this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
619 points (94.2% liked)

Technology

78584 readers
3309 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In sum, these guys at EAST got the Greenwald limit elevated in their tokamak, which indirectly influences the Lawson criterion: nTTau, density * time at said density * plasma energy released. Lawson is the master finish line for measuring whether a fusion system can actually make more power than it consumes.

To date, when you cross the Greenwald limit, the man/woman in the operators seat should expect the plasma inside the device to become uncontrollable, hurting the reactor by touching the walls or instruments inside, a so-called "disruption". Only a few topologies like the stellerator can exceed the limit, and so far, only by 5x.

But here we have a way to exceed the limit in the much more researched tokamak. This research has positive impact for all but the weirdest/niche fusion devices.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

Artificial sun rising from the EAST? These guys know how to name things.

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 69 points 1 day ago

*Slaps on top of fusion reactor*

"You can boil so much water with this."

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] spacesatan@leminal.space 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

If China's economic ascendancy happened 50 years sooner we would probably already have it. Democracies are allergic to massive capital investments that take decades to pay off.

Obviously the graph is very out of date, US funding is around 600 million 2012 dollars annually and China's is double that.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

A graph is not proof of fusion energy. Yelling at clouds would probably generate more net energy than all fusion research has to date.

It's a dead end. It will never ever work. A combination of civilizational die-back and concomitant reduced energy use and a hodge-podge of renewable sources is the likely future for humanity.

And that's my optimistic take.

My more realistic take is that we are running out of cheap easy energy. The kind of monstrously massive contraption filled with high-tech exotic materials that is a fusion reactor is exactly the kind of thing we will NOT be able to build anymore in the future.

It's the same impasse that kills all the space fantasies (like people who think Avatar is just around the corner). If we HAD the resources to build fusion reactors or mine asteroids, we don't HAVE a resource problem!

And if we have such a resource crunch that we think fusion/space is the only solution, we don't have the resources to do it.

The future is horses, not Star Trek.

Get used to it.

[–] spacesatan@leminal.space 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Oh shit somebody who can accurately be called a doomer. This feels like the time I ran into an actual naz-bol in the wild. I thought they were more of a rhetorical device than actually real.

'it hasn't happened yet so it must be impossible' L take.

The graph is showing DOE experts in the 70s' best guess at when we could have had a successful reactor project with various levels of funding. You'll notice the line for 'actual funding' is roughly half of the estimate for 'functionally never' levels of funding.

The 'fusion is always 30 years away' stupidity ignores the fact that fusion is only 30 years away, if you actually spend the damn money to invest in it which we largely haven't.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Practical power production through nuclear fusion still requires significant developments for it to be realised at scale, though several startups are already planning to deliver it within the next few years.

US-based Helion Energy secured the world’s first purchase agreement for nuclear fusion energy in 2023, promising to provide 50MW of fusion power to Microsoft by 2028.

I mean, time will tell. But that seems a bit sooner than 2100.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 80 points 2 days ago (10 children)

If China has managed to do something that scientists genuinely thought was impossible why are there several nuclear fusion research facilities all over the planet? If it's impossible that seems like a bad use of resources.

I think maybe that scientists thought it was entirely possible, and that's why they were trying to do it.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Scientist: "Scientific discoveries are meaningless when taken out of context."

Newspaper: "Scientist confirms that scientific discoveries are meaningless."

[–] iglou@programming.dev 34 points 1 day ago

Journalist reads "limit" and clickbaits it, typical

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 day ago (12 children)

Is it only me that had the C&C Generals Nuke Cannon tagline going off in their heads saying BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN in a deliberate voice and a heavy Chinese accent?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

This diagram shows the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) for various technologies - i.e. how much does one kWh of electricity cost if you divide the total number of generated kWh by the total cost of the power plant.

"utility-scale solar" means large-scale flat-area solar parks

But will Fusion ever be cheaper than solar?

I doubt it; It's not only about technology costs but also about advantages like decentralization. If you can generate your own electricity in your own back-yard, you're much more independent than if you're dependent on large-scale fusion power. Because that will necessarily be very large-scale and centralized because nobody can set up a fusion reactor in their own back yard.

[–] Piemanding@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

Solar has the problem of storage. You need something like a generator to tide those in-between times. Also you need the signal to be a clean 60 hz and solar apparently isn't very good at keeping the power clean.

[–] Waryle@jlai.lu 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

But will Fusion ever be cheaper than solar?

Will solar with interseasonal storage ever be even feasible?

People like to throw LCOE around, occulting that running countries with solar (and wind) power is plain science-fiction and nowhere close to change, while nuclear (at least fission) is empirically proven to work reliably, even for cheap, costing less than 200 billions of euros in the span of 60 years in France for example.

When you don't have enough sun (or wind), you either have sufficient backup in hydro or solar, or you burn coal and gas.

my take is that 1. you don't need equal supply year-through because big consumers should be able to sleep and reduce their energy intake in the winter. yes i know that is complicated, but sleep is also complicated in nature and evolution still pulled through with it because it does pay off in the long term.

secondly, storage can also be renewable biomass. i have some napkin math sitting around somewhere on my disk that says that about 5% of the yearly energy demand can be covered with basically non-cost "waste" biomass that's basically being burned to get rid of it today. I actually wanted to write a longer post about it in the !bathtubthoughts@discuss.tchncs.de community, i just couldn't figure out how to properly present my calculations yet.

[–] BurnoutDV@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

but isnt it being centralized being the point? I have the (probably not so rare) tin foil theory that big energy spends a lot of money to dampen solar and other decentralized power generation. As a politician you have to ask yourself, do I get nice packages from big energy for not looking so closely when another forest is turned into a hole or do I hope that 20000 random people try to bribe me for something. In terms of money gain for a few big power plant is double plus good. Boring solar might be better for all of us, the rest, but not for the guys calling the shots. This all assumes of course that there is no empathy at all in the local legislation

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Solar is technically fusion though

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Solar is Fusion as a Service or FaaS technology.

[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

The sun is in the cloud(s)?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Slovene@feddit.nl 283 points 2 days ago (16 children)

Meanwhile USA is stealing Venezuelan oil. Good job everbody. 👍

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 144 points 2 days ago (12 children)

I really hate how so many of these articles feel like they need to dumb it down with this “artificial sun” imagery. It feels so condescending. I’d rather learn more about the latest progress with nuclear fusion

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most Americans read at or below a 6th grade level

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So we hear. But the world is not America and this is a British newspaper.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 19 hours ago

To be fair I don't think literacy rates in the UK blow the US out of the water or anything.

[–] mckean@programming.dev 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

articles such as this one usually are optimized for their audience, you just aren't the audience. that's ok. I'm rarely the audience either :) a quick search should give you what you're looking for https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adz3040

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›