https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition...
What do you find misleading? The ability to study self sustaining fusion reactions without nukes certainly does have implications for fusion, which aligns with their stated goals of researching nuclear physics.
1) this research is weapons research (much less primarily weapons over power research)
2) this research does not currently contend a viable avenue towards breakeven power generation
> Following Hruby, NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Marvin “Marv” Adams showed a NIF target capsule and explained the science behind fusion reactions. Adams said ignition will enhance national security by helping NNSA maintain confidence in the nuclear deterrent, advance the country’s non-proliferation goals and increase national security.
> “The science and technology challenges on the path to fusion energy are daunting but making the seemingly impossible possible is when we're at our very best,” Budil explained. “Ignition is a first step — a truly monumental one that sets the stage for a transformational decade in high energy density science and fusion research — and I cannot wait to see where it takes us.”
> While optimism reigned for the event, Budil cautioned there are still “significant hurdles” and engineering challenges to solve before the commercialization of fusion energy becomes a reality, such as the ability to reproduce ignition many times per minute and making fusion reactions simpler and more efficient.
> “I think it's moving into the foreground and, probably with concerted effort and investment, a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant,” Budil said.
Did anyone seriously believe it was impossible to get "q" > 1 fusion by blasting a pellet of hydrogen hard enough?
---
Significant hurdles != "There is not currently a/no known path"
I'm still toning down from "a path is impossible" which ought to be the consensus.
> a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant
No.
> Granholm added that the unprecedented accomplishment will strengthen national security and moves the world closer to the possibility of an abundant, carbon-free energy source for the future.
> “It would be like adding a power drill to our toolbox for building a clean-energy economy,” Granholm said. “Today, we tell the world: America has achieved a tremendous scientific breakthrough — one that happened because we invested in our national labs and fundamental research. And tomorrow, we will continue to work toward a future powered in part by fusion energy.”
Since the start of the program they have been promoting ICF as a method of power generation. The very fact that they're crowing about net energy gain is because a minimum requirement for a power plant is that the energy that comes out has to be more than the energy that goes in. This is not a requirement for a fusion research machine.
> MAINTAINING THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT
> Stockpile Stewardship
> NIF is a key element of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the reliability, security, and safety of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without full-scale testing.
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif
> For more than 70 years, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has applied science and technology (S&T) to make the world a safer place. While keeping our crucial mission-driven commitments in mind, we apply cutting-edge science and technology to achieve breakthroughs in nuclear deterrence, counterterrorism and nonproliferation, defense and intelligence and energy and environmental security.
It's also intended for energy research, but there's an important distinction between "energy research" and "energy production."
They do weapons. They said they do weapons. What’s the problem.
The general public is not stupid (but they are lazy), when the dust settles and people see that nif never resulted in anything but very tangential results useful for power, they're going to complain about the lack of transparency. Just as they are doing with the whole COVID masking debate. Scientists really dig their own graves sometimes.
There are plenty of other problems to be solved, and a lot of room for higher gain — upgrading the lasers isn't worth caring about until those things have actually been done.
Plus the fuel pellets are too expensive anyway.
NIF's lasers are, I'm told, less than 1% efficient; modern lasers can be 50%-80% if that's what is being optimised for.
There's no reason to bother upgrading those lasers until all the other issues are solved, and even then, as it's an experimental facility not a power station, they may well never bother even if it is the only thing holding them back from a gain of more than 1 as measured wallplug-to-wallplug.
That's kinda promising because the fusion output seems to have nonlinear scaling; they increased laser power 8% and got 230% more output.
This is why there are startups now pursuing laser fusion for commercial energy.
IIRC, thermonuclear bombs are already made with lithium deutride.
Do you mean they're trying to build a thermonuclear bomb without the fission "detonator"? That doesn't make tons of sense to me, since I'd think the test ban treaty would realistically prevent creation of novel types of weapons (because it wouldn't be foolish to rely on a weapon for deterrence that you've never fully tested).