3 ms·
> Fusion power is not a replacement for solar. You're conflating ITER with fusion power in general. There're at least half a dozen competing approaches to fusi
by adwn 6y ago
> Fusion power is not a replacement for solar.
You're conflating ITER with fusion power in general. There're at least half a dozen competing approaches to fusion power with several orders of magnitude lower funding. Several of them are probably more promising than ITER, but ITER is primarily a political project, and only secondarily (at best) a physics project.
- willis936 6y agoI am not conflating them. “Several of them are probably more promising than ITER”. Keyword: probably. There are no magic bullets. Would I be happier to see an optimized stellarator with a 10 meter major radius? Yes. A lot of the physics goals of ITER will apply to all MCF reactor designs. If you’re touting the benefits of non-MCF fusion: vaporware. I think many designs should be funded and explored, but it’s not like people haven’t tried clever ways to put particles together before.
- pfdietz 6y agoNone of them are particularly promising. They may be better than ITER, but that's damning with faint praise. Fusion is a technology that's being pursued because it was being pursued, not because it's particularly attractive from a practical point of view.