4 ms·
Scientifically it's potentially very interesting: close up observation of what's going on in the center of a star and all that. I'd ignore all "the future of f
by femto113 4y ago
Scientifically it's potentially very interesting: close up observation of what's going on in the center of a star and all that. I'd ignore all "the future of free clean energy is upon us at last!" hype. That's the lab and the government officials trying to drum up publicity that can then be milked for financial/political capital (it costs many billions to build and run a facility like this), coupled with lazy news outlets trying to milk sensationalist headlines for eyeballs.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y agoThis seems far more credible than the "This means fusion in ten years!" hot takes, which are - frankly - completely implausible, whether they're coming from physicists or journalists. Weapons research might be a motivator too. I would be astounded if this can be commercialised. Not because I'm cynical for the sake of it, but because I cannot in good faith see a credible engineering path which might make that possible without spectacular breakthroughs in a number of disciplines. MCF seems more likely to get somewhere. But my best guess is that advances in renewables will have made fusion redundant within ten years. There is far more scope for incremental and affordable improvements in collection, distribution, and storage than there is for the Big Science breakthroughs required to build one commercially viable ICF plant.
- femto113 4y agoFunding for NIF is 100% about weapons, it's never been about energy. After '97 (when Clinton signed the CTBT and the US agreed to stop testing new weapons) the national labs were in a panic until some clever DOE wonk invented the concept of "stockpile stewardship" and they went back to business more or less as usual.