4 ms·
I think the point was not that a company like Apple ought to invest their billions into ongoing fusion research, indeed the exact opposite: it might be more rat
by abundant 8y ago
I think the point was not that a company like Apple ought to invest their billions into ongoing fusion research, indeed the exact opposite: it might be more rational for a company like Apple to hide their billions under a mattress, so that they can make a single, economy-controlling investment on the very same day that profitable fusion power becomes merely a problem of capital.
- bassman9000 8y agoon the very same day that profitable fusion power becomes merely a problem of capital. Wouldn't that be too late? Or, put it this way: it is already a problem of capital. If you have enough, you can explore all technology tree branches till finding the one that leads you to it, even in parallel.
- philipkglass 8y agoThere's no guarantee that any of the technology tree branches have profitable fusion power in them. I'm reasonably confident that controlled fusion with net energy gain is technologically possible. Determining whether it can be profitable is a lot harder. Profitability depends on what every other competitor can do, as well as what your own technology can do. That's why extremely well-proven technologies like coal-fired electrical generators can become unprofitable when competing technologies improve. If there were a global carbon tax, it would give fusion an advantage against fossil fuels, but that would also be to the advantage of fission and renewables. In the absence of a global carbon tax, is fusion going to be cheap enough to displace fossil fueled power? We've had the technology for emissions-free electricity for decades, but it's difficult to profitably compete with fossil-based generators enjoying unpriced externalities.