New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Fusion Experiment Breakthrough

In a first, the fuel released more energy than it absorbed

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Last September, under x-ray assault, the rapid implosion of a plastic shell into icy isotopes of hydrogen produced fusion at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility (NIF). This wasn't just a run-of-the-mill fusion reaction: it was the first one NIF has ever produced wherein the fuel released more energy than it absorbed.

The laboratory's 192 lasers have been pumping energy into a succession of tiny fuel pellets since 2010. In this instance, the scientists got the timing right. Instead of ramping up the lasers over the course of the blast, which lasts 20 trillionths of a second, Livermore physicist Omar Hurricane and his team started the blast at maximum intensity and then let it taper off. That change made the fuel in the two-millimeter pellet hotter sooner—reaching temperatures of about 50 million degrees Celsius and pressures of 150 billion Earth atmospheres. Such conditions enable fusion, and, in this case, the fusing fuel yielded nearly twice as much energy as the roughly 10,000 joules that triggered it. The results were published in February in Nature. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)

“This is closer than anyone's gotten before” to self-sustaining energy, Hurricane says. Yet scientists still have a lot of work to do. Although the fuel pellet yielded 17,000 joules of energy, the entire fusion experiment fell far short of breaking even. The NIF experiment required more energy to run than it generated; feeding the lasers alone required a burst of at least 190 million joules.* Doing better than breaking even—or “ignition,” as the NIF folks put it—will require even more extreme pressures and other conditions. A source of nearly unlimited, clean energy is still decades away.

*Correction (7/31/14): This sentence was changed after posting from the original print version, which erroneously stated the amount of energy necessary to feed the lasers. 

David Biello is a contributing editor at Scientific American.

More by David Biello
Scientific American Magazine Vol 310 Issue 6This article was published with the title “A Milestone on the Long and Winding Road to Fusion” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 310 No. 6 (), p. 27
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0614-27

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe