4 ms·

>this comparison is disingenuous. I have no earthly reason for wanting practical fusion power to be impossible, or to prevent it if it is possible. I'm recept

by vba616 4y ago

>this comparison is disingenuous. I have no earthly reason for wanting practical fusion power to be impossible, or to prevent it if it is possible. I'm receptive to being un-convinced that it is hopeless, if you have anything to say. But I am convinced of my conclusion and I put it out there to solicit an explanation of what convinces other people otherwise.. >The comparison is analogous to comparing oxidation of iron bearing minerals to a steam engine and dismissing the idea of fire. I don't follow this analogy. First of all, I was dismissing practical fusion reactors on earth, not the phenomenon of fusion. So that is not like dismissing fire, but steam engines (I guess). Secondly, in a parallel universe where fire as we know it was never observed, only slow oxidation, shouldn't we be more skeptical a steam engine would work? Massive wildfires seem to me like just the sort of evidence that fire technology is practical that I don't see for fusion. I would like to understand the reasoning that convinces you fusion power plants are plausible and I promise not to reject it out of hand as inadequate whether or not I buy it.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
We observe much faster fusion in bigger stars or in ones that run out of hydrogen. Ironically the thing that slows it down is fusion. Stars are not very dense so they produce exactly enough energy to hold some hydrogen up and no more. Contrapositively the only thing even loosely analogous to photovoltaics is much worse, and there are no natural wind turbines or water impellers. Conversion of sugars to work is pretty poor as well. I'm not bullish on fusion as a viable bulk electricity or heat source any time this century (or possibly ever on earth), but current approaches are already much better than your analogy. The stable plasma concept probably won't work without much better magnets and a whole host of other highly unlikely advances. If you want a concept that is not obviously terrible, look up Helion.

by vba616 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

We observe much faster fusion in bigger stars or in ones that run out of hydrogen. Ironically the thing that slows it down is fusion. Stars are not very dense so they produce exactly enough energy to hold some hydrogen up and no more. Contrapositively the only thing even loosely analogous to photovoltaics is much worse, and there are no natural wind turbines or water impellers. Conversion of sugars to work is pretty poor as well. I'm not bullish on fusion as a viable bulk electricity or heat source any time this century (or possibly ever on earth), but current approaches are already much better than your analogy. The stable plasma concept probably won't work without much better magnets and a whole host of other highly unlikely advances. If you want a concept that is not obviously terrible, look up Helion.