6 ms·

Are there game-changing implications for this result?

tinco 4y ago
Nope, it's just the expected gradual progression to the game-changing result that fusion eventually is going to be.
ncmncm 4y ago
No. Progress toward cancellation, as its gross impossibility fades into gross impracticality and grossly extreme cost. You can safely ignore all future fusion announcements.
- ajdegol 4y ago
  It's not like it's theoretical, it powers the sun; it's responsible for all atoms in the universe. It's essential for the long term survival of the species. "Grossly extreme cost"? Shell made more money than ITER costs in the Q2 of 2022 https://www.shell.com/investors/results-and-reporting/quarterly-results/2022/q2-2022/_jcr_content/par/toptasks_1119141760_.stream/1658963233980/ea8d3faec80bcc2622226933fa722b4955a5e83a/q2-2022-quarterly-press-release.pdf https://www.shell.com/investors/results-and-reporting/quarte...
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Hint 1: nobody is working on fusion as it happens in the sun. Hint 2: the sun already works. Solar panels already work, and are cheap and getting cheaper. Hint 3: ITER is not a power plant. It is not even planned to ever produce so much as one kWh of electrical energy. It will burn GWh, if ever finished. Hint 4: a working fusion power plant would necessarily cost many times as much to operate as a fission plant of the same capacity.
    - ajdegol 4y ago
      Hint 1: Nobody working on something isn't solved by not spending money on it. Hint 2: We should invest heavily in solar; they aren't exclusive. I am a massive, massive fan of solar, and tidal, and hydro, and wind. Hint 3: ITER was never intended to be a power plant. This is a hacker forum, one assumes you know about iteration. Hint 4: That's an untested assertion which I would dispute, and the cost will come down with more research and experience. Also, I'm taking exception with you regarding the cost. This is pittance for humanity to spend.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        You do not seem to grasp the gravity of the current climate crisis. Fooling with fusion now is like trying to call a car dealer at midnight in a storm when you have crashed your car into a tree.
        ajdegol 4y ago
        You have me completely opposite. I have been vegan 7 years and have worked in environmental science for 10. Yes to solar and renewables, that's a no-brainer. Arguing against fusion because of that is not even a straw man. They are not mutually exclusive, and you are thinking too short term.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    "Grossly extreme cost" refers to what any actual fusion plant would cost to build and operate. ITER, even at tens of $Bs, is small potatoes compared to what a real plant would have to cost.

Nope, it's just the expected gradual progression to the game-changing result that fusion eventually is going to be.

No. Progress toward cancellation, as its gross impossibility fades into gross impracticality and grossly extreme cost. You can safely ignore all future fusion announcements.

ajdegol 4y ago
It's not like it's theoretical, it powers the sun; it's responsible for all atoms in the universe. It's essential for the long term survival of the species. "Grossly extreme cost"? Shell made more money than ITER costs in the Q2 of 2022 https://www.shell.com/investors/results-and-reporting/quarterly-results/2022/q2-2022/_jcr_content/par/toptasks_1119141760_.stream/1658963233980/ea8d3faec80bcc2622226933fa722b4955a5e83a/q2-2022-quarterly-press-release.pdf https://www.shell.com/investors/results-and-reporting/quarte...
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Hint 1: nobody is working on fusion as it happens in the sun. Hint 2: the sun already works. Solar panels already work, and are cheap and getting cheaper. Hint 3: ITER is not a power plant. It is not even planned to ever produce so much as one kWh of electrical energy. It will burn GWh, if ever finished. Hint 4: a working fusion power plant would necessarily cost many times as much to operate as a fission plant of the same capacity.
  - ajdegol 4y ago
    Hint 1: Nobody working on something isn't solved by not spending money on it. Hint 2: We should invest heavily in solar; they aren't exclusive. I am a massive, massive fan of solar, and tidal, and hydro, and wind. Hint 3: ITER was never intended to be a power plant. This is a hacker forum, one assumes you know about iteration. Hint 4: That's an untested assertion which I would dispute, and the cost will come down with more research and experience. Also, I'm taking exception with you regarding the cost. This is pittance for humanity to spend.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You do not seem to grasp the gravity of the current climate crisis. Fooling with fusion now is like trying to call a car dealer at midnight in a storm when you have crashed your car into a tree.
      - ajdegol 4y ago
        You have me completely opposite. I have been vegan 7 years and have worked in environmental science for 10. Yes to solar and renewables, that's a no-brainer. Arguing against fusion because of that is not even a straw man. They are not mutually exclusive, and you are thinking too short term.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  "Grossly extreme cost" refers to what any actual fusion plant would cost to build and operate. ITER, even at tens of $Bs, is small potatoes compared to what a real plant would have to cost.