> This is a fundamental problem in any hot-neutron fusion system. The real reason governments pour so much money into Tokamak fusion projects is as jobs programs for hot-neutron physicists, and subsidy for contractors, to keep them all ready for when they will be tapped for weapons work.
This is quite the claim with no evidence to support it when the more obvious explanation is simply that fusion, if it become a reality, could power entire countries with a single reactor opposed to windmills.
That's not a given. It's also possible that fusion becomes a reality and in practice a working react is roughly the same size as a current fission reactor. Or smaller, or bit bigger. We don't know.
Fusion is sought after so much as the theoretical limits of the energy output are quite gargantuan compared to anything that exists now.
How much of that theoretical limit can be practically accessed remains to be seen as always, but the theoretical limits lie orders of magnitude higher than the limits of any other potential energy source.
To say that fusion research is simply pursued to create jobs with no evidence is quite a strange claim when the more obvious reason is that the potential gains from it are enormous and that it's possible, and indeed plausible, that it could solve all energy problems in this world for the foreseeable future, and perhaps even in our lifetime.
If they were even a little bit serious about ever getting power out, they would not be starving everything except hot-neutron fusion.
Actions speak louder than words. Their actions are deafeningly clear.
We already have a solution to all energy problems for the foreseeable future: the cheapest ever devised, with costs still plummeting. All we need is to build it out. Building it out slower delays the full solution, in exact proportion.
> If they were even a little bit serious about ever getting power out, they would not be starving everything except hot-neutron fusion.
> Actions speak louder than words. Their actions are deafeningly clear.
Yes, their actions are pumping money into it, and dismiss that without a source by saying they are doing so “simply to create jobs”, which is an absurd idea when they could have created those jobs with other research.
They are pumping money into it because they hope it will bear fruit.
> We already have a solution to all energy problems for the foreseeable future: the cheapest ever devised, with costs still plummeting. All we need is to build it out. Building it out slower delays the full solution, in exact proportion.
No we do not, wind and solar can not currently supply entire countries, even on a theoretical level, the way a single fusion reactor could theoretically supply an entire country from a bucket of sea water per year.
All of the serious promoters of fusion say a production reactor would need to be at least ten times as large as current fission designs. I see no reason to guess they are exaggerating.
The amount of graft to be extracted from a $100B 20-year construction project already has some politicians salivating.
This is quite the claim with no evidence to support it when the more obvious explanation is simply that fusion, if it become a reality, could power entire countries with a single reactor opposed to windmills.