2 ms·

> "But fusion IS very expensive electricity." You're falling into the same trap as the article author, you have no way of knowing that. For example, this arti

> "But fusion IS very expensive electricity." You're falling into the same trap as the article author, you have no way of knowing that. For example, this article on the dense plasma focus approach to nuclear fusion shows the costs are far below that of other non-nuclear sources: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/cost-advantage-roi/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/cost-advantage-roi/ Even if you take into account the research costs (which I think is a mistake, the cut off point is too hard to define, I mean would you include R&D into petrol-based cars in the solar car R&D costs?) the level of funding that the dense plasma focus has had to date has been relatively small, it could recoup those costs quickly. You can get a sense for the investment costs involved in one dense plasma focus project here (though admittedly this doesn't include all similar research projects, of which there are a few): http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/FutureEnergy/FocusFusion-Ver6.htm http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/FutureEnergy/Focus... So you see, because you have no way of knowing which fusion approach would win out, you cannot say with any certainty that it is expensive electricity.

ju-st 11y ago
You have also now way to know if these 0.5ct/kWh are correct. And that article is actually sales material from the plasma fusion company. The wikipedia article on this topic suggests that no progress has been made since 2012.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "You have also now way to know if these 0.5ct/kWh are correct. And that article is actually sales material from the plasma fusion company." The article I linked to contained an estimate. The point I'm making is that nobody knows what the final cost will actually be. If you want to play guessing games then you should be happy to know what information is available to base that guess on. > "The wikipedia article on this topic suggests that no progress has been made since 2012." Progress has been made since 2012, though the progress has been slower than it could've been as there's been a lack of funding. This year the focus appears to have been on improving one of the key parts. The team update their website fairly frequently, last news update about the project was made less than a month ago: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/news-and-archives/lpp-news/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/news-and-archives/lpp-...

ju-st 11y ago

You have also now way to know if these 0.5ct/kWh are correct. And that article is actually sales material from the plasma fusion company. The wikipedia article on this topic suggests that no progress has been made since 2012.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "You have also now way to know if these 0.5ct/kWh are correct. And that article is actually sales material from the plasma fusion company." The article I linked to contained an estimate. The point I'm making is that nobody knows what the final cost will actually be. If you want to play guessing games then you should be happy to know what information is available to base that guess on. > "The wikipedia article on this topic suggests that no progress has been made since 2012." Progress has been made since 2012, though the progress has been slower than it could've been as there's been a lack of funding. This year the focus appears to have been on improving one of the key parts. The team update their website fairly frequently, last news update about the project was made less than a month ago: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/news-and-archives/lpp-news/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/news-and-archives/lpp-...