• kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Yes a q value of 1.53 and a goal of 10 by 2030 which is when it’ll be commercially viable. Its already fantastic but they are currently working on reducing the cost of building a tokamak and increasing yields

      Everyone has been naysaying to me about this for years on here but my finger is on the pulse, the Chinese are gonna do it some-controversy

      • sp3ctr4l
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        14 hours ago

        https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202406/1314447.shtml

        There’s no mention of the actual achieved Q value of the HH70.

        The Q value of 1.53 you are here saying was achieved by HH70 is actually from an inertial confinement system that shoots lasers at tiny pellets, at the NIF (National Ignition Facility) of Lawrence Livermoore National Labs in 2022.

        https://lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition

        3.15 MJ / 2.05 MJ = 1.5365…

        This was widely reported in 2022 as the first time any kind of fusion system produced more energy than it took to operate.

        They’ve since actually exceeded this, getting 5.14 MJ from a 2.2 MJ laser shot in Feb 2024, for a Q of 2.3636…

        Anyway, yes Energy Singularity is aiming for a Q of 10 or greater (and so is ITER), but it is not Energy Singularity that has achieved 1.53 Q, that’s the NIF.

        If you could provide a source where Energy Singularity actually says any of it’s achieved Q values, I’d appreciate it.

        The actual thing being reported here about the HH70 is that it achieved energy discharge, aka, it was able to start up and maintain a contained plasma field.

        … It is pretty funny that fusion reactors are being funded by gacha games though.

      • Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        If anyone’s gonna do it its China. They have the most to gain from reducing reliance on oil and gas imports, and they have the money, institutional knowledge, and manpower to do it.

        I just think its funny that after all the effort expended on experimental designs over the past few decades it turns out the Tokamak is still the best one. USSR stay posthumously winning.

        • Des [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          i’ve been obsessively posting about it since this site started. china is going to dominate the world (in a good way) simply by mass producing commercial fusion reactors and selling them to every nation that wants them. and start a fusion fuel economy. it will be a net gain for everyone, unlike the fossil fuel economy.

          my more crank prediction is a lot of their unmanned lunar research is part of a broad policy of looking for viable helium-3 sources.

          • Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            1 day ago

            My prediction is the Americans will nuke everyone out of spite rather than see a human future where capitalism has no more leverage once fusion is viable.

      • propter_hog [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Yeah! I have been extremely excited by fusion progress lately. It’s like living through the industrial revolution, but it’s the fusion revolution.

      • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        Everyone has been naysaying to me about this for years on here but my finger is on the pulse, the Chinese are gonna do it

        Reminds me of that game where you play as a post-revolutionary government trying to reverse climate change. It lets you research fusion and says there’s some percent chance of getting it done, but it’s actually coded to never work.

    • graymess [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      No fucking way. No actual fucking way. Nuclear fusion, unlimited clean energy, the potential to save the planet from climate disaster, made possible through the power of gamers gambling on big titty anime girls there is just no fucking way this is reality.

      • sp3ctr4l
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Nope, they do not say its energy positive (Q>1) anywhere.

        They say it was ignited.

        That means it successfully ignited, contained and maintained a plasma field for… some amount of time.

        That is of course a huge accomplishment, but there is no mention of input vs output energy.

      • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It hit a q value of 1.53 which means they got 50% more energy out. Their goal for commercial realization is a q value of 10, which they say will happen by 2030. This is Chinese for earlier than that because they love to set a far off date and achieve it earlier. They said the facility for that will be finished in 2027 so that’s when I’d expect the real timeline to start.

        • sp3ctr4l
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          No clue why you’re giving the 1.53 Q value the NIF achieved in 2022 to this reactor which is only reporting that it succesfully turned on, with no mention of energy input vs output, but sure ok.

  • SamotsvetyVIA [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 day ago

    Wanted to learn more and… “CNN did not receive a reply from China’s National Energy Administration when asked whether state-funded fusion research had copied or been inspired by US designs.”