3 ms·
I'm not sure it's possible for "lay people" (of which I am one) to recognize the difference between a very slow success and "decades of failure". Very little i
by stormbrew 5y ago
I'm not sure it's possible for "lay people" (of which I am one) to recognize the difference between a very slow success and "decades of failure".
Very little is invested into fusion power as a project, overall. So advancements seem to come when outside influences cause breakthroughs.
I wonder how different the world would have been if it had for whatever reason been easier to produce fusion power than a fusion bomb. Military investment into the bomb would have probably pushed things forward a lot quicker. As is, the US military built thermonuclear bombs very quickly and then the appetite for advancement just dried up.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y agoYou could say that military investment into fusion and fission bombs was groundwork for everything done since. On the other hand, the fact that nuclear power started with bombs probably contributed to it falling out of favor and being regulated to irrelevance (even though hydrocarbons have been responsible for a lot more deaths and environmental damage).