Pricefield | Lemmy
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • Create Community
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 1 year ago

Nuclear fusion reaction releases almost twice the energy put in

www.newscientist.com

external-link
message-square
377
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
662
external-link

Nuclear fusion reaction releases almost twice the energy put in

www.newscientist.com

@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 1 year ago
message-square
377
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
The US National Ignition Facility has achieved even higher energy yields since breaking even for the first time in 2022, but a practical fusion reactor is still a long way off
  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    30•1 year ago

    It’s not efficient, a huge amount of it gets diffused or absorbed

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21•1 year ago

      It doesn’t need to be efficient. Capture all the light that hits earth for 5 minutes and that’s the world energy demand for a year.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5•1 year ago

        How would you store it though?

        • Ricky Rigatoni
          link
          fedilink
          10•1 year ago

          solar george

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            2•1 year ago

            Solar Robert

            • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
              link
              fedilink
              1•1 year ago

              Stéphane Robert

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4•1 year ago

          Usually In plants and algae.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          5•1 year ago

          Black hole

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      5•1 year ago

      Wow, you’re right! We should just build a Dyson sphere around the sun. 100% efficiency achieved. What could possibly go wrong?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        8•1 year ago

        Did you understand the person you respond to as saying its inefficient because the sun shines in other directions than the array proposed?
        I’m pretty sure the person talked specifically about the beam from the array to earth being inefficient.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4•1 year ago

          I was joking, but apparently nobody picked up on my snarky sarcasm. Disregard.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        8•1 year ago

        Where did I say that?

    • Cosmic Cleric
      link
      fedilink
      13•1 year ago

      It’s not efficient, a huge amount of it gets diffused or absorbed

      The amount that’s left over though is more than enough, especially with today panels which only convert a very small percentage of that remaining energy.

      As the panels improve even more they’ll be a very large energy surplus, even with how much solar light actually gets through the atmosphere.

[email protected]

[email protected]
Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

  • 168 users / day
  • 1.55K users / week
  • 4.67K users / month
  • 11K users / 6 months
  • 3 subscribers
  • 27.8K Posts
  • 669K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • @[email protected]
  • @[email protected]
  • @[email protected]
  • @[email protected]
  • @[email protected]
  • 🌱 🐄🌱
  • @[email protected]
  • enu
  • Wren
  • Admiral Patrick
  • @[email protected]
  • UI: 0.18.4
  • BE: 0.18.2
  • Modlog
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org