4 ms·
"is absolutely clear that it's not going to be solved in the next two decades" What makes this absolutely clear? I am genuinely asking.
by throw1234651234 7y ago
"is absolutely clear that it's not going to be solved in the next two decades"
What makes this absolutely clear? I am genuinely asking.
- vkou 7y agoA couple of reasons. 1. Because it takes over a decade for an amazing, clean, cheap, new power-generating technology to reach 3% of overall energy production. Look at how slow the absolute uptake (Or lack thereof) of wind and solar has been. They've been incredibly cost-efficient for a very long time, but actual real-world adoption has been slow. It's taken them two decades to reach a few percentage points. 2. We don't have an amazing, clean, cheap, working version of fusion. 3. We don't even have a working version of fusion, actually. 4. Even if ITER, or some other research group demonstrates commercially viable above-break-even-for-cost energy generation tomorrow, it's still going to be at least a decade of engineering efforts to build out the supply chains that will cheaply be able to manufacture all the esoteric components that go into building fusion reactors. 5. Neither ITER, nor any other group is currently even close to making such an announcement. (See #3) 6. And the reason for that is that there's still hundreds of hard engineering and materials problems to solve in this field. Not solve cost-efficiently - just solve. 7. And then, after we solve them, we'll need to solve them again, but this time in a cost-efficient manner. (See #2) So, there is no way on heaven or Earth that in twenty years, fusion power generation will exceed 3% of overall energy production, regardless of access to He-3. I will take fifty-to-one odds on this. In fifty years? I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.
- throw1234651234 7y agoThanks for the reply.