3 ms·

> as a way to keep hot-neutron physicists and contractors employed between weapons projects. This far more true of ICF than MCF (i.e. tokamak) approaches. Wit

> as a way to keep hot-neutron physicists and contractors employed between weapons projects. This far more true of ICF than MCF (i.e. tokamak) approaches. With the excellent results from MAST, it seems the spherical tokamak approach could allow for a much smaller tokamak to built than previously thought - given the size of the tokamak is strongly related to the capital costs (which are the biggest economic hurdle by far) this is great news for economic fusion power. With the plans for STEP (UK), the US Pilot Plant (in design, seems it will follow similar route to STEP) and the CFETR (China) and the planned experiments at ITER - I suspect economic fusion will be outright proven by 2040 and perhaps even delivering commercial power to the grid by 2050. Fusion doesn't have the same fundamental physical limits that solar and wind do. That said, I think this sort of zero-sum approach to science is what is going to lead us to imminent worldwide disaster. In the Manhattan Project they pursued both the Fat Man and Little Boy designs simultaneously despite the cost - this needs to be our approach with the energy crisis, we can't afford to try and pick winners, the cost of failing to do so is far higher than the cost of funding multiple avenues.

ncmncm 5y ago
We already know the outcome of Tokamak fusion research: certainly nothing for, at minimum, decades. Even if it could be made to work, it would take decades more to build out reactors, at conservatively a $100-billion apiece. We certainly won't be building dozens of $100-billion reactors until after the first one works long enough to prove itself. All this time, solar, wind and storage costs will continue on down. Fusion will certainly never be cheaper than fission, which today costs more just to operate than building out new solar. So power from fusion reactors would always be the most expensive alternative. There can never be an economically rational choice to build a terrestrial Tokamak fusion plant. Meanwhile, we already know the far and away cheapest sources of electric power ever: solar and wind. They start producing immediately. The $100 billion for the first fusion plant, someday, would buy a great deal of solar and wind today, and more all the time, displacing carbon sources immediately. Thus, every cent diverted from those to fusion brings the disaster ever closer.

ncmncm 5y ago

We already know the outcome of Tokamak fusion research: certainly nothing for, at minimum, decades. Even if it could be made to work, it would take decades more to build out reactors, at conservatively a $100-billion apiece. We certainly won't be building dozens of $100-billion reactors until after the first one works long enough to prove itself. All this time, solar, wind and storage costs will continue on down. Fusion will certainly never be cheaper than fission, which today costs more just to operate than building out new solar. So power from fusion reactors would always be the most expensive alternative. There can never be an economically rational choice to build a terrestrial Tokamak fusion plant. Meanwhile, we already know the far and away cheapest sources of electric power ever: solar and wind. They start producing immediately. The $100 billion for the first fusion plant, someday, would buy a great deal of solar and wind today, and more all the time, displacing carbon sources immediately. Thus, every cent diverted from those to fusion brings the disaster ever closer.