From people hearing about fission bombs (1945) to full scale commercial fission power plant (1957) was barely more than 10 years so fusion power plants must have already felt late in the mid 60s!
As for "why not 50 years", even the pessimistic reports of that video have it at ~30 years. Besides, the point is "we won't really know a good estimate for when until it's already about to hit us in the face" not "we should just assume 50 years is a more correct guess than other ones".
As for the comments about votes, they aren't a measure of terseness either. The point is to bubble comments likely to result in curious and thoughtful conversation to the top while comments which will distract from that kind of conversation (combative, vague, distractly offtopic, or whatever else the reason may be) tend to get hidden away. Whether a comment is totally on the money or absolutely incorrect, how you present the conversation starter has a far bigger drive on what types follow-on conversation will appear. Here, that also strongly implies what types of votes will appear too.
> As for "why not 50 years", even the pessimistic reports of that video have it at ~30 years.
When a prediction is at a timescale where the person making the prediction will be retired by the time the prediction applies, you can safely ignore the prediction. That person has no reputational skin in the game.
And how about a honest discussion about whether 30 years away for fusion research may boil down to never ? We are in a contraction already,people voting for decomplexification of society because that is just a natural felt trade off- feed my family now with less tax and forget about leechers promising free energy since almost a 100 years.Its not reasonable , its not historically backed up (science saved the day multiple times ) but this window of research opportunities is closing rapidly and its time to find alternatives to finance such endeavours besides state and oligarchy conglomerate investment scams.
How can they build something commercial/grid-scale when not a single research-level reactor truly generates net energy out, and none can do it anywhere near continously enough to be of any practical use?
This news is either based on misleading the public, or I am about to be updated with where Fusion is?
What makes them industry leaders? Do they have a prototype? Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies?
If they don't have a prototype, and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant, why should we believe this is possible? What evidence is there that these plans for a massive breakthrough ten years from now will work out?
This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype. It may not be, but it has all those features, and not many other features.
our physics teacher at school (late 90s) already joked that "usable fusion power is only 30 years away, for 30 years in a row now"
A relative of mine told me that in 1960s they were saying fusion was only 10 years away
From people hearing about fission bombs (1945) to full scale commercial fission power plant (1957) was barely more than 10 years so fusion power plants must have already felt late in the mid 60s!
It was an era of optimism, I see.
Ok this was a terse comment, but so is a downvote. Please explain why is not 50 years away from first real industrial use. I am waiting....
https://youtu.be/RbZ-XYy0k10
As for "why not 50 years", even the pessimistic reports of that video have it at ~30 years. Besides, the point is "we won't really know a good estimate for when until it's already about to hit us in the face" not "we should just assume 50 years is a more correct guess than other ones".
As for the comments about votes, they aren't a measure of terseness either. The point is to bubble comments likely to result in curious and thoughtful conversation to the top while comments which will distract from that kind of conversation (combative, vague, distractly offtopic, or whatever else the reason may be) tend to get hidden away. Whether a comment is totally on the money or absolutely incorrect, how you present the conversation starter has a far bigger drive on what types follow-on conversation will appear. Here, that also strongly implies what types of votes will appear too.
> As for "why not 50 years", even the pessimistic reports of that video have it at ~30 years.
When a prediction is at a timescale where the person making the prediction will be retired by the time the prediction applies, you can safely ignore the prediction. That person has no reputational skin in the game.
1 reply →
And how about a honest discussion about whether 30 years away for fusion research may boil down to never ? We are in a contraction already,people voting for decomplexification of society because that is just a natural felt trade off- feed my family now with less tax and forget about leechers promising free energy since almost a 100 years.Its not reasonable , its not historically backed up (science saved the day multiple times ) but this window of research opportunities is closing rapidly and its time to find alternatives to finance such endeavours besides state and oligarchy conglomerate investment scams.
1 reply →
https://news.mit.edu/2024/commonwealth-fusion-systems-unveil...
So according to the industry leaders, we will have the first 400MW plant within 10 years.
How can they build something commercial/grid-scale when not a single research-level reactor truly generates net energy out, and none can do it anywhere near continously enough to be of any practical use?
This news is either based on misleading the public, or I am about to be updated with where Fusion is?
13 replies →
What makes them industry leaders? Do they have a prototype? Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies?
If they don't have a prototype, and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant, why should we believe this is possible? What evidence is there that these plans for a massive breakthrough ten years from now will work out?
This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype. It may not be, but it has all those features, and not many other features.
3 replies →
I looked up this Commonwealth Fusion Systems company.
"The company plans to produce its first plasma in 2026 and net fusion energy shortly after."
Looks like your argument is build on just promises, not backed by any tech developments.
2 replies →
Fake news: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/21/commonwealth-fusi...
"I am waiting..." was unnecessary.
True...But I am still waiting for the scientific and technical arguments to prove me wrong.