Fusion “Breakthrough” Won’t Lead to Practical Fusion Energy [Immediately]

Happy?

Adding that word is a very big change from the original title. Compare these other hypothetical titles:

> Wright Brothers Plane Won't Lead to Practical Flight

> Rocket Engines Won't Lead to Human Spaceflight

> Mold Spore Cultivation Won't Lead to Penicillin Breakthrough

and so on.

I agree with you but are we sure this ignition thing has proven we can use fusion for energy? Or was the key step towards it?

I’m guessing the Wright Brothers (and the equivalent of media/intellectuals at the time) didn’t know they had a sure thing early on either.

Usually these “tipping points” are defined in retrospect aren’t they?

That's why the premise of this article is ridiculous.

Agreed. It's only a useful devils-advocate type position. Something journalists love doing to generate clicks.

> Or was the key step towards it?

Sure. But watching a bird fly is a key step towards making a 747 too.

The energy that came out of the fusion reaction was more than the energy in the laser beam that ignited it. But the energy that went into the laser was about 100 times more than the energy that came out, so we've gone from -99.5% efficiency to -98.5% or something like that. Is that a key step? I suppose. Is it major progress? Maybe. Does it get us substantially closer to practical fusion? No. Not by a long shot.

Yes. Exactly. So then why is the article trying to define them?

This is overly pedantic.

You just need to read past the first sentence. They immediately qualify their statement. In the same font size as the headline...

The headline is deliberately designed to be more controversial than the article body is... perhaps so that one might, say, bait you into clicking it? :)

If only there was term for this. Let me sleep on it, I'll get back to you.

It's not overly pedantic to expect headlines to not be the exact opposite of a true statement. Contradicting the first sentence with the second sentence doesn't make the first sentence any more true.

Seems pretty easy to qualify their headline with one word

With a material change to the title that changes what it means? Yes!

I'm not saying it can't happen, but those fuel pellets are awfully expensive to make.

Even if you fix all the other issues (laser efficiency, actually generating all the energy that was released - the blanket needs to absorb and produce more power than was put in and therefore will not be as efficient, waste disposal and fuel pellet replacement), the pellets themselves sound like they take MejaJoules to even make, in the form of extraction transportation, refinement, and housing.

Gold is a rare earth, diamond is not as rare as it once was but even CVD methods take 1000 deg f Temps, hydrogen is relatively cheap but still costly to produce and store.

Perhaps there is another combination of materials that are cheaper to produce/manufacture, but this is the first and largest question to be answered, energy ratio and mechanics questions aside.

Until then, it's far from inevitable that this can be done, the hidden costs are probably many order of magnitude higher than directly estimated.

Yes, because the other headlines implies there's no reason to continue research

These have different meanings. The original title implies it will never happen. This title implies it could take time.

Why the flippant response?

It might. I think most people expect tokomaks to be more practical, but generating power from inertial confinement is at least theoretically possible. It might even be reasonably cost-effective if someone can figure out how to manufacture the hohlraums/fuel capsules cheaply.

Big if. Chemical problems seem harder than nuclear ones. Less absolute science, more a matter of getting lucky.

This is ACTUALLY what science is. Discovery.

Is that relevant? I think the point is that ignition has been demonstrated. That gives people confidence that it is possible and can only accelerate research.

That thermonuclear ignition can be technologically achieved has, unfortunately, already been demonstrated. It has not yet been demonstrated in a way that seems to be leading to practical power production, and that goes for this result, too.

Lawrence Livermore director Kim Budil is being misleading in saying that this is necessary first step. Ignition will be a necessary step along the path to practical fusion power generation (if it can be achieved), but it is far from clear that inertial fusion is on that path.