News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved by floxy on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @12:59PM (#33972902)
>The Q needs to be something like 500 to 1000

Why wouldn't a final Q of 50 be economically viable? Interest on capital costs? Other?

Re:US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved by Tuna-Fish on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @02:09PM (#33974123)
Inertial confinement fusion requires fairly expensive targets to collapse. To make it economically viable they have to produce a lot more energy per target destroyed.
Re:US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved by londons_explore on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @02:27PM (#33974376)
> fairly expensive targets

The targets are only expensive because they aren't produced at scale yet.

They are the exact kind of thing a machine could churn millions of per day out, and then use them at the same rate.

Even if the targets were made of expensive materials (eg. platinum), most of that platinum could later be recovered from the reactor wall, so it still wouldn't be very expensive.

Re:US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved by hutzlibu on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @05:03PM (#33976626)
"most of that platinum could later be recovered from the reactor wall, so it still wouldn't be very expensive. "

And recovering comes for free?

Every step costs energy (or money).

There is no working design yet. It is waay too early to make any predictions about how scaling could reduce costs. Scaling can even increase costs, if it depletes limited resources like tritium.

Re:US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved by pfdietz on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @01:03PM (#33972983)
Capital cost, cost of individual targets.
Re:US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved by andruc on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @01:55PM (#33973909)
If you've done the math to determine the threshold, you may as well show it already
Re:US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved by pfdietz on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @01:59PM (#33973963)
I'm repeating what I've heard. Personally, I suspect even that wouldn't reach the goal of being competitive.