4 ms·

Darn, I found the article quite underwhelming. It may be a major breakthrough relative to past accomplishments in the field but it’s far from commercial viabili

Darn, I found the article quite underwhelming. It may be a major breakthrough relative to past accomplishments in the field but it’s far from commercial viability.

nr2x 5y ago
Yes, but every step forward on this path is thrilling. If we crack carbon capture at scale, and unleash fusion, it would change the game for the survival of our species.
- immmmmm 5y ago
  To change the game for the survival of our species (if protecting a species that destroyed 75% of ecosystems as of today is really sth wanted anyway) we might want to protect the other species as well since we rely on them almost entirely for anything relevant to survival. Also I am not sure having ten times more energy would do any good. IPBES reports as well as the literature in relevant conservation journals are recommended readings.
  - nr2x 5y ago
    Yes fully agree but step one on that path is to stop dumping carbon into the air and oceans.
    - immmmmm 5y ago
      Agreed, but thinking that a new energy source will solve that is completely incorrect. It can help, yes, but it's not a given fact that it will.
- mdavis6890 5y ago
  Negative. If we want to "change the game for the survival of our species" that would be fission, a super-mature and proven technology that is already widely deployed. As far as "carbon sequestration" - that is just a tree. No R&D required.
  - nr2x 5y ago
    I think fission has very good technical merits but the unfortunate reality is it's politically untenable.