3 ms·

They managed to handle what a fission reactor outputs every second in this experiment. I don't think that points to a commercial reactor whenever someone spend

• fizigura 3y ago
  That's how research works. The first fission experiments couldn't power half a small country either. When you listen to the guys from this original article then you'd know that for 10-20bn USD you could likely build a real power plant with this tech within 5 years. It's obviously not without risk, which is why nobody is doing it. But the technical feasibility is there. They also point out that once the first-of-a-kind installation exists, subsequent models will be way cheaper and way better since you'd have learned a lot and streamlined the process. But we choose to use public money for fossil subsidies instead, cause jobs, or something.
  • Guvante 3y ago
    The US has spent (inflation adjusted) $34 billion on fusion as of the end of 2021. Assuming no real change it would be $35 billion as of the end of 2023. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/margraf1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/margraf1/ Fusion has been "a decade away" since before the turn of the millennium. To say we should just throw $10-20 billion at a power plant and hope something comes out is not a good idea. We should wait until one of the many multi billion dollar research plants is able to get even 10% of a reasonable to target energy output before even thinking about that. Otherwise we would likely just sign the death of fusion in the public eye. Could you imagine the backlash if a $40 billion dollar project couldn't even produce power after two decades? (Going off how public works costs and timelines have been going is the reason for higher values)