3 ms·

> 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 tech

> 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 3y 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.

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 3y 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.