3 ms·

Calling out aluminum and pens is like picking lotto numbers after the drawing. You're ignoring the mountain of failures that were all incredibly promising and h

by mbb70 3y ago

Calling out aluminum and pens is like picking lotto numbers after the drawing. You're ignoring the mountain of failures that were all incredibly promising and had incredibly smart people spending incredible amounts of time and money on them. Scientific advancement comes from exploring every path at once, quickly pruning failed paths and doubling down on successes, with enough stochastic jumps to keep us out of ruts for too long.

b112 3y ago
I think you missed the point. Fusion power is 100%, hands down possible. There is no question in this. It's all about cost, and my point was, when, not if fusion power is a net positive, will other things be cheaper? I find it incredible how people on HN, a more technical site, seem to consider 10 years a long time, or even 100. Or that money is "wasted" because the research and work will "vanish", which is beyond absurd. Every penny spent on fusion, and cold fusion comes back to us in many wsys, there is no waste.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Yes, other things will be cheaper than DT fusion. This has been known for decades.
  - b112 3y ago
    No it hasn't been known, because to be known, a mature technology must be exist. And your presumptive statement presumes that nothing changes. What is difficult today, is simple tomorrow. Just like aluminum, which used to be more expensive than gold.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      There's a generic argument against DT, in any form, that was formulated back in the 1980s. All experience since then confirms the argument: it's that DT fusion reactors must have unacceptably low volumetric power density, much worse than fission reactors. This follows from limits on power/area at the reactor boundary and from minimum thickness of the blanket dictated by nuclear cross sections. This will make the reactors much more expensive than fission reactors. And give that fission has proven to not be competitive, DT fusion has no chance.

by mbb70 3y ago

b112 3y ago

I think you missed the point. Fusion power is 100%, hands down possible. There is no question in this. It's all about cost, and my point was, when, not if fusion power is a net positive, will other things be cheaper? I find it incredible how people on HN, a more technical site, seem to consider 10 years a long time, or even 100. Or that money is "wasted" because the research and work will "vanish", which is beyond absurd. Every penny spent on fusion, and cold fusion comes back to us in many wsys, there is no waste.

pfdietz 3y ago
Yes, other things will be cheaper than DT fusion. This has been known for decades.
- b112 3y ago
  No it hasn't been known, because to be known, a mature technology must be exist. And your presumptive statement presumes that nothing changes. What is difficult today, is simple tomorrow. Just like aluminum, which used to be more expensive than gold.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    There's a generic argument against DT, in any form, that was formulated back in the 1980s. All experience since then confirms the argument: it's that DT fusion reactors must have unacceptably low volumetric power density, much worse than fission reactors. This follows from limits on power/area at the reactor boundary and from minimum thickness of the blanket dictated by nuclear cross sections. This will make the reactors much more expensive than fission reactors. And give that fission has proven to not be competitive, DT fusion has no chance.