this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
442 points (97.2% liked)

Science

6130 readers
136 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hmonkey@lemy.lol 74 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave!

[–] DaMonsterKnees@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 24 points 1 year ago

We're not Tony Stark, sir.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, but Hawk could ride those pipes way better.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That is one technology that I don't care if China steals secrets to make it happen faster.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 84 points 1 year ago

No need!

The data gathered by EAST will support the development of other reactors, both in China and internationally. China is part of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) program, which involves dozens of countries, including the U.S., U.K. Japan, South Korea and Russia.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we were a smarter society, we’d end our stupid cold war with them and cooperate.

[–] blackluster117@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If they were a more humane society, we likely would.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

More humane like Nazi-America, or more humane like Warcrimes-Russia? Description unclear, please clarify.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 38 points 1 year ago

More humane like the best of us wish to be and the majority of us never will be

[–] guy@piefed.social 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

More humane as in respecting human rights I suppose

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

To clarify, what you're doing is "what-aboutism". Asking China to be more humane is not a comment on anything but China being more humane.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Post-scarcity society def scares capitalists.

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

im pretty sure almost unilaterally, every country would like the solution to near infinite energy regardless. its extremely vital if as a species, ever want to start a colony outside of earth.

the only people against it would be those in the pocket of other forms of energy monetary wise.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 57 points 1 year ago (3 children)

While neat, this is not self-sustaining


it's taking more energy to power it than you're getting out of it. (You can build a fusion device on your garage if you're so inclined, though obviously this is much neater than that!)

One viewpoint is that we'll never get clean energy from these devices, not because they won't work, but because you get a lot of neutrons out of these devices. And what do we do with neutrons? We either bash them into lead and heat stuff up (boring and not a lot of energy), or we use them to breed fissile material, which is a lot more energetically favorable. So basically, the economically sound thing to do is to use your fusion reactor to power your relatively conventional fission reactor. Which is still way better than fossil fuels IMHO, so that's something.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 14 points 1 year ago (19 children)

It seems like it's probably too late.

Even if we crack fusion power today, I can't see it being deployed cheaply enough and quickly enough to compete with solar/wind+batteries. By the time we could get production fusion plants up and ready to feed power into the grid, it'd be 2050 and nobody would be interested in buying electricity from it.

Even in a world already powered 100% by renewables, fusion is attractive for high energy applications. For a current example see training of LLMs. However there are Industries with immense power requirements like Aluminium smelting that could use fusion power as well.

So far humans have found applications for all energy they were able to produce.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Fusion would provide orders of magnitude more power than solar. There's a limit on how much we can practically get from solar, fusion would allow us to exceed that.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What I would like fusion to do is power space ships

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I think if we figure out nuclear fusion there will be induced demand for energy, in applications that were previously infeasible: desalination via distillation instead of reverse osmosis, direct capture of CO2 from the atmosphere, large scale water transport, ice and snowmaking, indoor farming, synthesized organic compounds for things like carbon sequestration or fossil fuel replacement or even food, etc.

Geoengineering might not be feasible today, but if energy becomes really cheap we might see something different.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Helion has an interesting take on fusion reactors that generate power using electro magnetism and Copenhagen Atomics are trying to create Thorium reactors. I hope they will work better than the boiling they use in tocamac reactors

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what an incredible achievement. rome wasn't built in a day and real.science takes time and effort. so much effort by these scientists!

[–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm so used to hearing that this technology is 10 years away, or whatever the old adage was, that i can't believe we've been seeing actual progress on this front in the last few years. Maybe it will actually happen eventually!

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

Well, there's been incremental progress all along. I remember reading about milliseconds being a big accomplishment at some point.

Also, it's pretty heavily dependent on the exact plasma in question. One hot enough to do lots of fusion will probably be different, so this isn't the finish line. Relevant XKCD.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone needs to bash these scicomm journalists over the head until they stop using the words "artificial sun"

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Also, where's the study? Is it even peer reviewed?

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Living in the UK I suspect you have the same problem we have. Plenty of people capable of doing all the impressive shit China is doing (science, infastructure, whatever) and all of them being starved of funding as all the money dissapears into gigantic blackholes of backroom deals where huge amounts of money are spent on vague things that never seem to materialize or even be adequately explained; but whatever they are they sure do generate enormous profits for the cronies of whoevers currently in power.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Forget artificial suns, let me tell you right now how to make an artificial moon:

  1. Be a robot.
  2. Pull down pants.
  3. Bend over.
  4. Point robo-crack towards recipient
  5. Artificial Moon.
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I feel like little fusion has kind of missed the boat. It's been "just a few decades away" since I was in school, and that's a good while ago now.

We can already get limitless clean energy from the real sun.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

Here's why it's been so long:

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. We should do both

  2. There is no two.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Can't wait for my Trumper boss to bring this up at work again as "Did you hear China secretly replaced the sun?"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago

I'm noticing in these comments that the tech bros that want to solve climate change by magical technological advances instead of using what we have had an interesting effect: some people on the other side have grown tired of the real technological advances that would actually help.

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Good job scientists!

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Meh, net gain is the point, long cycles well be useful for production. Useful, eventually. Cart before the horse, otherwise.

load more comments
view more: next ›