What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
39 Comments
- badqat, on 11/09/2009, -0/+23Very interesting technology. Achieving fission is great, but we've known for years that fusion was the 'holy grail', so to speak.
So...how long until the kooks claim this will end the world? - bookelly, on 11/10/2009, -1/+16LISA! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!
- HeyyyJoe, on 11/09/2009, -0/+13The big question really is: Will we achieve fusion and implement it into our grid before solar energy?
I don't know if there really are many major drawbacks to solar energy other than the fact it will take a lot of land and panels to generate sufficient energy to power our country, but our grid will probably have a combination of fusion and solar energy. - Bobby1978, on 11/10/2009, -0/+7I have my crowbar ready.
- TheMachine1, on 11/10/2009, -0/+5This is how Mr Fusion works?
- uptwolait, on 11/10/2009, -2/+7This will end the world!!!
- nyxerebos, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3While this is truly awesome, it's the first I'd heard about this thing's military focus - other articles have been 'big lasers, cool!' - seems kinda sucky they have to have a military reason to do this. One would think bountiful energy and the advancement of mankind were reason enough.
- mstrebe, on 11/10/2009, -1/+4My God! It's full of stars!
- nullcodes, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3Wow, nobody ever thought of those aspects. Good thing you pointed it out before we went ahead and ordered 10,000 of these plants without doing a basic feasibility study.
- MaxxusFlamus, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2that photo of the Energy Secretary and the Director of NIF-
I'm pretty sure this is one of those instances where the guy being given the tour could teach a thing or two to the guy giving the tour. - rusty0101, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2Actually fusion is not the most efficient form of energy we know, that would be anti-matter/matter annihilation. However making that into a usable energy supply is a bit outside of our current engineering capabilities. Substantially further than Fusion reactors are likely to be.
- Silentnite85, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2It's going to end the world!!!?!?! Why won't someone think of the children!! Don't xray fuse my children!
In all honesty, they'll start saying that as soon as someone figures out how to sound out "implosion". - nullcodes, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2"Scientist tend to forget when doing these experiments it takes energy to build stuff that goes into them and keep it in working order. A lot of them are just worried about surpassing a goal that is at this moment just getting more energy back than is put into the lasers which is an achievement but is just a first step since if is not much more than this could be totally useless for large scale sustainable energy production."
That statement is grossly idiotic .. which scientist is that stupid?
All cost estimates I have seen always include the cost to build the plant, the maintenance cost, and the fuel cost and amortize (basic accounting) that to estimate the cost per kilowatt. It's done with every single energy cost estimate. It's done when they estimate the per kilowatt cost of everything from solar plants (which would be way cheaper than coal if people ran around ignoring captital costs), nuclear fission plants etc.
Also, do you seriously think scientists intend to stop once they slightly surpass energy payback? - Fr0stbyte124, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2Awesome, now we're just 20 years away from cold fusion!
- rjey, on 11/10/2009, -1/+3Any drawbacks? I think the one where the sun doesn't shine for half the day and clouds really screwup the output are pretty major drawbacks.
- JustinTX, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2Unfortunately solar power output isn't reliable enough for base-load generation. That is the major drawback and the reason we must make fusion work.
- shawnfromnh, on 11/10/2009, -1/+2It will provide more power than the power of the laser's.
OK fine, BUT will it provide more power than it takes to run the plant, refine the fuel, cover the energy needed to create the hardware needed to run the plant. Sure it's great they are getting greater output but unless it's more than the power to run and maintain ALL aspects of the powerplant it actually would cost energy to run the plant. I have no idea how much energy that would mean but it would have to be a substantially higher percentage by far to make it worthwhile to build and run a plant like this. I think you'd need to have an at least doubling of power to make it sustainable. Also if there is waste it takes energy to move, dispose of, and maintain the waste facility which is a factor when you figure plant energy usage. Heck you could also maintain that the people driving to work use energy if you wanted to cover all the bases and I imagine a plant like this would require a lot of worker and some might drive a long way to get to work.
Scientist tend to forget when doing these experiments it takes energy to build stuff that goes into them and keep it in working order. A lot of them are just worried about surpassing a goal that is at this moment just getting more energy back than is put into the lasers which is an achievement but is just a first step since if is not much more than this could be totally useless for large scale sustainable energy production.
- uptwolait, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE
- Casedot, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1but this is a laboratory, not a plant.
- TheGuruStud, on 11/10/2009, -1/+2Mr. Fusion is an alcoholic. He doesn't go to work.
- Kungfumantis239, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Fusion is the most efficient form of energy we know. The sun is one giant fusion reaction.
- Fr0stbyte124, on 11/19/2009, -0/+1Would you say you could "fuse" them together to produce a worse joke?
- Kungfumantis239, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1You realize the military budget goes to medical research as well right?
- Androne, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1I really don't think that will happen. One of the main issues with Fusion is it's hard to sustain the reaction
- shamanking911, on 11/10/2009, -2/+3Spiderman 2...
- planetidiot, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1So is being 20 years away from X
- rusty0101, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1You already have the Delorean. Right? Because if you haven't bought yours yet, and started the rest of the modifications, it won't matter how many acronyms are in use, when other people have theirs, you're likely to be left converting that Pinto.
- Androne, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1cold fusion is a really bad joke...
- imkookoo, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Well, I don't know if this finding will be the end of the world, but what scares me is this paragraph from the article:
Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science in the nation's national security enterprise. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; reduces the global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad.
.... - kpkpkp, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1They are complementary technologies - why must you pick one?
- nullcodes, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1"Scientist tend to forget when doing these experiments it takes energy to build stuff that goes into them and keep it in working order. A lot of them are just worried about surpassing a goal that is at this moment just getting more energy back than is put into the lasers which is an achievement but is just a first step since if is not much more than this could be totally useless for large scale sustainable energy production."
That statement is grossly idiotic .. which scientist is that stupid?
All cost estimates I have seen always include the cost to build the plant, the maintenance cost, and the fuel cost and amortize (basic accounting) that to estimate the cost per kilowatt. It's done with every single energy cost estimate. It's done when they estimate the per kilowatt cost of everything from solar plants (which would be way cheaper than coal if people ran around ignoring captital costs), nuclear fission plants etc.
Also you seriously think scientists intend to stop once they slightly surpass energy payback? - JustinTX, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1While I do wish we as a species would do at least do some things for altruistic reasons, the sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of our technological advancements are directly related to our need/desire to kill things including each other.
- nyxerebos, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1that makes sense
- stillhateyou, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1I think a large part of the reason they're pointing out the military aspect of this is to help justify funding the project. Lawrence Livermore is, first and foremost, a nuclear weapons lab with it's primary focus being on security and reliability of the United State's stockpile of nuclear weapons and materials. Saying that NIF can be used to simulate certain conditions achieved otherwise only in a nuclear blast is how they get money under the umbrella of stockpile stewardship. And while that's most definitely something this project will be used for, I'd be very surprised if that was the reason LLNL wanted to build it. After all, there are other ways of simulating those conditions.
- manbeef, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1are you retarded? Like *****, do you know anything about what is going on here? And you make a reference to Spiderman?! This is serious *****, ***** your ***** pop culture references.
/nerd rage - jabelli, on 11/10/2009, -0/+0***** Yeah! One step closer to plasma cannon!
- hedge41, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1What those eggheads need are less acronyms and useless organizational titles. I'll believe in this "breakthrough" when it's powering my flying Delorean.
- ThatsNotPudding, on 11/10/2009, -5/+3I smell pork in a barrel.
- appleseed1234, on 11/10/2009, -9/+1I'm certain the Republicans will find a way to spin this in favor of their anti-competitive corporate puppeteers.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is