824
Nuclear fusion reactor in South Korea runs at 100 million degrees C for a record-breaking 48 seconds (www.livescience.com)
submitted 7 months ago by m3t00@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
258 comments fedilink hide all child comments

48 seconds. I predict a glut of helium. balloons for everyone

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Melting actually is not a seriously issue as while the plasma is very hot, it also has very little mass.

Read the below from this article...

One of the biggest obstacles to magnetic-confinement fusion is the need for materials that can withstand the tough treatment they'll receive from the fusing plasma. In particular, deuterium-tritium fusion makes an intense flux of high-energy neutrons, which collide with the nuclei of atoms in the metal walls and cladding, causing tiny spots of melting. The metal then recrystallizes but is weakened, with atoms shifted from their initial positions. In the cladding of a typical fusion reactor, each atom might be displaced about 100 times over the reactor's lifetime.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

That's not the plasma that melts anything but neutron bombardment. The containment and fizzling out issue is the same whether the plasma produces neutrons or just tons of EM radiation which is what I focussed on.

That sturdiness of the cladding things is an important factor when it comes to making cost-effective reactors, that is, the price you sell electricity for needs to cover replacement parts, but is not really that much of an issue when it comes to achieving fusion the materials we have are sufficient for that. Proxima Fusion (the Max Planck spinout) is working on those economical issues for their commercial prototype (early 2030), it remains to be seen whether they go for durable and expensive or cheap but needs to be replaced more often. Which isn't unusual for power plants in general, none of them run 24/7 they get shut down for maintenance once in a while.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That’s not the plasma that melts anything but neutron bombardment.

I'm aware (I read the article, including the part I quoted you), but regardless of the source of the melting, there is a melting issue of the containment vessel that needs to be engineered away.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Yes, and you won't get me to argue here. I'm too experienced a smart-Alec to contradict another smart-Alec :)

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes, and you won’t get me to argue here. I’m too experienced a smart-Alec to contradict another smart-Alec :)

Well I'll take smart alec over being called pedantic any day.

Having said that, sincerely wasn't looking for the argument, just a matter of going back to my original point, that you corrected and educated me on.

I knew there was some kind of melting issue, when I had made my original comment. I had just assumed it was the plasma, but it ended up not being that, as you noted.

My follow-up link comment was just to say "Hey look there is a valid reason for melting to happen, I wasn't imagining it".

All's good on my end.

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
824 points (98.5% liked)

science

14595 readers
458 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
m3t00@lemmy.world
Joleee@lemmy.world
laverabe@lemmy.world
DeadPand@midwest.social