3 ms·

It's a weird tone for IEEE. I'm not a regular reader or anything, but that article reads like a letter to the editor of a print magazine, or a comment on a Face

It's a weird tone for IEEE. I'm not a regular reader or anything, but that article reads like a letter to the editor of a print magazine, or a comment on a Facebook article.

topspin 4y ago
That weird tone is a 10 year old precedent they've never disowned. Now there is the science free collection of talking points plus a click bait headline. Perhaps it's not actually "weird." Look, may I actually say the thing that is going carefully unsaid here without getting modded into the dirt? The suggestion, now apparently armed with distant glimmer of feasibility, that we might actually solve energy problems without adopting a greatly reduced consumption profile is extremely unwelcome to a lot of people. Energy policy and the present prescription of extreme conservation+renewables is the lever with which the entire consumption structure of our species can be altered in a desired direction, and events such as the NIF fusion breakthrough are seen as a setback to the requisite narrative. And so we're getting abundant amounts of FUD and downplaying about NIF, just as we have from day one. I can't hold with this. NIF is fundamental Science. People are building things, solving problems, asking questions and measuring stuff no one anywhere has ever dealt with, and nobody, not Nature, not you and not me, know where this will lead. It may all be the giant boondoggle that Nature et al. have argued it is for going on 10 years now, or we might all have an iFusion Pro Model 3 in our pockets by 2040. We don't know. NIF and other attempts to find out are worth the cost and deserve a bit of room from everyone, despite whatever sacred narratives might be in jeopardy.
- jokteur 4y ago
  Also, people fail to take into account that even with reduced consumption, we would still need to improve the electrical grid. We have to electrify transport, heating, agriculture, industrial processes, ... Even if we all stopped buying iPhones and computers tomorrow, if we are serious about decarbonisation, we still need more electrical energy.

It's a weird tone for IEEE. I'm not a regular reader or anything, but that article reads like a letter to the editor of a print magazine, or a comment on a Facebook article.

topspin 4y ago

That weird tone is a 10 year old precedent they've never disowned. Now there is the science free collection of talking points plus a click bait headline. Perhaps it's not actually "weird." Look, may I actually say the thing that is going carefully unsaid here without getting modded into the dirt? The suggestion, now apparently armed with distant glimmer of feasibility, that we might actually solve energy problems without adopting a greatly reduced consumption profile is extremely unwelcome to a lot of people. Energy policy and the present prescription of extreme conservation+renewables is the lever with which the entire consumption structure of our species can be altered in a desired direction, and events such as the NIF fusion breakthrough are seen as a setback to the requisite narrative. And so we're getting abundant amounts of FUD and downplaying about NIF, just as we have from day one. I can't hold with this. NIF is fundamental Science. People are building things, solving problems, asking questions and measuring stuff no one anywhere has ever dealt with, and nobody, not Nature, not you and not me, know where this will lead. It may all be the giant boondoggle that Nature et al. have argued it is for going on 10 years now, or we might all have an iFusion Pro Model 3 in our pockets by 2040. We don't know. NIF and other attempts to find out are worth the cost and deserve a bit of room from everyone, despite whatever sacred narratives might be in jeopardy.

jokteur 4y ago
Also, people fail to take into account that even with reduced consumption, we would still need to improve the electrical grid. We have to electrify transport, heating, agriculture, industrial processes, ... Even if we all stopped buying iPhones and computers tomorrow, if we are serious about decarbonisation, we still need more electrical energy.