4 ms·

Those costs are born by real people, who have other needs such as education, healthcare, sanitation, nutrition etc. If you truly believe "whatever the cost", st

by dkural 10y ago

Those costs are born by real people, who have other needs such as education, healthcare, sanitation, nutrition etc. If you truly believe "whatever the cost", start by donating most of your salary. After all, you could live somewhere smaller, consume less stuff, not take any days off, etc. It's so important for human civilization to progress, right? Second issue: There are cheaper ways to produce no greenhouse gases than fusion energy, today. Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal, Wave, Hydro are all mostly CO2 free, just like Fusion. However, these technologies compete in the (very distorted) energy markets, have some environmental impact, social impact, and there is too low a cost to simply poisoning our air quality with cheap coal. Our grid designs are outdated, the way we regulate our utilities & their incentives also don't align. Third issue: Fusion is well understood, plasma physics, the structure of magnetic fields etc. is the real issue, as other commenters have outlined. There was a mistake in our understanding of how even our microwave oven's fields are contained via the tiny Faraday Cage around them. Even Feynman was wrong about it: https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/surprises-of-the-faraday-cage https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/surprises-of-the-farada...

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
From that article: > Q3. Somebody must design microwave oven doors based on laboratory measurements. Where are these people? They're (1) deep inside large corporations like GE, LG, Sharp, and others - they have non-disclosure agreements, keycard locks on the doors to neighboring departments, and strict firewalls on their network connections. They don't publish, which is probably a foreign concept to this Oxford professor. And (2) they are cannot afford to be this curious, they are time-constrained and budget-driven, which is also fundamentally alien to this professor's tenure-based worldview. They have to pass CE/FCC emissions regulations, and if a trial of a larger grid spacing or lower gauge says the device fails, that's the conclusion of the matter - put in the stuff that worked before. They certainly don't have a year to devote to understanding the fundamentals of Faraday cages.
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  On the other hand, people have gotten curious in the past. If I wanted to hire innovative top talent, I would expect them to have interests outside the immediate company project requirements. Actually most good ideas come from domain experts and not some business managers. Furthermore, many people just naturally like to share their ideas and discoveries to the world.
- dkural 10y ago
  I don't think it's just a publication issue. As far as I'm aware GE / none of the companies you cited actually did measurements on a variety of designs for plasma confinement. It was great to see the German Wendelstein 7-X experiment. I personally think that's a much more promising (both in terms of science & economics) approach to fusion energy.
mason240 10y ago
Wind, Solar, Wave, ect are causing energy markets to be distorted through the massive amounts of subsidies they receive - exactly the thing you railed against in your first paragraph as taking money from "education, healthcare, sanitation, nutrition" and causing people to "live somewhere smaller, consume less stuff, not take any days off."
- dkural 10y ago
  Agreed! I already said it's distorted in my post! However you got the direction of the distortion wrong: It's distorted in favor of fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels (incl. Coal & Oil) receive a bigger comparative subsidy than clear energy. Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fu...
  - mason240 10y ago
    Most of those subsides are for capital investments, something that is available to all industries, including wind and solar. You'll note that the article simply says: >Fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion a year in subsidies and holding back investment in cleaner forms of energy, the International Energy Agency said. and then nothing else about what those subsidies actually are. It would make sense that sectors that generate the vast majority of energy would receive the most of those capital investment subsidies - they are actually receiving a far small amount comparatively.
drjesusphd 10y ago
> After all, you could live somewhere smaller, consume less stuff, not take any days off, etc. It's so important for human civilization to progress, right? Do you think any scientific research ought to be funded?
- dkural 10y ago
  I think scientific research should be funded at higher levels than they are currently being funded, as a grant-applying scientist myself. He is proposing replacing all carbon-outputting power with fusion. That impose draconian costs on society. Undemocratic regimes in the past have diverted resources from people's basic needs to techno-utopian projects to the detriment of all.
agumonkey 10y ago
I would do all of this if 80% of these savings were converted (sic) into green power research and actions. The issue, and I feel it's not power only, is when you efforts are dilluted to god knows where by the socio-political structures.

by dkural 10y ago

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

From that article: > Q3. Somebody must design microwave oven doors based on laboratory measurements. Where are these people? They're (1) deep inside large corporations like GE, LG, Sharp, and others - they have non-disclosure agreements, keycard locks on the doors to neighboring departments, and strict firewalls on their network connections. They don't publish, which is probably a foreign concept to this Oxford professor. And (2) they are cannot afford to be this curious, they are time-constrained and budget-driven, which is also fundamentally alien to this professor's tenure-based worldview. They have to pass CE/FCC emissions regulations, and if a trial of a larger grid spacing or lower gauge says the device fails, that's the conclusion of the matter - put in the stuff that worked before. They certainly don't have a year to devote to understanding the fundamentals of Faraday cages.

Gravityloss 10y ago
On the other hand, people have gotten curious in the past. If I wanted to hire innovative top talent, I would expect them to have interests outside the immediate company project requirements. Actually most good ideas come from domain experts and not some business managers. Furthermore, many people just naturally like to share their ideas and discoveries to the world.
dkural 10y ago
I don't think it's just a publication issue. As far as I'm aware GE / none of the companies you cited actually did measurements on a variety of designs for plasma confinement. It was great to see the German Wendelstein 7-X experiment. I personally think that's a much more promising (both in terms of science & economics) approach to fusion energy.

mason240 10y ago

Wind, Solar, Wave, ect are causing energy markets to be distorted through the massive amounts of subsidies they receive - exactly the thing you railed against in your first paragraph as taking money from "education, healthcare, sanitation, nutrition" and causing people to "live somewhere smaller, consume less stuff, not take any days off."

dkural 10y ago
Agreed! I already said it's distorted in my post! However you got the direction of the distortion wrong: It's distorted in favor of fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels (incl. Coal & Oil) receive a bigger comparative subsidy than clear energy. Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fu...
- mason240 10y ago
  Most of those subsides are for capital investments, something that is available to all industries, including wind and solar. You'll note that the article simply says: >Fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion a year in subsidies and holding back investment in cleaner forms of energy, the International Energy Agency said. and then nothing else about what those subsidies actually are. It would make sense that sectors that generate the vast majority of energy would receive the most of those capital investment subsidies - they are actually receiving a far small amount comparatively.

drjesusphd 10y ago

> After all, you could live somewhere smaller, consume less stuff, not take any days off, etc. It's so important for human civilization to progress, right? Do you think any scientific research ought to be funded?

dkural 10y ago
I think scientific research should be funded at higher levels than they are currently being funded, as a grant-applying scientist myself. He is proposing replacing all carbon-outputting power with fusion. That impose draconian costs on society. Undemocratic regimes in the past have diverted resources from people's basic needs to techno-utopian projects to the detriment of all.

agumonkey 10y ago

I would do all of this if 80% of these savings were converted (sic) into green power research and actions. The issue, and I feel it's not power only, is when you efforts are dilluted to god knows where by the socio-political structures.