5 ms·

> Cynicism is well justified, given history and the present landscape. The history, measured by the fusion triple product, is exponential progress on par with

> Cynicism is well justified, given history and the present landscape. The history, measured by the fusion triple product, is exponential progress on par with Moore's law [1], despite abysmal funding [2]. [1] Figure 1, https://www.scipedia.com/public/Sanchez_2014a https://www.scipedia.com/public/Sanchez_2014a [2] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fus...

ncmncm 5y ago
The history is of radical overpromising, and continual announcement of "breakthroughs" that do not bring plausible competitive viability any nearer. The current funding level, given the abysmal prospects for any return, is too high. It was even higher before. We'll never get any of that back.
- car_analogy 5y ago
  > The history is of radical overpromising, and continual announcement of "breakthroughs" that do not bring plausible competitive viability any nearer. It sounds like your issue is with the PR, not the technology. Is there something faulty or misleading with the progress made in the triple-product score? > The current funding level, given the abysmal prospects for any return, is too high. It was even higher before. We'll never get any of that back. 30 years of fusion research is what a single Nimitz aircraft carrier costs. The "even higher" level was one Nimitz carrier per decade. And it only lasted one decade. Eyeballing the funding graph, the US has spent a total of 3 aircraft carrier's worth of funding for fusion in total, since research began.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    3 aircraft carriers in, 0 kWh out.
pfdietz 5y ago
If only achieving a high triple product were enough to achieve practical fusion. It's not -- there are serious obstacles, especially for DT fusion, that have nothing to do with plasma physics.

ncmncm 5y ago

The history is of radical overpromising, and continual announcement of "breakthroughs" that do not bring plausible competitive viability any nearer. The current funding level, given the abysmal prospects for any return, is too high. It was even higher before. We'll never get any of that back.

car_analogy 5y ago
> The history is of radical overpromising, and continual announcement of "breakthroughs" that do not bring plausible competitive viability any nearer. It sounds like your issue is with the PR, not the technology. Is there something faulty or misleading with the progress made in the triple-product score? > The current funding level, given the abysmal prospects for any return, is too high. It was even higher before. We'll never get any of that back. 30 years of fusion research is what a single Nimitz aircraft carrier costs. The "even higher" level was one Nimitz carrier per decade. And it only lasted one decade. Eyeballing the funding graph, the US has spent a total of 3 aircraft carrier's worth of funding for fusion in total, since research began.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  3 aircraft carriers in, 0 kWh out.

pfdietz 5y ago

If only achieving a high triple product were enough to achieve practical fusion. It's not -- there are serious obstacles, especially for DT fusion, that have nothing to do with plasma physics.