297
South Korea’s artificial Sun ran for 102 seconds and it could change the future of energy (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

It doesn't.

Fusion isn't as bad as fission or fossil fuel. If they can get it to work. The reactor needs to run continuously (for days) and the energy output needs to be positive. Then it would have a huge impact.

Every energy source as its drawbacks. I.e. Solar panels and wind have the recycling of compound materials issue - it's all glued together. And the environmental impact of source materials production, i.e. neodymium. Mining, refining,...

Some are worse than others. But none is or will be impact free in terms of sustainability or environmental destruction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Fusion isn’t as bad as fission or fossil fuel.

    To date, terrestrial fusion has been a net-negative energy system. That's strictly worse than fission or fossil.

    Every energy source as its drawbacks. I.e. Solar panels and wind have the recycling of compound materials issue - it’s all glued together. And the environmental impact of source materials production, i.e. neodymium. Mining, refining,…

    Do you think we're getting terrestrial fusion without mining or materials compositing? What do you think fusion reactors and their attendant facilities are made out of?

    We're getting into reactionary FUD about wind turbines when we start waxing poetic about the environmental impact of big fan blades and dynamos (which are just as critical for coal and gas plants, btw). At some point, you're still just converting mechanical energy to electrical energy, no matter what system you're proposing. All of that will require industrial metals and conductors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    Fusion isn’t as bad as fission or fossil fuel. To date, terrestrial fusion has been a net-negative energy system. That's strictly worse than fission or fossil.

    My mistake. I did not specify in what regard. I had the waste in mind. Fusion waste is radioactive for a few decades. Fuel wise, there is an abundance of Deuterium, like a gram of it in every bucket of ocean water give or take. Tritium? That's the harder part.

    You are right. It doesn't work yet. And it will be too late to solve the current energy crisis. If they get it working at all. But I see no harm in trying.

    Your remaining statements: I did not intend to say that solar and wind power are bad, but they are not flawless (again: sustainability and sourcing).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Fusion reactors are in prototype experimental stage, of course they use more energy than the output for 102 seconds. Obviously, that's not the goal.

    Write a letter to ITER and tell all those PhDs they are stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •