Anyone have insight into how this new development differs from this article from back in 2014 about the NIF, entitled: "Fusion Leaps Forward: Surpasses Major Break-Even Goal"
Back then they were comparing to the energy actually absorbed by the fusion fuel. This is indirect drive, the laser hits a metal container first and only some of the energy gets to the fuel pellet.
This time, they're comparing to the total energy in the laser beams.
They're ignoring the inefficiency of the laser devices, but that kinda makes sense because they're using really old, inefficient lasers and much better ones are available now.
> This time, they're comparing to the total energy in the laser beams.
How do you know? Nothing has been published yet; it’s science through press release. In the past, published papers from NIF have been a real wake-up call after absorbing the misleading hype (the papers are most honest than the folks taking to the reporters).
> The fusion reaction at the US government facility produced about 2.5 megajoules of energy, which was about 120 per cent of the 2.1 megajoules of energy in the lasers
I guess we'll see how things develop. But from a quick google, 2.1 megajoules is about what the lasers deliver, unless they've significantly increased their power recently.
Right. Livermore has been working on this since the 1970s, with increasingly powerful lasers. Now, they claim "theoretical breakeven" - slightly more energy came out of the reaction than went into the reaction. But 100x less than went into the lasers, let alone the whole facility. Nor is energy being recovered.
This was never expected to be a power plant technology. It's a research tool, for studying fusion.
"Technical breakeven" is when the plant generates enough energy to run itself. This is at least 100x below that.
"Commercial breakeven" is when it makes money.
How's that Lockheed-Martin fusion thing coming along?[1]
https://www.livescience.com/43318-fusion-energy-reaches-mile...