3 ms·
> It's not even been developed, yet the author is convinced it will be 'the most expensive way to create electricity ever devised'. Counting R&D costs, plus th
by duaneb 11y ago
> It's not even been developed, yet the author is convinced it will be 'the most expensive way to create electricity ever devised'.
Counting R&D costs, plus the fact that it still doesn't work, implies an ROI that would make anyone agree.
I think "breakthroughs" (e.g. discontinuous breaks in research where research is leapfrogged) are slowing down. This doesn't imply scientific or technological advancements are slowing down, which I think you misread. All the author is arguing is that maybe we should reconsider investing our money in hugely expensive projects whose success is completely unbounded EXPECTING breakthroughs. This just seems rational.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago> "Counting R&D costs, plus the fact that it still doesn't work, implies an ROI that would make anyone agree." The work on nuclear fusion is broader than the tokamak approach you're alluding to. All other forms of fusion have had far lower levels of investment.
- duaneb 11y agoI'm not aware of any fusion reactor that has "broken even" with just collecting the energy investment. Until that happens, total efficiency for "nuclear fusion" is going to continue to plummet.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoIf some of the predicted timelines about excess energy generation from nuclear fusion turn out to be true then it'll work out to be cheaper than coal, even in the short-to-medium term after that goal is reached. It's too early to write such predictions off, unless you know something I don't know about the future.
- duaneb 11y agoAhh, this is what I was lookin for. Do you have a source for these predicted timelines? I'd like to dig in further. I wasn't even aware they existed.