• Null User Object@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    5 months ago

    Any announcements like this coming from China should be taken with a huge grain of salt the size of… China.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yep. They‘re putting out what they call huge breakthroughs on a weekly basis for months and make headlines. By the time they have been put into perspective or straight out debunked and torn to shreds by the global scientific community, they already squeezed out another wild claim to overshadow criticism. Rinse and repeat. There is a reason the overwhelming majority of AI generated slob studies come from China. They want fast results and know the press won‘t really read them and instead just quote whatever they claim.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    What we need to do is find some way to make a giant fusion reactor and put it in the sky and get energy from it that way.

    But that’s just a pipe dream…

    • FatCrab@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      5 months ago

      What we need is robust decentralized multimodal energy production fit for the local area where it is installed and contributing to a well maintained distributed grid with multiple redundancies and sufficient storage so that incidental costs are minimized and uptime is effectively 100%. Energy is a tool and its generation is a category of tools, whining about people developing a better screwdriver rather than only using hammers is counterproductive when we’re trying to build a house for as many people as possible that doesn’t fucking kill everyone.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I’m whining about China spending very little on current green energy technology while building more and more coal plants and taking advantage of these sort of PR stories.

        I can’t help it, I’m one of those people who whines about climate change.

        • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          5 months ago

          ‘spending very little’???

          They produced more new green energy than the total capacity of green energy for the rest of the world combined in 2024.

            • dnick@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              Probably because they have a billion months to feed and a ridiculously inefficient incentive mechanism for progress in general. Kind of amazing that they put emphasis on green tech at all, except for the fact that they have the bodies to through at it and it’s something the rest of the world values as well.

            • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              In a generation they went from a famine every decade to the end of famines, in a second generation they went from a industrial age economy with most of its people living in extreme poverty to eliminating extreme poverty and some of its people living on par with those in the wealthiest nations. In this generation they have raised the standard of living of their poorest from a poverty the US hasn’t seen in a century to that of middle class Americans in the 1980s. In order to accomplish this, massive amounts of electricity is needed. That lifestyle is naturally wasteful as it takes electricity for granted, but it’s better by most accounts. This is on top of being the world’s factory and the electricity use that entails.

              In short, yes, they need both, and nuclear which they’re also the leader in. Unlike the West they do have plans to get off coal as a power source, and the amount of work they’ve done eliminating coal usage near cities by itself is commendable, compared to its contemporaries like the US.

              • socsa@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                The poorest parts of China are still much poorer than any middle class. Most rural Chinese still do not complete high school.

                • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  And yet they own large farms that are tax free that they can earn money off of. The few low industrialized parts (currently representing less than 200 million) don’t have schools or massive infrastructure, but also have guarantees their way of life and making money is secure until they do have access to those things. And Xinjiang alone shows it’s not an empty promise; going from one of those regions you’re referring to, to a region that rivals Vietnam or Malaysia by itself.

                • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Yeah, mao fucked up, like the US fucked up during its great famine, sorry dust bowl. And then no famine ever again.

                  To your second point, of course you can’t leave if you’re a criminal (every nation on earth has this policy) or in severe debt to the government (most nations have this policy), but you can leave under pretty much any other circumstances. I didn’t click your link but even you wouldn’t be spreading the conspiracy theory of secret global police that kidnap random yellow people for the cpc, right?

                  To your third point, coal plants and any other steam generators are easy to convert over to each other once built. A nuclear plant and a coal plant share 70% of their equipment. Building one lays the foundation for the other. If you need quick base load expansion, you can’t really beat coal or diesel, and continually expanding the quality of life for 1.4 billion people requires constant base load expansion… Even better if it can later be converted into near infinite power sources like nuclear.

            • Carl@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Last year, China commissioned 96 GW of new coal production and commissioned 356 GW of wind and solar. This was the most coal production China has built in a single year since 2015, and it was still less than the amount of renewables that they put on it.

              I wish China could wave a magic wand and have their entire energy grid go green, but the truth is that their middle class is still growing, and with it the demand for electricity, and even with the massive amount of spending they’ve put into wind and solar those forms of power simply can’t keep up with the rising demand on their own, so coal remains a necessary part of their multimodal grid with multiple redundancies and sufficient storage.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                “The climate has to get worse for the benefit of the middle class” is a weird argument.

                • Carl@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  If that’s what you think I was saying then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The USA and Lockheed Martin have been making PR stories about fusion for over a decade, while increasing emissions.

          I really hope at least one of these is not bullshit.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s too bad there isn’t some sort of way we could store electricity in some sort of containment.

        Then we could do stuff like take electrically-powered devices with us wherever we went! Think of how handy that would be!

        • Lumiluz@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Yeah! We could use such technology to trap this “artificial sun” instead, and then have a steady stable output throughout the night for things that use a bunch of electricity but run constantly, like water filtration plants and material processing facilities.

          Great idea! But I guess more research is needed to make this work for the things that use the MOST electricity, instead of small portable devices that use a fraction of the electricity

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Batteries will never be enough for full down time store. Anyone who’s saying otherwise is selling you batteries.

          Just try to do some paper napkin math how much lithium batteries can store and how much we’d need to just satisfy current demand, not even talking about the near future.

          The only battery technology that has promise is good ol’ hydro but it’s only accessible to a few places around the world and in no way sustainable.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Good thing there are options other than batteries. Which I have already linked to.

            Also, I am amused that you are suggesting batteries will never have enough storage in a glowing article about non-practical fusion power.

  • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    Not a word about how much energy went into the process and how much was harvested…

    I can create plasma using a candle and a microwave.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not a word about how much energy went into the process and how much was harvested…

      A 17 minute runtime in a Tokamak an incremental step on the path to success. You’re in the kitchen looking over the shoulder of the chef saying the steak he’s just put in the pan isn’t cooked enough yet. He knows, but you can’t have the steak on your plate cooked to perfection until he does this current step he’s on.

      I can create plasma using a candle and a microwave.

      In 1964 you could build an honest to goodness fusion reactor copying the Farnsworth Fusor, yet that would never be on a path to a sustained fusion reaction with a net energy gain. The work in the article is.

    • Fermion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Producing energy is not the goal of this facility which is why they don’t report on it. The useful output is in refining control and heating methods so that when power producing facilities are built, they can operate continuously. On that front, 17 minutes is very impressive. At the speeds at which the particles in a fusion plasma move, that time frame is essentially an eternity.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    So what are the limitations of running the reactor for longer? Is it containing the plasma becoming infeasible due to heat or other constraints or does the reaction inside the plasma fizzle out?

    • girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I believe that the issue is that the plasma loses stability and the self-sustaining state is lost.

      Think of it like a top that runs on fuel but needs outside intervention to get moving. As long as the top’s rotation is stable and has fuel supplied, it can theoretically run forever, but if it loses stability and starts to wobble then it needs an immense outside intervention to retain stability or just tumble until it settles.