4 ms·
Because we want an energy source that can be operational tomorrow, not one that will be operational 20 years from now.
by lukealization 9y ago
Because we want an energy source that can be operational tomorrow, not one that will be operational 20 years from now.
- jlebrech 9y agoLFTR is operational yesterday, you think Fusion is operational tomorrow?
- xaldir 9y agoNo it's not. There was some small scale experiments, to have a fully working industrial prototype, the amount of problem to solve is just colossal. I think 40+ years is a much more reasonable guess. The thing is we don't even have a realistic timeline for those, because even that requires more research. We need way more data to say something about LFTR. Fusion on the other hand has an estimate timeline. If everything goes well with ITER, DEMO should be operational around 2040-2050+. And actual power plants will use DEMO design. That's what we know today. With more research, we could find better design and faster ways to get fusion (Wendelstein 7-X) or we can find more trouble along the way.
- douche 9y agoFusion is always 40-50 years away, going back to the first experiments in the 1950s. It's hard to take such estimates seriously.
- adrianN 9y agoFusion is mostly a certain amount of research dollars away. Funding has been steadily declining.[1] [1] http://imgur.com/sjH5r http://imgur.com/sjH5r
- jlebrech 9y agothe biggest obstacle to LFTR is money and support. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIDytUCRtTA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIDytUCRtTA fusion's is money and scientific discovery.
- camillomiller 9y agoAny nuclear effort started now would be realistically operative in 10 years (best case scenario) That's not really a good reason not to invest in something potentialy world-changing
- pm90 9y agoProbably, but if you invest in not just one, but many, that might decrease/keep decreasing.