3 ms·

Many (most?) novel technologies never become commercially viable. I think what @charlieao is saying is that they suspect fusion will be one of the failures. Tha

Many (most?) novel technologies never become commercially viable. I think what @charlieao is saying is that they suspect fusion will be one of the failures. That's a different claim from the one you're countering. Of course predicting the future of new tech is always a kind of bet. I don't know enough about the details to make a judgement either way. Fairly obviously it just isn't going to be ready in time for the thing it's most often touted for - ie. the decarbonisation exigency. That's just the usual research funding opportunism. But assuming we do make it over the next few decades (very unlikely in my view), cheap limitless energy is inevitably going to be transformational.

hnlmorg 4y ago
Usually those novel technologies that don’t become viable is because it’s either a technology we don’t want (like a sentient toaster) or there is another technology that can solve the same problem but cheaper. In the case of fusion, it’s something we do want (fission and burning fuels aren’t sustainable indefinitely) and as our energy needs increase year on year, the cost for energy will also increase if we don’t find a way to supply that demand. This makes a mass producer of clean energy more viable. Renewable energy is great but it’s not exactly cheap to scale either. In fact the only reason it has gotten so cheap is precisely because the need for it has lead to plenty of advancements that have also driven down the cost. So fusion in this form of reactor might prove to be a dead end but at some point humanity will end up with some form of fusion. Even if it’s not in our life time. And assuming we haven’t had an extinction event first…
- crispinb 4y ago
  > Usually those novel technologies that don’t become viable is because it’s either a technology we don’t want (like a sentient toaster) or there is another technology that can solve the same problem but cheaper. I'm sure there must be academic studies looking into reasons for tech not getting to production. I don't know them, so I can only hazard a guess that this isn't quite right. I think many technologies just don't prove feasible outside the lab. One cause of infeasability is of course price (no route found to a true industrial scale learning curve). But sometimes it's safety or inherent limitations that weren't understood before trying to scale, or any number of other causes not predictable from basic science. You can't know 'till you know, and for fusion, we don't know yet. It's a bet (which to be fair is the same with nearly any new tech). A good one, perhaps.
  - pas 4y ago
    it's not that simple. context (timing, culture/politics, market conditions, regulations) is very important. there's a lot of interest nowadays in "progress studies" which tries to tackle this (or a very similar set of) questions yes, sure commercial fusion is definitely one of the toughest nuts, but fission based small modular plants are viable, yet it's barely being done. and there are many products and technologies that are economical yet not widespread. (let's say public transport.)
    - crispinb 4y ago
      Agree on the complexities. 'Viability' has to be conceived more widely than just a technical sense. Fission a good example, as you suggest. A dead duck in most of the world. As is wide-scale decarbonisation! We know that (a) it is technically feasible, and (b) it is politically infeasible. So decarbonisation is actually not viable, despite appearing technically possible from a narrow perspective. This also makes commercail fusion very unlikely to happen in this civilisational iteration. It requires large advanced economies with highly functional and specialised supply chains. These conditions won't exist once climate refugees sweep the world in their billions, and wars break out everywhere. If, indeed, given Russia/Ukraine, and the joint determination of China & the US to go to war, we even last that long.

hnlmorg 4y ago

Usually those novel technologies that don’t become viable is because it’s either a technology we don’t want (like a sentient toaster) or there is another technology that can solve the same problem but cheaper. In the case of fusion, it’s something we do want (fission and burning fuels aren’t sustainable indefinitely) and as our energy needs increase year on year, the cost for energy will also increase if we don’t find a way to supply that demand. This makes a mass producer of clean energy more viable. Renewable energy is great but it’s not exactly cheap to scale either. In fact the only reason it has gotten so cheap is precisely because the need for it has lead to plenty of advancements that have also driven down the cost. So fusion in this form of reactor might prove to be a dead end but at some point humanity will end up with some form of fusion. Even if it’s not in our life time. And assuming we haven’t had an extinction event first…

crispinb 4y ago
> Usually those novel technologies that don’t become viable is because it’s either a technology we don’t want (like a sentient toaster) or there is another technology that can solve the same problem but cheaper. I'm sure there must be academic studies looking into reasons for tech not getting to production. I don't know them, so I can only hazard a guess that this isn't quite right. I think many technologies just don't prove feasible outside the lab. One cause of infeasability is of course price (no route found to a true industrial scale learning curve). But sometimes it's safety or inherent limitations that weren't understood before trying to scale, or any number of other causes not predictable from basic science. You can't know 'till you know, and for fusion, we don't know yet. It's a bet (which to be fair is the same with nearly any new tech). A good one, perhaps.
- pas 4y ago
  it's not that simple. context (timing, culture/politics, market conditions, regulations) is very important. there's a lot of interest nowadays in "progress studies" which tries to tackle this (or a very similar set of) questions yes, sure commercial fusion is definitely one of the toughest nuts, but fission based small modular plants are viable, yet it's barely being done. and there are many products and technologies that are economical yet not widespread. (let's say public transport.)
  - crispinb 4y ago
    Agree on the complexities. 'Viability' has to be conceived more widely than just a technical sense. Fission a good example, as you suggest. A dead duck in most of the world. As is wide-scale decarbonisation! We know that (a) it is technically feasible, and (b) it is politically infeasible. So decarbonisation is actually not viable, despite appearing technically possible from a narrow perspective. This also makes commercail fusion very unlikely to happen in this civilisational iteration. It requires large advanced economies with highly functional and specialised supply chains. These conditions won't exist once climate refugees sweep the world in their billions, and wars break out everywhere. If, indeed, given Russia/Ukraine, and the joint determination of China & the US to go to war, we even last that long.