2 ms·
q is more of the fan way to look at it than the engineer way to look at it people throw it around like "you need q=1.35 to be economical" but that's kind of no
by JohnHaugeland 4y ago
q is more of the fan way to look at it than the engineer way to look at it
people throw it around like "you need q=1.35 to be economical" but that's kind of nonsense
- arnaudsm 4y agoWhat are the other relevant numbers to summarize the progress? $/kWh?
- tinco 4y agoNo, that's just a different way of writing Q. There is not a continuous gradient along which nuclear fusion research progresses. It will have a negative $/kWh ratio until the first commercial plant is built. Until then it's milestones that show possibilities.
- JohnHaugeland 4y agoThat's like claiming that gas mileage is the only way to evaluate a car, and when hearing someone say "only a fan would think you can make a decision like this from a single number," asking what you would use instead of gas mileage You can't even evaluate if a good choice for location 1 is still a good choice for a different location without knowing what the other location is There is no easy number for a casual to try to make these decisions with