4 ms·

The fusion reactor just uses a very inefficient process to turn energy into less energy. At least the big boat goes places.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago
IMO, spending 15TJ running a research reactor like JET at full whack for 6 hours (which is actually a lot of test fires) is of greater benefit than burning the better part of half a million litres of diesel moving a single billionaire and his lampreys around a bit.
- CSSer 5y ago
  You taught me a new word today. Props for creative use in context too, I might add.
- tiahura 5y ago
  Is it? We’ve been doing this for what, 30 years and all we really have to show for it is 30 years of hoping that the big breakthrough is 5-10 years away.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    30 years is less than a fraction of an eyeblink in human history.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    We have a lot more than blind hope, if you care to learn about the state of fusion research today.
  - adhesive_wombat 5y ago
    Fusion reactor can be thought of in terms of "billions of dollars" away and progress is much clearer. https://imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png Integrating the curves is maybe $100 billion. And below a certain level of funding nothing can really be done (you can't build any reactor on $10 and a box of surplus paperclips the IRS donated from pity). The fact we actual got anywhere using the handful of "it's a start" research reactors like JET, which dates to 1984, that could get built is a testament to the scientists and engineers, not a indictment of the field. Basically, if as much was spent on it as we spent on blowing up poor countries for no real reason (at least $2,000 billion, just for Afghanistan), we'd likely be onto the second or third generation. Or we'd have concluded decades ago that it really can't be done to a five-sigma certainty. The cynic in me says there's a renewed push for it recently because China has 3 research reactors, the next one (CFETR) is designed to outperform ITER (which China is contributing to) and support research for DEMO (which is to say, it is or is very close to being designed for experimental power generation), and the US feels in danger of being beaten to it.
    - tiahura 5y ago
      That’s a big assumption that diminishing marginal returns don’t set in at $2B a year or $5 a year. $500 worth of steroids may let me bench press 200lbs, but it doesn’t follow that with $50,000 I could lift my house.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

IMO, spending 15TJ running a research reactor like JET at full whack for 6 hours (which is actually a lot of test fires) is of greater benefit than burning the better part of half a million litres of diesel moving a single billionaire and his lampreys around a bit.

CSSer 5y ago
You taught me a new word today. Props for creative use in context too, I might add.
tiahura 5y ago
Is it? We’ve been doing this for what, 30 years and all we really have to show for it is 30 years of hoping that the big breakthrough is 5-10 years away.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  30 years is less than a fraction of an eyeblink in human history.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  We have a lot more than blind hope, if you care to learn about the state of fusion research today.
- adhesive_wombat 5y ago
  Fusion reactor can be thought of in terms of "billions of dollars" away and progress is much clearer. https://imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png Integrating the curves is maybe $100 billion. And below a certain level of funding nothing can really be done (you can't build any reactor on $10 and a box of surplus paperclips the IRS donated from pity). The fact we actual got anywhere using the handful of "it's a start" research reactors like JET, which dates to 1984, that could get built is a testament to the scientists and engineers, not a indictment of the field. Basically, if as much was spent on it as we spent on blowing up poor countries for no real reason (at least $2,000 billion, just for Afghanistan), we'd likely be onto the second or third generation. Or we'd have concluded decades ago that it really can't be done to a five-sigma certainty. The cynic in me says there's a renewed push for it recently because China has 3 research reactors, the next one (CFETR) is designed to outperform ITER (which China is contributing to) and support research for DEMO (which is to say, it is or is very close to being designed for experimental power generation), and the US feels in danger of being beaten to it.
  - tiahura 5y ago
    That’s a big assumption that diminishing marginal returns don’t set in at $2B a year or $5 a year. $500 worth of steroids may let me bench press 200lbs, but it doesn’t follow that with $50,000 I could lift my house.