3 ms·

> as the investment is a costly signal to e.g. China that e.g. Germany will be able to respond quickly I don't see that at all: fusion is not remotely a "quick

by palata 11mo ago

> as the investment is a costly signal to e.g. China that e.g. Germany will be able to respond quickly I don't see that at all: fusion is not remotely a "quick" solution. Investing a lot into a message that says "be careful, if you cut off our supply, we will work on this thing that will take another few decades" doesn't sound super smart.

ben_w 11mo ago
Truth vs. perception. As I said, politicians have the same range of beliefs as the rest of us, are not magically blessed with true knowledge. They can be believers in fusion just as e.g. Trump has weird beliefs about Chinese domestic installation of renewables. (Me, I don't know if fusion is or isn't realistic, but I can see ways it can cause proliferation issues just by being easier to configure as a cheap neutron source than as aneutronic, so I hope it's not realistic, but hope isn't a prediction).
- palata 11mo ago
  > Truth vs. perception. Which doesn't matter at all in the case of Germany. One should go for what's reasonable when it's about running a country. I mean... ideally of course. And it was not reasonable to move away from nuclear fission.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    > Which doesn't matter at all in the case of Germany. I don't understand what you are trying to suggest here. Do you think German politicians never make errors of judgement? That they can't be afraid of things the general public is afraid of, nor caught up in the excitement of things the public can be inspired by? The perception in the past in Germany was that nuclear fission was dangerous, and I think it may still be seen as such. All the proponents of fusion emphasise how much safer it is in various ways including that it can't have a meltdown. I'm of the opinion that the correct time to deploy nuclear power was any time before the early 2010s, as that was roughly when the time taken to make a new reactor combined with the rate of improvements to renewables to swing the balance from nuclear to renewables. But that's just about cost, diversity is also a useful thing in its own right, as (unfortunately) is the ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons. (A working fusion reactor necessarily helps with making nuclear weapons, just run it in a neutron-emitting mode (IIRC always easier than aneutronic) and use those neutrons to transmute some natural uranium into plutonium, then draw the rest of the owl).
    - mpweiher 10mo ago
      > The perception in the past in Germany was that nuclear fission was dangerous Yes, an entire country gripped by Radiophobia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia And making huge decisions based on nothing but that phobia. Tragic. > I'm of the opinion that the correct time to deploy nuclear power was any time before the early 2010s, The best time to build new nuclear was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Renewables are not sufficient and building out nuclear is much, much quicker and cheaper than the failed German Energiewende, even now.

by palata 11mo ago

ben_w 11mo ago

Truth vs. perception. As I said, politicians have the same range of beliefs as the rest of us, are not magically blessed with true knowledge. They can be believers in fusion just as e.g. Trump has weird beliefs about Chinese domestic installation of renewables. (Me, I don't know if fusion is or isn't realistic, but I can see ways it can cause proliferation issues just by being easier to configure as a cheap neutron source than as aneutronic, so I hope it's not realistic, but hope isn't a prediction).

palata 11mo ago
> Truth vs. perception. Which doesn't matter at all in the case of Germany. One should go for what's reasonable when it's about running a country. I mean... ideally of course. And it was not reasonable to move away from nuclear fission.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  > Which doesn't matter at all in the case of Germany. I don't understand what you are trying to suggest here. Do you think German politicians never make errors of judgement? That they can't be afraid of things the general public is afraid of, nor caught up in the excitement of things the public can be inspired by? The perception in the past in Germany was that nuclear fission was dangerous, and I think it may still be seen as such. All the proponents of fusion emphasise how much safer it is in various ways including that it can't have a meltdown. I'm of the opinion that the correct time to deploy nuclear power was any time before the early 2010s, as that was roughly when the time taken to make a new reactor combined with the rate of improvements to renewables to swing the balance from nuclear to renewables. But that's just about cost, diversity is also a useful thing in its own right, as (unfortunately) is the ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons. (A working fusion reactor necessarily helps with making nuclear weapons, just run it in a neutron-emitting mode (IIRC always easier than aneutronic) and use those neutrons to transmute some natural uranium into plutonium, then draw the rest of the owl).
  - mpweiher 10mo ago
    > The perception in the past in Germany was that nuclear fission was dangerous Yes, an entire country gripped by Radiophobia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia And making huge decisions based on nothing but that phobia. Tragic. > I'm of the opinion that the correct time to deploy nuclear power was any time before the early 2010s, The best time to build new nuclear was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Renewables are not sufficient and building out nuclear is much, much quicker and cheaper than the failed German Energiewende, even now.