I agree with you regarding shallow dismissals, provided the claims are deep to start with. In this case, we start with a headline that the most transformative

I agree with you regarding shallow dismissals, provided the claims are deep to start with. In this case, we start with a headline that the most transformative technology since combustion is just around the corner. The basis for that claim? That they are going to create an experimental reactor using new high-temp superconductors. Well ok, great. But this is just a lame press release about how somebody HOPES it will work. It's not even a technical argument: it's basically a business argument, using currently available technology. Just the nuclear power version of the "suits" article that comes around every year, and that PG called out in 2005 [1] So what, exactly, can a person substantively say against /this/ piece? I would argue: practically nothing. The best points raised by others relate to fusion in general, which we could have had without this submarine PR piece. 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html