3 ms·
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, batter
by 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 agoAre 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 agoSam'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