Yes, but assuming the system has 100% perfect efficiency (which is impossible) it’ll only produce the same amount of fuel each time, not more than was put inside.
Problem also is that fusing becomes progressively more difficult the heavier the element gets, requiring more energy to create the fusion. So really, if we’re looking at a perfect efficiency, and consider the potential energy from the entire process until fusion isn’t possible anymore, you’ll only ever get as much energy (fuel) out of it as the fuel (potential energy) you put into it.
I really take issue with such headlines because people who aren’t scientifically literate will be mislead and become stupider as a result.
They’re not producing fuel to continue the same reactions, which would be a violation of conservation of energy. They’re producing fuel to run a different reaction. Less “perpetual motion machine,” more “spinning a turbine to charge a battery to run an EV.”
Edit: A better analogy is cracking water to capture the hydrogen, to later burn it in a fuel cell.
Nonetheless, being able to produce tritium, which is the claim that appears in the headline and the article, is very useful, in part because many reactors use it as a fuel source.
There is only one place where I see “more fuel” show up, which is this single sentence:
The ability to generate tritium within the reactor is crucial. A sustainable fusion energy system needs to produce more fuel than it consumes. This development shows a path toward solving that engineering challenge.
I agree that this single sentence could have been better worded.
Any element below iron is technically fuel for fusion.
Yes, but assuming the system has 100% perfect efficiency (which is impossible) it’ll only produce the same amount of fuel each time, not more than was put inside.
Problem also is that fusing becomes progressively more difficult the heavier the element gets, requiring more energy to create the fusion. So really, if we’re looking at a perfect efficiency, and consider the potential energy from the entire process until fusion isn’t possible anymore, you’ll only ever get as much energy (fuel) out of it as the fuel (potential energy) you put into it.
I really take issue with such headlines because people who aren’t scientifically literate will be mislead and become stupider as a result.
They’re not producing fuel to continue the same reactions, which would be a violation of conservation of energy. They’re producing fuel to run a different reaction. Less “perpetual motion machine,” more “spinning a turbine to charge a battery to run an EV.”
Edit: A better analogy is cracking water to capture the hydrogen, to later burn it in a fuel cell.
Nonetheless, being able to produce tritium, which is the claim that appears in the headline and the article, is very useful, in part because many reactors use it as a fuel source.
There is only one place where I see “more fuel” show up, which is this single sentence:
I agree that this single sentence could have been better worded.