I don't get it. Wouldn't that mean it required 302.05MJ to get 3.15MJ?
Reporting based on the energy put into the reaction itself (the lasers) reflects far better the feasibility of the confinement tech than spending an inordinate amount of budget on an already incomprehensibly expensive science experiment to try and optimize every last edge condition.
Then we can tell how the hydrogen stage will be affected by age, and probably how we can optimize the contents and casing of that to be smaller and last longer.
Any benefits to the future of power generation is a secondary goal.
In nuclear fusion, "ignition" means that you get more energy out than the lasers impart. This is the first time anyone has pulled that off in decades of trying, which is a big deal.
But practical nuclear fusion would of course require that you get out more energy _from the entire system_ than you put in, and getting there will require even more problems to be solved. But now at least one obstacle has been overcome!
The term is refreshingly intuitive. For decades we've been striking stone and flint. Sparks. We just got a bit of kindling going. It's no bonfire. But it's a big step forward.
Are you sure of that? This is from 2014: https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/giant-leap-for-nucle...
Hurricane’s current output, although more than the hydrogen fuel put into the reaction, hasn’t yet reached the stated goal to achieve “ignition," where nuclear fusion generates as much energy as the lasers supply. At that point it might be possible to make a sustainable power plant based on the technology.> Hurricane’s current output, although more than the hydrogen fuel put into the reaction, hasn’t yet reached the stated goal to achieve “ignition," where nuclear fusion generates as much energy as the lasers supply.
Also, couldn't the net energy from the ignition be used to continue the reaction, so you only need the lasers for startup?
Sorry for the newb questions, just curious.
For power generation, since the energy from any fusion reaction is primarily emitted as heat and neutrons. The neutrons are difficult to utilize and is basically wasted energy, but the heat would just heat water, turning it into steam, then turning a turbine.
Don’t have a good explanation for your second question, although I think the short answer is “not with the way the Livermore experiment was set up.”
The idea, ultimately, is that like with a wood fire, the energy from the fuel "burning" is what starts the next bit of fuel "burning", and then as it runs on it's own as long as you keep giving it more fuel, you collect the excess heat by boiling water.
So, similar to a wood fire, you might need to use a blowtorch to get it started, and run at a net negative of energy, but the exciting thing is that there was a little flame... that means we can probably make a roaring fire out of it.
Fusion is the opposite. Fusion's natural state is Not Fusing, so in ICF you have to keep compressing and heating the fuel. Using equipment with optically tight tolerances and epic pulsed energy densities. Which are somehow maintained reliably for long periods. In spite of significant debris and huge temperature swings.