sustaining fusion? No.
Can we achieve self-sustaining fusion in useful quantities? No
Can we achieve self-sustaining fusion in useful quantities for extended periods of time? No
Can we achieve self-sustaining fusion in useful quantities for extended periods of time at a realistic price? No
Can we achieve self-sustaining fusion in useful quantities for extended periods of time at a realistic price and actually do something with the energy? No
Can we achieve self-sustaining fusion in useful quantities for extended periods of time at a realistic price, within reasonably safe containment and actually do something with the energy? No

If we see it in my lifetime, I'll be surprised.

While I'm generally in favour of the application of Betteridge's law, a lot of those questions are actually kind of subjective. What is a 'realistic price' for a potentially virtually free energy source? What is an 'extended period of time?' it doesn't matter if you can only do something for two seconds if you can then immediately do it for another two seconds, and so on. And 'do something with the energy?' What does that even mean?

We can make a sustainable fusion reaction now, on a very small scale. We can't make a sustainable fusion reaction that is sufficiently energy positive to be a viable source of mass power generation. Will we see that in our lifetime? I genuinely have no estimate of that (If I did, I'd know who to be buying shares in...) but it's not unfeasible IMO.

We won't have fusion as the primary national energy source in our lifetime, the infrastructure costs of doing that even once we have a viable 'fusion power station' design are utterly staggering. But I wouldn't be entirely shocked if in our lifetime there was a 'proof of concept' fusion power station operating somewhere in the world producing enough power to supply say a small town. At that point, it's just a matter of scaling.

Of course none of this means we should reduce our research and investment into other sustainable power systems and finding ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Those are all Good Things of themselves.

Cheap enough for a single medium-sized nation to be able to buy and build a reactor without crippling their economy or having to have an international whip-round


An extended period of time would mean the length of the reaction being longer than the time taken to cool down, clean and prepare the reactor for another ignition. At the moment, the reactions last tiny fractions of a second.

A production reactor would have to work for years at a time without requiring any internal maintenance.


Well, once the energy is released from the fusion reaction, the real aim of the game is to convert it to electricity. We can't do this yet


This is the point though - we can't.

A self-sustaining reaction is one where, once ignition is achieved, the reaction on its own produces enough energy to keep the reaction going. All one has to do at this point is feed the fuel in.

We can't do that even on a small scale yet - not even close

But even that isn't enough. The reactor would have to be able to power itself and its safety & control systems. That's a whole different pint of prawns - especially if electro-magnetic confinement is used.