3 ms·
A 1000% return is insane economically. Perhaps I'm not seeing the logic but the pure YOY return on 1000% seems to logically conclude a rational strategy of "not
by pyinstallwoes 5y ago
A 1000% return is insane economically. Perhaps I'm not seeing the logic but the pure YOY return on 1000% seems to logically conclude a rational strategy of "nothing else matters besides building this and it will easily pay off and investment"
- ncmncm 5y agoA 1000% return only just covers unavoidable inefficiencies. No Tokamak will ever pay off its investment.
- pyinstallwoes 5y agoRight, that’s the ridiculousness of it.
- eutectic 5y agoQ is just energy out over energy in. It is not an economic return.
- pyinstallwoes 5y agoYeah but what else puts out more than puts in energy wise?
- eutectic 5y agoAny energy source that people actually use. And most of them have near-zero energy input during active use.
- ahoka 5y agoThis just means for every n W of _heat_ injected the fusion creates 10n W of heat. But I'm pretty sure the experiment itself consumes much more electricity than it could theoretically produce (don't forget that converting heat to electricity has an efficiency below 50%). Fusion researchers mislead the public to get more funding when they say ITER will make more energy than it requires. Fusion might be never viable.
- pyinstallwoes 5y agoYeah well anything above a ratio of 1 would be beyond anything we have in terms of return based on investment in relation to cost to generate heat and it’s output. Basically all technology thus far is <1 right?