Connect with us

Technologies

Major Energy Breakthrough: Milestone Achieved in US Fusion Experiment

For the first time, the National Ignition Facility officially achieved ignition in a fusion reactor.

It was touted as a “major scientific breakthrough” and, it seems, the rumors were true: On Tuesday, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory announced that they have, for the first time, achieved net energy gain in a controlled fusion experiment.

“We have taken the first tentative steps toward a clean energy source that could revolutionize the world,” Jill Hruby, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in a press conference Tuesday.

The triumph comes courtesy of the National Ignition Facility at LLNL in San Francisco. This facility has long tried to master nuclear fusion — a process that powers the sun and other stars — in an effort to harness the massive amounts of energy released during the reaction because, as Hruby points out, all that energy is “clean” energy.

Despite decades of effort, however, there had been a major kink in these fusion experiments: the amount of energy used to achieve fusion has far outweighed the energy coming out. As part of the NIF mission, scientists had long hoped to achieve “ignition,” where the energy output is “greater than or equal to laser drive energy.”

Some experts have remained skeptical that such a feat was even possible with fusion reactors currently in operation. But slowly, NIF pushed forward. In August last year, LLNL revealed it had come close to this threshold by generating around 1.3 megajoules (a measure of energy) against a laser drive using 1.9 megajoules.

But on Dec. 5, LLNL’s scientists say, they managed to cross the threshold.

They achieved ignition.

All in all, this achievement is cause for celebration. It’s the culmination of decades of scientific research and incremental progress. It’s a critical, albeit small, step forward, to demonstrate that this type of reactor can, in fact, generate energy.

“Reaching ignition in a controlled fusion experiment is an achievement that has come after more than 60 years of global research, development, engineering and experimentation,” Hruby said.

“It’s a scientific milestone,” Arati Prabhakar, policy director for the White House Office of Science and Technology, said during the conference, “but it’s also an engineering marvel.”

Still, a fully operational platform, connected to the grid and used to power homes and businesses, likely remains a few decades away.

“This is one igniting capsule at one time,” Kim Budil, director of LLNL, said. “To realize commercial fusion energy you have to do many things. You have to be able to produce many, many fusion ignition events per minute, and you have to have a robust system of drivers to enable that.”

So how did we get here? And what does the future hold for fusion energy?

Simulating stars

The underlying physics of nuclear fusion has been well understood for almost a century.

Fusion is a reaction between the nuclei of atoms that occurs under extreme conditions, like those present in stars. The sun, for instance, is about 75% hydrogen and, because of the all-encompassing heat and pressure at its core, these hydrogen atoms are squeezed together, fusing to form helium atoms.

If atoms had feelings, it would be easy to say they don’t particularly like being squished together. It takes a lot of energy to do so. Stars are fusion powerhouses; their gravity creates the perfect conditions for a self-sustaining fusion reaction and they keep burning until all their fuel — those atoms — are used up.

This idea forms the basis of fusion reactors.

Building a unit that can artificially re-create the conditions within the sun would allow for an extremely green source of energy. Fusion doesn’t directly produce greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, which contribute to global warming.

And critically, a fusion reactor also doesn’t have the downsides of nuclear fission, the splitting of atoms used in nuclear bombs and reactors today.

In other words, a fusion power plant wouldn’t produce the radioactive waste associated with nuclear fission.

The big fusion experiment

The NIF, which takes up the space of around three football fields at LLNL, is the most powerful “inertial confinement fusion” experiment in the world.

In the center of the chamber lies a target: a “hohlraum,” or cylinder-shaped device that houses a tiny capsule. The capsule, about as big as a peppercorn, is filled with isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, or D-T fuel, for short. The NIF focuses all 192 lasers at the target, creating extreme heat that produces plasma and kicks off an implosion. As a result, the D-T fuel is subject to extreme temperatures and pressures, fusing the hydrogen isotopes into helium — and a consequence of the reaction is a ton of extra energy and the release of neutrons.

You can think of this experiment as briefly simulating the conditions of a star.

The complicated part, though, is that the reaction also requires a ton of energy to start. Powering the entire laser system used by the NIF requires more than 400 megajoules — but only a small percentage actually hits the hohlraum with each firing of the beams. Previously, the NIF had been able to pretty consistently hit the target with around 2 megajoules from its lasers.

But on Dec. 5, during one run, something changed.

“Last week, for the first time, they designed this experiment so that the fusion fuel stayed hot enough, dense enough and round enough for long enough that it ignited,” Marv Adams, deputy administrator at the NNSA, said during the conference. “And it produced more energy than the lasers had deposited.”

More specifically, scientists at NIF kickstarted a fusion reaction using about 2 megajoules of energy to power the lasers and were able to get about 3 megajoules out. Based on the definition of ignition used by NIF, the benchmark has been passed during this one short pulse.

You might also see that energy gain in a fusion reaction is denoted by a variable, Q.

Like ignition, the Q value can refer to different things for different experiments. But here, it’s referring to the energy input from the lasers versus the energy output from the capsule. If Q = 1, scientists say they have achieved “breakeven,” where energy in equals energy out.

The Q value for this run, for context, was around 1.5.

In the grand scheme of things, the energy created with this Q value is only about enough to boil water in a kettle.

“The calculation of energy gain only considers the energy that hit the target, and not the [very large] energy consumption that goes into supporting the infrastructure,” said Patrick Burr, a nuclear engineer at the University of New South Wales.

The NIF is not the only facility chasing fusion — and inertial confinement is not the only way to kickstart the process. “The more common approach is magnetically confined fusion,” said Richard Garrett, senior advisor on strategic projects at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization. These reactors use magnetic fields to control the fusion reaction in a gas, typically in a giant, hollow donut reactor known as a tokamak.

Those devices have a much lower density than NIF’s pellets, so temperatures need to be increased to well over 100 million degrees. Garrett said he does not expect the NIF result to accelerate tokamak fusion programs because, fundamentally, the two processes work quite differently.

However, significant progress is also being made with magnetically confined fusion. For instance, the ITER experiment, under construction in France, uses a tokamak and is expected to begin testing in the next decade. It has lofty goals, aiming to achieve a Q greater than 10 and to develop commercial fusion by 2050.

The future of fusion

The experiment at NIF might be transformative for research, but it won’t immediately translate to a fusion energy revolution. This isn’t a power-generating experiment. It’s a proof of concept.

This is a point worth paying attention to today, especially as fusion has often been touted as a way to combat the climate crisis and reduce reliance on fossil fuels or as a salve for the world’s energy problems. Construction and utilization of fusion energy to power homes and businesses is still a ways off — decades, conservatively — and inherently reliant on technological improvements and investment in alternative energy sources.

Generating around 2.5 megajoules of energy when the total input from the laser system is well above 400 megajoules is, of course, not efficient. And in the case of the NIF experiment, it was one short pulse.

Looking further ahead, constant, reliable, long pulses will be required if this is to become sustainable enough to power kettles, homes or entire cities.

“It’s unlikely that fusion power … will save us from climate change,” said Ken Baldwin, a physicist at the Australian National University. If we are to prevent the largest increases in global average temperature, fusion power is likely going to be a little too late.

Other investment is going to come from private companies, which are seeking to operate tokamak fusion reactors in the next few years. For instance, Tokamak Energy in the UK is building a spherical tokamak reactor and seeks to hit breakeven by the middle of this decade.

Then there’s Commonwealth Fusion Systems, spun out of MIT, which is hoping to generate around 400 megawatts of power, enough for tens of thousands of homes, by the 2030s. Modern nuclear power plants can produce almost three times as much.

And as CNET editor Stephen Shankland noted in a recent piece, fusion reactors will also need to compete against solar and wind power — so even with today’s revelatory findings, fusion energy remains entrenched in the experimental phase of its existence.

But we can now cast one eye toward the future.

It may not prevent the worst of climate change but, harnessed to its full potential, it could produce a near-limitless supply of energy for generations to come. It’s one thing to think about the future of energy on Earth and how it will be utilized, but our eyes may fall on horizons even further out — deep space travel could utilize fusion reactors that blast us well beyond the reaches of our sun’s gravity, the very thing that helped teach us about fusion reactions, and into interstellar space.

Perhaps then, we’d remember Dec. 5, 2022, as the first tiny step toward places we dared once only dream about.

Correction, 8:44 a.m. PT: This article initially misstated the amount of energy in the fusion reaction. NIF powered the lasers with about 2 megajoules and produced 3 megajoules as a result.

Technologies

Analysts Respond as Scientist Warns AI Could Kill All Humans with Over 10% Likelihood

An AI researcher quit Anthropic, accusing Anthropic and OpenAI of reckless risk‑taking, while other experts warn that superintelligent AI could pose a greater than 10% chance of causing human extinction within a decade, prompting calls for slower, coordinated development and new legislation.

A leading AI researcher resigned from Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing the firm and its main competitor, OpenAI, of reckless conduct, sparking widespread worry on social platforms about the swift advancement of the technology.

Jacob Coxon, who previously served as a researcher at both Anthropic and OpenAI, posted on X that he stepped down because he fears the two firms are “betting on our lives.” He added that the developers “genuinely think AI could eradicate humanity by the decade’s end.”

“Don’t underestimate this technology,” the researcher warned. “Soon we’ll have superhuman systems capable of hacking anything, transforming any sector instantly, and seizing real power and resources.”

Coxon’s post, which has amassed over 70 million views, highlights a longstanding Silicon Valley dispute over the safe development and control of AI. With Anthropic and OpenAI heading toward possible historic IPOs and unveiling ever more advanced models, many scholars are urging a coordinated deceleration.

OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, released a blog entry on Sunday warning that no AI firm has yet “fully solved alignment and monitoring to a level that permits responsible scaling at top speed for much longer.” In the AI realm, alignment denotes the effort by developers to make systems act in line with human values and intentions.

“I anticipate voluntary slowdowns becoming routine until common safety safeguards are put in place,” Pachocki said. “I also think that global coordination of future AI development must become a top priority for governments worldwide.”

Coxon’s Tuesday post also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self‑improvement—an AI capable of creating and improving its own successors without human input. Though not yet achievable, companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI caution that it could enable humans to lose control of such systems.

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon asserted. “They are racing directly toward self‑improving superintelligence.”

Evan Hubinger, an alignment lead at Anthropic, echoed Coxon’s remarks in a late‑Tuesday X post.

“Jacob is right—we truly believe AI could eradicate humanity! I estimate there’s a greater than 10% chance within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “Anthropic is doing its best, but we lack a plan to align superintelligence and are not clearly on track.”

Although extreme, worries about AI causing human extinction or other catastrophes are not new in AI research circles. In 2023, for example, leading AI researchers and executives—including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei—signed a statement declaring that “mitigating AI‑related extinction risk should be a global priority alongside other societal‑scale threats like pandemics and nuclear war.”

Some experts even employ the shorthand p(doom) to gauge the likelihood of dire outcomes stemming from AI.

Anthropic’s Hubinger was among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed the July “Pacing the Frontier” open letter. The letter called on the U.S. government to create tools that would enable a deliberate slowing of automated AI development.

Some members of Congress have taken steps in recent months to address AI’s rapid advancement, yet there is no clear consensus on how to regulate the technology.

In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R‑Calif.) and Rep. Lori Trahan (D‑Mass.) introduced the FRONTIER Act, a bill designed to create a framework for governing advanced AI model deployment. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D‑Texas) introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until the federal government sets safety rules. Both proposals have received mixed reactions.

“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are escaping their labs, and companies are racing ahead,” Trahan wrote on X Wednesday. “It’s long past time for Congress to step off the sidelines and act.”

Lawmakers are also contending with rising public backlash toward AI data centers—large facilities that house the hardware for training and running AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) said last month that data centers have become a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have performed a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”

“They’ll need to accept some blame and persuade the American public that the benefits won’t accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Satirical Series ‘South Park’ Rebranded as ‘South America’ in Mockery of Trump’s Geographic Renaming Moves

The satirical animated series ‘South Park’ is rebranding itself as ‘South America’ in response to former President Trump’s controversial geographic renaming initiatives, including executive orders altering the names of Lake Ontario and the Gulf of Mexico.

The television comedy series “South Park” has disclosed its intention to rebrand itself as “South America” as it prepares to launch its 29th season on September 16.

The show’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, stated, “Inspired by the courage and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are renaming South Park to SOUTH AMERICA. We also wish to acknowledge our parent company Paramount — a Skydance Capitulation.”

Parker and Stone’s remarks follow U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America amid a trade dispute with Canada. Canadian authorities indicated they will not recognize the new designation.

Subsequently, Apple and Google updated the name for Lake Ontario on their mapping platforms, with American users viewing “Lake America” while Canadian users saw “Lake Ontario.”

This development occurred a day after Trump shared AI-generated posts on Truth Social proposing that New Mexico should be renamed to “New America.”

In the previous year, the president employed an executive order to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, prompting international criticism.

“South Park” received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program for the “Sermon on the Mount” episode, which debuted last year and satirizes Trump’s presidency.

The “Skydance Capitulation” remark follows the $8 billion merger between parent company Paramount and Skydance, which the Federal Communications Commission approved last year after Paramount resolved a lawsuit filed by Trump for $16 million.

Trump claimed that an interview aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in 2024 with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was edited in a misleading manner.

Paramount’s CBS News division announced in July 2025 that it was discontinuing comedian Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show,” attributing the decision to financial constraints, shortly after Colbert accused Paramount of giving Trump a “big fat bribe.” The final episode of the program was broadcast in May.

Paramount and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Trump says U.S. may keep Iranian oil ‘like Venezuela’ as Gulf-Iran Hormuz talks stall

Trump said revenue from the Venezuela arrangement has “paid for the war many times.”

President Donald Trump said the U.S. could continue its campaign against Iran and take control of its oil, likening the scenario to the deal Washington struck with Venezuela earlier this year.

“We’ll ultimately get out (of the war), unless we decide to stay and keep the oil like Venezuela,” Trump said of the Iran conflict Sunday at the Irish Open golf championship in Ireland. He added that U.S. revenue from the Venezuela arrangement, which granted Washington access to roughly a fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves, has “paid for the war many times.”

Under the agreement reached in August, Venezuela ceded majority U.S. control of more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves — more than double America’s own reserves — in exchange for $209 billion to Venezuela’s state treasury. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the deal would also bring close to $100 billion in private investment to reinvigorate its economy.

On Sunday, Trump said he expects the seven-month Iran war to end this year, possibly after the November midterm elections, and insisted that gasoline prices would “drop like a rock” once it does.

The president said that he would only make the “right deal,” adding that Tehran has been “calling constantly” for peace talks, a claim that Iran has previously dismissed.

Trump’s comments came as diplomacy over the Strait of Hormuz stalled.

A meeting in Oman between Gulf countries and Iran to discuss possible agreements on the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway for global oil and gas flows, has been postponed, Omani foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said on X on Sunday, citing the need for “consensus.”

Officials from Iran and Gulf nations had been expected to meet on Monday and sign an agreement establishing an Iran-Oman shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, though no direct talks between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing.

The Strait of Hormuz has been subjected to an Iranian and later U.S. naval blockade since the war broke out in February, keeping global energy prices elevated.

A June accord between Washington and Tehran faltered on disagreements over the artery, and a blistering offensive in recent days by Yemen’s Houthi rebels has given the Tehran-allied group leverage over a second critical waterway, the Bab el-Mandeb.

Ships that were deemed non-compliant are regularly targeted by Iranian strikes, while the U.S. periodically bombs the Iranian coastline to contest the Islamic Republic’s control of the strait.

Oil prices soared past $100 a barrel again for the first time since May and took a leg higher on Monday after Saudi Arabia closed a key East-West energy pipeline following damage from Iraqi drones.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures were up 2.3% to $102.39 per barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, traded 2.4% higher to $107.11 a barrel.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media