this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
563 points (98.3% liked)

Science Memes

19822 readers
2980 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] j4yc33@piefed.social 53 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] bort@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 week ago (3 children)

except for solar and wind, i guess. also the thingy where you catch electrons directly from nuclear decay.

[–] j4yc33@piefed.social 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There are also some chemical modes of electricity generation (Alkalai batteries, etc). Also using flowing water to move Turbines like dams.

But then the meme isn't as fun here, and those are such a small minority of how we generate powers.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Even then all of them but solar are just spinning a wheel.

And even then some solar works by boiling salt... Or water.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 50 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

why not do both? get both efficiencies

[note: this is an example of why i am not currently working in nuclear physics]

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

That's the most common proposal for MHD generators - once it goes thru the MHD proper you use the waste heat to drive a conventional powerplant. Unfortunately MHD requires the production of plasma to be effective, and plasma just does not like to exist, so the engineering practicalities make it... unlikely to ever be even remotely viable outside of incredibly niche applications (although non-plasma MHD has been studied, and I believe there are even some human trials, to power implants in the body like pacemakers and I remember reading about nervous-interface devices in mice that used arterial MHD on to generate the microcurrent needed)

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

ooo, i'm trying to keep up on Deep Brain Stimulation research (i want one for reasons. they aren't doing what i want yet, but in about 5 years they should be there) and that sounds like related research

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, not an engineer myself, either, but generally speaking that would greatly increase the systems complexity, which generally increases maintenance costs, down time, and the initial cost of the system.

You might be able to eke out a bit more power, but there’s more to the decision than total output and how efficient it is.

What I would imagine were a fusion-powered MHD being useful would be as a front end to fusion-based plasma propulsion. (Basically something like the VSIMR, Hall effect or whatever plasma thruster, where the fusion reaction generates both some power to create the thrust and its exhaust plasma is also the reaction mass.(I mentioned I’m not an engineer… right? Just an incorrigible nerd who likes sci-fi.)

There's a few things (I am an engineer, though not nuclear):

  1. Efficiencies don't necessarily stack like that. For boiling water you're dependent on kinetic energy as heat. I'm not familiar with running plasma through magnetic fields for power generation, but if you lose thermal energy, your overall efficiency may be worse.
  2. In power generation, reliability is obviously extremely important, and the nuclear industry is highly risk-averse. So doing something in a known, tested way is preferable. Any downtime is extremely expensive if things break, since it may be gigawatts of power you're not selling.
  3. Big magnets and handling highly energetic plasma are both really expensive. Steam turbines and generators have existing supply chains since we use them everywhere. I think cost is a big part, since the people building power plants want to make their money back sooner, so may not want to pay millions to billions more for a few percent efficiency gain.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

There's also Direct Energy Conversion, Radiophotovoltaics and Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, but none of those are practical for large scales (and only DEC works with fusion, hypothetically)

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We never left steam engines really.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago

To me, and apparently the Greeks!

It is not known whether the aeolipile was put to any practical use in ancient times, and if it was seen as a pragmatic device, a whimsical novelty, an object of reverence, or some other thing.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 22 points 2 weeks ago

We live in a steampunk timeline, everything must boil water.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Make alternator spin. Is only way.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I refuse to believe this.

You're telling me that Humanity is able to understand what goes on at the heart of stars, and is on the brink of being able to harness that power ("Soon TM"), and the best we can come up with is a big tea kettle? I'm not buying it.

There's got to be a better way of capturing all that energy - like, solar panels but for other types of radiation? Or if that's not possible because wavelengths or something , maybe make something glow and use normal panels? Or like, can't we take a particle accelerator and flip it around and pull energy from the particles that go zooming?

I'm sure there's a reason why all of that is hard, but surely not impossible?

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The majority of the energy released will be heat, relatively few high energy photons are released so ‘solar’ isn’t a viable option and your suggestion about a particle accelerator just doesn’t make any sense.

Boiling water is literally the best way to capture the energy released.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] morbidcactus@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We've gotten really, really good at extracting energy from steam, steam turbines can be incredibly efficient, I can't recall exact figures but Wikipedia cites 90% as the top end.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

You identified the solution. Use a solar panel and let the reactor in the center of our system do the work. Add a batteries to make up for being blocked. Today, solar AND batteries are cheaper than fission reactors. Fusion has promise, but why over invest in a maybe when you can use the technology we have today? Is it because It has an end game where you don't infinity extract resources? Who would want that?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] psoul@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If they make an artificial sun inside a donut why don’t they line the donut with solar panels? Are they stupid?

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

But you'd have to allow the sun to leak out of the donut, and I'm not too sure that sun-leaking donuts are OSHA approved.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Real answer: The sheer amount of neutron radiation thrown off by fusion would mechanically erode the panels. This is why the Lockheed Martin fusion reactor they claimed to have built is complete BS - their design ignored the requirement to shield their superconductors from the neutron radiation, allowing them to be placed far closer to the reaction (and thus vastly lower the power requirements). While it could have theoretically worked briefly, it would have eaten itself into radioactive dust astoundingly quickly.

[–] Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It melts salt, isn’t it?

[–] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If you mean molten salt reactors, guess what they do with the molten salt to make electricity...

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

...they found a clever way to induce a current using temperature differentials between the molten salt and some sort of coolant mass?

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

and that coolant mass' name?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] toofpic@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Oh I love this comment. Such a not-leading question!

[–] Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 weeks ago

🤭🤫yess

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Fusion is still five years off, right?

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago

N+5 years off, where n is the current year. We'll get there one day!

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 5 points 1 week ago

IIRC, most of the people that actually work at ITER don't expect to live to see commercial fusion.

We've achieved controlled ignition several times, but there's a lot of steps still between that and delivering fusion power to your local grid, and I don't think I would trust anyone to give a concrete timeline.

I really thought Polywell Fusion would be the trick, but Australians (and probably the US DoD) have good evidence it doesn't "scale" in a way that will give a energy-positive/fuel-negative cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#University_of_Sydney_experiments

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, water is fuckin' sick. Thermohydraulics is awesome.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago

If phase changes weren't so badass we would be so fucked, lol.

[–] mbp@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wow, that's the first time I've seen the source of the bald meme

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 1 week ago

That's just the effect of fusion. It regrows hair.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] verstra@programming.dev 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Let's separate CO2 from atmosphere and use it to run such generators. Win win. But don't ask physics about this top much

[–] verstra@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

Actually, I remember that on iceland they were injecting CO2 into rock, and it was shipped to them from ... Swicerland, I think, in shipping tanks. It was captured from concrete manufacturing plants, which apparently produce a ton if it. So there you go - cheap CO2 is not a problem

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] taccihcysp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Couldn't you just put some solar panels next to it? I mean, the sun is basically just a massive fusion reactor (just very far away and kind of inefficient), right? Imagine we built our own sun, right here on earth, that would make solar panels a lot more effective, no?

[–] Flyberius@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago

All depends on the frequency of the radiation it is giving off and the intensity I guess. Probably not the same as what we get from the sun, so I'm guessing solar panels aren't suitable

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

We can't make it so large that its own gravity will contain the reaction mass, so it has to be kept inside a very strong magnetic field created by huge magnets. You can't put solar panels inside the reaction chamber, they would get destroyed.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rayyy@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago

Don't sell steam power short or water for drinking.

[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

💨Efficency💨🔁

load more comments
view more: next ›