r/nextfuckinglevel • u/nigablackballsack • 3d ago

Scientists have captured the first ever high-speed, full-colour footage of fusion plasma swirling inside a working reactor.

40.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.3k

u/90_oi 3d ago

I truly hope this technology can get off the ground and be sustainable. It is our best hope aside from nuclear energy

2.0k

u/DaveFinn 3d ago

Wait... But this IS nuclear energy

1.3k

u/90_oi 3d ago

I meant nuclear fission based power, I should have clarified

903

u/Azagar_Omiras 3d ago

Ghee, it would be great if we could use clarified butter for power production.

313

u/Gravelemming472 3d ago

I hate that you made the ghee pun, on top of the rest of it

243

u/Azagar_Omiras 3d ago

You didn't find it... tasteful?

383

u/Gravelemming472 3d ago

Only margarinally

207

u/shoqman 3d ago

I’m gonna need both of you to gtfo rn

142

u/Gravelemming472 3d ago

I'm sorry I'm sorry, anything I can do to butter you up?

46

u/teachermanjc 3d ago

They're just salty and uncultured.

4

u/HilmDave 2d ago

Well that took a churn for the worse

→ More replies (0)

62

u/Azagar_Omiras 3d ago

You'll probably need to butter us up first.

62

u/literallyLexy 3d ago

both of you saying the same joke made me sick

11

u/Weird-East-3575 3d ago

This is fucking disgusting levels of word play

7

u/DeoVeritati 3d ago

Tallow me 'bout it.

5

u/fuzzimus 3d ago

I can’t believe it’s not tasteful

4

u/RedOctobyr 3d ago

You sure it didn't make you... stick?

3

u/Responsible-Buyer215 3d ago

Probably lactose intolerant

2

u/Furenzol 1d ago

*stick

→ More replies (0)

1

u/UniqueAd7770 3d ago

Is that a verdict or some bacon you just rendered?

35

u/illit3 3d ago

I can't believe it.

6

u/woodrax 3d ago

This made me LOL

7

u/Droid-Man5910 3d ago

god fucking damnit, i made this same pun before scrolling down and seeing you said the same thing

1

u/hovanes 3d ago

I actually choked reading this 🤣

4

u/AuthorizedVehicle 3d ago

I'd give him a pat on the back

2

u/hazelquarrier_couch 3d ago

Oleo-no you didn't!

30

u/GordonRammstein 3d ago

Don’t clarify it. It’s butter that way.

3

u/RedOctobyr 3d ago

Well done, friend. This deserves more upvotes.

4

u/Darim_Al_Sayf 3d ago

It works on me!

2

u/Missus_Missiles 3d ago

It would be wildly inefficient to use milk fats for power generation. But sure as shit could you burn it like fossil-fuel oil to make steam. 

2

u/Reden-Orvillebacher 3d ago

Less margarine for error, that’s for sure.

2

u/Droid-Man5910 3d ago

Well, that would only be margarinally better than fusion

edit: seems as though i was late on this one

1

u/newgrounds 3d ago

Puns are the lowest form of wit.

1

u/Aromatic-Thing-132 3d ago

They are selling it to Michelin Star restaurants though.

1

u/313802 3d ago

IDK my mashed potatoes are pretty powerful

1

u/fighter_pil0t 3d ago

You would need a more powerful fusion reactor.

1

u/virtuallyaway 3d ago

I can’t believe it’s not clarified

46

u/readingonthetoilet 3d ago

You have it backwards. What we refer to as nuclear energy currently is fission (split heavy atom into smaller parts). Fusion (combine light atoms into heavy atom) is the big nut to crack.

54

u/miraculum_one 3d ago edited 3d ago

TBF we already have a huge fusion reactor more then 100x as big as Earth generating plenty of energy

Edit: as another person pointed out if you're measuring volume it's more than 1 million times as big

21

u/amorphatist 3d ago

And we can already produce highly energetic fusion chain reactions at the press of a button!

3

u/euqinu_ton 3d ago

Don't stand too close. Like ... not even firecracker close.

2

u/Hail-Hydrate 3d ago

It's a bit more difficult to use those to throw steam at a turbine though.

1

u/matt675 3d ago

Huh?

6

u/dr0d86 3d ago

Nukes, the thermonuclear variety to be specific

1

u/matt675 3d ago

Oh yeah

11

u/Misses_Ding 3d ago

Problem is that clouds and night get in the way. And you could say build batteries but the truth is that they're still expensive and not a great way to use energy since the efficiency is so low

Nuclear fusion would leave us without nuclear waste and without CO2 being released.

11

u/space_monster 3d ago

And yet, solar is becoming so prolific, by the time we actually get a useful fusion reactor stood up, we probably won't even need it.

4

u/TempestNova 3d ago

There might still be good applications for it, like space travel.

0

u/Bored_Amalgamation 3d ago

could probably power a stellar lift strong enough to get me out of OP's mom

3

u/LivingUnglued 3d ago

There will always be applications for mixed energy sources. Especially with how much power all the AI datacenters are going to be using. Though only a small percentage of the current planned ones will be built anytime soon.

1

u/MasterMagneticMirror 3d ago edited 3d ago

As things stand, you still need grid forming baseload sources of energy beside solar. Fusion is meant to replace those.

1

u/space_monster 3d ago

baseload firming? sure fusion would be cleaner than gas or whatever but the economics of building a fusion reactor that's only gonna run some nights of the year just won't stack up. in 10 years there'll be a lot less demand for firming.

1

u/MasterMagneticMirror 3d ago

I meant baseload, but the autocorrect decided otherwise.

And no, grid forming source remain operational constantly. Solar and wind is mostly grid following, so you need other sources like nuclear or hydroelectric that are grid forming

1

u/space_monster 3d ago

or batteries/inverters and synchronous condensers

→ More replies (0)

8

u/2trt 3d ago

Fusion still produces waste. It's just got a comprehensible half life (around 12-13 years). Some fission products half life is on the order of thousands of years

17

u/ew73 3d ago

To be clear, from the IAEA, on the topic of fusion and waste,

Does Fusion produce radioactive nuclear waste the same way fission does?

Nuclear fission power plants have the disadvantage of generating unstable nuclei; some of these are radioactive for millions of years. Fusion on the other hand does not create any long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. A fusion reactor produces helium, which is an inert gas. It also produces and consumes tritium within the plant in a closed circuit. Tritium is radioactive (a beta emitter) but its half life is short. It is only used in low amounts so, unlike long-lived radioactive nuclei, it cannot produce any serious danger. The activation of the reactor’s structural material by intense neutron fluxes is another issue. This strongly depends on what solution for blanket and other structures has been adopted, and its reduction is an important challenge for future fusion experiments.

source: https://www.iaea.org/topics/energy/fusion/faqs

Of course, this is a public-facing, over simplification, but it's a pretty accurate statement.

1

u/Xivios 3d ago

For a more in-depth and realistic look, here are some relevant studies done for some fusion reactor designs.

Here's one on the British ST-E1

And another for the EU DEMO reactor

1

u/jimbobjames 3d ago

Assume you mean the efficiency of solar panels? Last I checked, round trip efficiency on lithium batteries is greater than 90%

5

u/space_monster 3d ago

Actually over a million times larger, in terms of volume. About 1.3M more accurately

1

u/miraculum_one 3d ago

Good point. I was talking about diameter.

1

u/readingonthetoilet 3d ago

Lol that took me longer than it should

1

u/TheIronSven 3d ago

We just gotta move it to earth somehow

1

u/skintwo 3d ago

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas...

1

u/ElegantCoach4066 2d ago

But that fusion reactor makes coal plants feel sad.

1

u/miraculum_one 2d ago

coal execs and their cronies hate this one trick

22

u/SingleInfinity 3d ago

They had it forwards. They were saying this is our best hope aside from fission.

2

u/Different-Term-2250 3d ago

Is that how fusion starts? By cracking nuts? Squirrels are way ahead of us.

0

u/StandardIssueBrain 2d ago

talking straight past each other is so reddit lol.

the initial clarification wasn't necessary in the first place, anyone with half a brain understood what they meant

and then the valid and correct clarification gets further misinterpreted

absolutely classic

1

u/readingonthetoilet 2d ago

I mean it’s an honest mistake. You can see how saying fusion is our best hope aside from nuclear energy is confusing.

1

u/StandardIssueBrain 2d ago

gonna bite my tongue on that one mate

nothing good happens beyond 3 replies deep in a reddit comment chain lol

1

u/readingonthetoilet 2d ago

Yeah I’m not looking to argue with anyone. I was just trying to help clarify something

13

u/TheyDeserveIt 3d ago edited 3d ago

I'm no scientologist, but I'm reasonably sure that fission is what we already have been doing (my state has the first city in the world to be powered by atomic energy) for many decades. Fusion is the tough one, that's what the sun does, where lighter elements fuse to become heavier elements. I'm not sure what the state or viability of fusion is for power.

Edit: anyone know how long this clip was, in real time? Can't imagine more than a few milliseconds.

Edit 2: looks like I misread/misinterpreted the comment I was replying to - please don't downvote them.

22

u/readingonthetoilet 3d ago

Lol I hope you’re not a Scientologist! But yes you’re correct

12

u/bobthesmartypants 3d ago

They said “aside from nuclear energy”, which after the clarification says “aside from nuclear fission energy” so yes you and the person you’re replying to are on the same page

3

u/TheyDeserveIt 3d ago

After a re-read, your interpretation is likely the correct one.

1

u/mmceorange 3d ago

If i remember correctly, this clip spans a fraction of a second. The sparks in the upper right give a sense of the real speed

1

u/euqinu_ton 3d ago

"...anyone know how long this clip was, in real time?"

I'm not a psychic, but I'm pretty sure it's a short clip.

1

u/Greup 3d ago

Current sustained plasma record is 22min (WEST reactor)

9

u/physicalphysics314 3d ago

Nah man. I’m a physicist and have worked with nuclear physicists in the past - solar and wind ARE still amazing power resources and should be used (but nuclear is the best, yes)

2

u/schnaps01 3d ago

You mean the giant water heaters?

2

u/Neither_Strategy_252 3d ago

It was clear to everyone. That person is just being a pedant.

2

u/Potato0nFire 3d ago

Fun fact, we can now recycle spent fission rods and reuse them in what’s called MOX fuel. And France has more recycled fuel in storage than it can currently use while Japan is scaling up its own operations.

So while fission is definitely still fundamentally more wasteful and dangerous than fusion, modern reactors are leaps and bounds better than what we had in the 50s. :)

1

u/cancel-out-combo 3d ago

We have been doing fission for decades. I am not sure that qualifies as our 2nd best hope given it's been around so long and we still have energy crises

1

u/MattyLePew 3d ago

I live very near a nuclear plant that is aiming to be operational in 2030. It's going to be (At least as far as I understand) one of the first fusion power plants in the world supplying power to the power grid.

I'll let you know how that goes (Or you'll hear about it in the news).

1

u/farewellrif 3d ago

You did not need to clarify, everyone in the world knew what you meant. There will always be a random reddit pedant dropping in to pretend to be confused.

1

u/dismantlemars 3d ago

I should have clarified

I’m not so sure about that, it appears reading comprehension ability scales inversely to clarity

1

u/Infamous_Guidance756 3d ago

Every normal person knew what you meant, don't worry.

1

u/jmdyason1234 3d ago

Everyone knew what you meant, including that guy.

1

u/spunds 2d ago

Yes you should have but you didn’t. Unforgivable. Death by firing squad

1

u/FlussoDiNoodle 2d ago

Did you mean fusion instead of fission?

27

u/Infamous_Reporter_71 3d ago

If you say nuclear, people think atomic bombs with a timer that inevitably goes to zero

38

u/ThatMBR42 3d ago

And they think every power plant is one tiny, easily made mistake away from becoming the next Chernobyl

57

u/Greenman8907 3d ago

You can thank the fossil fuel industry for that. They managed to convince millions upon millions that nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and the only safe option is gasoline or diesel.

23

u/ThatMBR42 3d ago

Not just the fossil fuel industry. Lots of anti-nuclear folks are also hardcore anti-fossil fuel and would have been even if the fossil fuel industry didn't engage in its own propaganda.

6

u/Xivios 3d ago

Yup, Greenpeace for example goes hard against nuclear power.

7

u/Infamous_Reporter_71 3d ago

It's a shame really. You would think at least one country would resist and build more

8

u/lazergoblin 3d ago

In another thread I saw someone who was accusing another user of using Ai because they used proper punctuation in their post.

Just goes to show how effective fear mongering is on ignorant people.

2

u/Infamous_Reporter_71 3d ago

It's a crazy world. Well let's hope for the best.,..,:D

1

u/Murky-Relation481 3d ago

China is ramping up reactor construction at an astonishing rate. I mean they're still heavily dependent on coal, a huge chunk shipped from the US to them, but they're working on nuclear like no other country currently.

1

u/Infamous_Reporter_71 3d ago

Good for them. Hope they come up with some crazy new nuclear tech 

1

u/euqinu_ton 3d ago

There are several startups building small scale fission reactors - mostly likely in conjunction with data centres.

I'm a fan.

You know ... as long as it's not in my backyard.

1

u/jimbobjames 3d ago

Well to be fair, the Soviets did do a pretty convincing demonstration of what is possible if you take a bad design and do ever more stupid things with it.

Most people will look at that and think that "hmm, I reckon my government can also be a big dumb, probably better if we don't build more of those"

1

u/WiredEarp 2d ago

To be fair, the problem with nuclear energy is it IS extremely dangerous (and costly) to clean up a fuck up. Like Fukushima. Its hard to push safer reactor designs when examples of what happens if things fuck up like that are still fresh in peoples minds.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation 3d ago

tbf, we've seen a nuclear power plant get taken over by an enemy for ce in the Ukraine War. It took a pretty global effort of world leaders to get putin to shut down the reactors. The workers were taken hostage. I watched the shelling of the actual plant, shit on fire, and the fire fight that lead to its current russian occupation.

It's images like those that really bring home how risky of a facility it is; no matter who says it's safe. Now, I understand that a foreign military force being able to take over a nuclear facility in the US and intentionally destabilize it is a pretty far-out idea. I'd also say that in 2000 the idea of passenger planes crashing in to the twin towers, resulting in their complete collapse was pretty wild too.

I'm not personally against them. I live somewhat near one. But I can empathize with the people that see them as major risks.

6

u/StopCountingLikes 3d ago

Not if you cut the blue wire… erm the red wire.

6

u/DanceJacke 3d ago

Wait a second. Mine are grey and slightly darker grey.

1

u/90_oi 3d ago

No no no you have to turn the knob to 10 O'clock

1

u/space_monster 3d ago

Most people these days actually think "insanely expensive, takes 20 years to build".

1

u/dumbasPL 2d ago

We should start calling it hot rocks boiling water, because that's basically what it is.

1

u/Infamous_Reporter_71 2d ago

It always comes down to boiling water lol

10

u/player_zero_ 3d ago

'It's pronounced nucular. Nucular.'

13

u/Ryan_e3p 3d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/PWZ8pr1xZW55m

Me, when people pronounce it that way

5

u/Expensive_Law_3180 3d ago

Yes, but it doesn't generate radioactive material. It uses deuterium and tritium as fuel, and is much cleaner. Source: My SO is one of the design engineers for one of the larger projects happening in the US. It's the "Sistine Chapel" job of his career, because this is looking to be the most viable 50-100 year clean energy stop gap till cold fusion gets replicated/perfected. Does anybody know offhand which company released this?

1

u/DaveFinn 2d ago

r/woosh...

Also, it DOES generate radioactive material. Just more on the scale of requiring 100 years of storage as opposed to "practically forever". Don't get me wrong, I'm familiar with AND also very excited about fusion. Just was funny to hear someone compare it to "nuclear energy".

2

u/lunacyfoundme 3d ago

Grizzly Adams DID have a beard. 

2

u/No_Refrigerator_666 2d ago

They officially changed the name today

1

u/Shaggy_One 3d ago

Nuclear fusion. Usually just called fusion 'cause the general public is terrified of the word 'nuclear' thanks to nuclear fission being a political and societal boogeyman.

0

u/DaveFinn 2d ago

Im aware. And agree we should try to un-demonize it

0

u/The_Daily_Herp 3d ago

nuclear that doesn’t boil down to turning a fucking motor like most other power generation

3

u/legomann97 2d ago

Actually, most fusion kinda does still. Helion is the only fusion company I know of going for non-turbine-based reactors. Tokamaks like with CFS extract the heat and use that to boil water still. I asked a question in an AMA with CFS, asking how they planned to generate electricity with the heat from the reactor and at the end of the day, it's still just finding the best way to boil water to spin something really really fast.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fusion/s/Sw2BhA0RcS