3 ms·

I personally believe that nuclear fusion is a necessity for long-term survival of humanity -- I'm talking centuries out. I am not a physicist (humble startup d

by cl42 4y ago

I personally believe that nuclear fusion is a necessity for long-term survival of humanity -- I'm talking centuries out. I am not a physicist (humble startup dude / engineer / sales guy). Is there anything someone like me can do to contribute to this space?

ncmncm 4y ago
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  As amusing as it is to see an inverted shtick of the Fusion Energy Foundation that matches the same tenor as that organization, most proponents of solar and wind probably don't see R&D into other methods of power generation as a zero-sum game that detracts from their own favored approach. Not to mention, research into fusion, and indeed any type of nuclear power, is likely overwhelmingly dwarfed by all of the efforts spent into greenhouse gas-generating fossil fuels. Given that, the aforementioned tenor is rather quixotic and misplaced.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Money is fungible. A billion dollars spent chasing fusion is exactly a billion not spent displacing CO2 production.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Money is not fungible when it’s never in the hands of a person or organization who is going to make the binary decision of investing in fusion vs. investing in renewables. You are creating a false dilemma that does not actually exist in real life. Furthermore, if you really cared about advancing the cause of solar and wind, you would take that tenor and energy towards attacking fossil fuels, rather than a completely marginal segment of the power generation pie.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Nobody is choosing between backing a fusion startup or a coal mine. They are, instead, choosing among forward-looking long shots, such as perovskite PV, battery chemistry, ammonia synthesis catalysts. Any of those have a chance of producing something of value. The people hawking fusion are taking exactly those dollars. Those dollars then do not go to the projects that could possibly do some good.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Are there any actual cases of government grants or investor capital being forced to decide between fusion and renewable startups? Or are you just assuming that this is a scenario that exists somewhere? You have your belief in the clear way for energy production, that is fine; you have made yourself abundantly and repeatedly clear. But this whole idea of a zero-sum game between nuclear and renewables seems to be based on pure assumption. I don't think Altman would've backed solar if not for Helion; those who are pursuing fusion startups are self-selecting for the latter, and wouldn't have backed renewables anyway. https://blog.samaltman.com/energy https://blog.samaltman.com/energy
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Sam's project is not obviously fraudulent. But it also is not what the article was about. All fusion startups except Sam's are obviously fraudulent, as they all depend upon burning tritium that cannot be obtained, among numerous other intractable problems. ITER, likewise. Sam's depends on 3He which is even rarer, but for which they have not obviously unworkable plans to breed in their reactor. Even if those don't work, the reactor could be usable in spacecraft relying on the limited supply, as we do for plutonium in thermoelectric generators sent to the outer solar system..
        SAMIJAN2636 4y ago
- short_sells_poo 4y ago
  You do realize that by spamming this entire thread with very strongly worded posts and yet very little supporting evidence, that you are just making people disregard your views? If you are hoping to educate and convert people to what you consider the correct path forward, your current approach is definitely not the right one.
bobsmooth 4y ago
Tell people about General Fusion and invest should they ever go public.
thrown_22 4y ago
Talk to rich people and convince them to invest in the space instead of buying bunkers in New Zealand.
llsf 4y ago
Explain to people around you. Eventually this has to percolate to the government. It is a question a national security, for every country. If a country wants to secure its GDP, then it needs cheap energy. Oil has been the primary cheap energy, but burning something that takes thousands of years to make, is not sustainable. Even ignoring that fact that transferred all those carbon from deep underground to the atmosphere, and changing the climate of a couple degrees Celsius in a century, when it took 100,000 years get over the last glacial period that was just +5 degree Celsius. And now we just added 1-2 degree in likely less than a century. The last glacial period ended 15,000 years ago and allowed human settlement. So 5 degrees completely changed the geography of the world. Not sure what the next 5 degrees would do to our civilization. All countries on earth need access to cheap and sustainable energy to support 8B humans. To feed them and protect them from the weather. As a blunt reminder. If the gas production stops unexpectedly, big cities die. Like people have to leave the city or literally starve to death. A city like NYC, with 8M mouths to feed 3 times a day (3x~2,000 calories), if trucks, boats and even trains (diesel) are not moving, I doubt the city could survive a week. Cheap and accessible energy is paramount for our current local and global economy.

by cl42 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

Apocryphon 4y ago
As amusing as it is to see an inverted shtick of the Fusion Energy Foundation that matches the same tenor as that organization, most proponents of solar and wind probably don't see R&D into other methods of power generation as a zero-sum game that detracts from their own favored approach. Not to mention, research into fusion, and indeed any type of nuclear power, is likely overwhelmingly dwarfed by all of the efforts spent into greenhouse gas-generating fossil fuels. Given that, the aforementioned tenor is rather quixotic and misplaced.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Money is fungible. A billion dollars spent chasing fusion is exactly a billion not spent displacing CO2 production.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Money is not fungible when it’s never in the hands of a person or organization who is going to make the binary decision of investing in fusion vs. investing in renewables. You are creating a false dilemma that does not actually exist in real life. Furthermore, if you really cared about advancing the cause of solar and wind, you would take that tenor and energy towards attacking fossil fuels, rather than a completely marginal segment of the power generation pie.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Nobody is choosing between backing a fusion startup or a coal mine. They are, instead, choosing among forward-looking long shots, such as perovskite PV, battery chemistry, ammonia synthesis catalysts. Any of those have a chance of producing something of value. The people hawking fusion are taking exactly those dollars. Those dollars then do not go to the projects that could possibly do some good.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Are there any actual cases of government grants or investor capital being forced to decide between fusion and renewable startups? Or are you just assuming that this is a scenario that exists somewhere? You have your belief in the clear way for energy production, that is fine; you have made yourself abundantly and repeatedly clear. But this whole idea of a zero-sum game between nuclear and renewables seems to be based on pure assumption. I don't think Altman would've backed solar if not for Helion; those who are pursuing fusion startups are self-selecting for the latter, and wouldn't have backed renewables anyway. https://blog.samaltman.com/energy https://blog.samaltman.com/energy
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Sam's project is not obviously fraudulent. But it also is not what the article was about. All fusion startups except Sam's are obviously fraudulent, as they all depend upon burning tritium that cannot be obtained, among numerous other intractable problems. ITER, likewise. Sam's depends on 3He which is even rarer, but for which they have not obviously unworkable plans to breed in their reactor. Even if those don't work, the reactor could be usable in spacecraft relying on the limited supply, as we do for plutonium in thermoelectric generators sent to the outer solar system..
        SAMIJAN2636 4y ago
short_sells_poo 4y ago
You do realize that by spamming this entire thread with very strongly worded posts and yet very little supporting evidence, that you are just making people disregard your views? If you are hoping to educate and convert people to what you consider the correct path forward, your current approach is definitely not the right one.

bobsmooth 4y ago

Tell people about General Fusion and invest should they ever go public.

thrown_22 4y ago

Talk to rich people and convince them to invest in the space instead of buying bunkers in New Zealand.

llsf 4y ago

Explain to people around you. Eventually this has to percolate to the government. It is a question a national security, for every country. If a country wants to secure its GDP, then it needs cheap energy. Oil has been the primary cheap energy, but burning something that takes thousands of years to make, is not sustainable. Even ignoring that fact that transferred all those carbon from deep underground to the atmosphere, and changing the climate of a couple degrees Celsius in a century, when it took 100,000 years get over the last glacial period that was just +5 degree Celsius. And now we just added 1-2 degree in likely less than a century. The last glacial period ended 15,000 years ago and allowed human settlement. So 5 degrees completely changed the geography of the world. Not sure what the next 5 degrees would do to our civilization. All countries on earth need access to cheap and sustainable energy to support 8B humans. To feed them and protect them from the weather. As a blunt reminder. If the gas production stops unexpectedly, big cities die. Like people have to leave the city or literally starve to death. A city like NYC, with 8M mouths to feed 3 times a day (3x~2,000 calories), if trucks, boats and even trains (diesel) are not moving, I doubt the city could survive a week. Cheap and accessible energy is paramount for our current local and global economy.