9 ms·
Fusion has long seemed unattainable, but now we seem to be approaching the point where we can actually build a useful reactor. Why wouldn't we use fusion if we
by elihu 6y ago
Fusion has long seemed unattainable, but now we seem to be approaching the point where we can actually build a useful reactor. Why wouldn't we use fusion if we could? It's a lot better than the coal and gas we're still using. Wind and solar will be a big part of the power grid going forward, but the installation costs are substantial and we'll need a lot more battery storage to fully transition to renewables.
Even assuming SPARC (or one of its competitors) works, it'll be awhile before the technology becomes mature and we can assess whether it's actually cheaper/better than fission or wind/solar/batteries. But from where we stand now it looks promising. Why the pessimism?
- pfdietz 6y ago> now we seem to be approaching the point where we can actually build a useful reactor. I think not. Reaching ignition in a fusion reactor would be akin to what fission achieved in 1942. There would then be enormous engineering obstacles to overcome, particularly to produce a design that could be competitive with other sources of energy. Fusion has grave disadvantages (low power density, complexity, reliability, difficulty of testing components) that must be overcome. I see nothing from existing efforts that suggest they will be able to surmount these obstacles.