>“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” So stated the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman during a commission hearing into NASA’s *Challenger* space shuttle disaster in 1986, which killed all seven astronauts onboard.
>Those famous words have since been applied to many technologies, but they are becoming especially apt to nuclear fusion where public relations currently appears to have the upper hand. Fusion has recently been successful in attracting public and private investment and, with help from the private sector, it is claimed that fusion power can be delivered in time to tackle climate change in the coming decades.
Also from the article
>I expect that the complexity inherent in fusion will continue to provide its advocates, both in the public and private sphere, with ample means to obscure both the severity of the many issues that lie ahead and the timescales required. Returning to Feynman’s remarks, sooner or later reality will catch up with the public relations narrative that currently surrounds fusion. Nature cannot be fooled.
wwarnout on
Most reports about fusion claim a “breakthrough” with “more energy out than the amount put in”. This claim is very misleading, because they only include the energy needed for the lasers, and do not include the energy needed for the ancillary equipment, without which the reaction could not take place. As a result, the actual output/input is about 10%, not the >100% stated in the claim.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m an ardent supporter of fusion energy. But I’m also an ardent advocate of reporting results realistically.
There’s money ab investors to chase after. We have always been 30 years away, now we are always 10 years away. Info think we will get there but it’s crazy hard and may never be economically viable (i.e. cost to produce per watt).
Hype trains cannot be trusted. And it’s just about investors now. Some few will get rich but ksit will get hosed.
Ziddix on
I think a lot of the hype behind fusion is just people looking to make money.
Yes there is probably real science to be done (I’m not knowledgeable about the stuff so I can’t comment on it) but just looking at how long we’ve known about fusion and how little has come of it in terms of power generation it just seems like it’s currently not possible for us to do and may never be possible.
One thing that doesn’t really get mentioned a lot when people talk about fusion power and what not is that any situation that would produce a useful amount of energy would also produce amounts of gamma radiation that are much higher than anything we’ve ever intentionally or accidentally blown up. It doesn’t produce any waste but a continuous fusion reaction that could be used to boil water and generate electricity would most likely require much more shielding than any fission reactor.
4 Comments
From the article
>“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” So stated the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman during a commission hearing into NASA’s *Challenger* space shuttle disaster in 1986, which killed all seven astronauts onboard.
>Those famous words have since been applied to many technologies, but they are becoming especially apt to nuclear fusion where public relations currently appears to have the upper hand. Fusion has recently been successful in attracting public and private investment and, with help from the private sector, it is claimed that fusion power can be delivered in time to tackle climate change in the coming decades.
Also from the article
>I expect that the complexity inherent in fusion will continue to provide its advocates, both in the public and private sphere, with ample means to obscure both the severity of the many issues that lie ahead and the timescales required. Returning to Feynman’s remarks, sooner or later reality will catch up with the public relations narrative that currently surrounds fusion. Nature cannot be fooled.
Most reports about fusion claim a “breakthrough” with “more energy out than the amount put in”. This claim is very misleading, because they only include the energy needed for the lasers, and do not include the energy needed for the ancillary equipment, without which the reaction could not take place. As a result, the actual output/input is about 10%, not the >100% stated in the claim.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m an ardent supporter of fusion energy. But I’m also an ardent advocate of reporting results realistically.
For details, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY
No shit :p
There’s money ab investors to chase after. We have always been 30 years away, now we are always 10 years away. Info think we will get there but it’s crazy hard and may never be economically viable (i.e. cost to produce per watt).
Hype trains cannot be trusted. And it’s just about investors now. Some few will get rich but ksit will get hosed.
I think a lot of the hype behind fusion is just people looking to make money.
Yes there is probably real science to be done (I’m not knowledgeable about the stuff so I can’t comment on it) but just looking at how long we’ve known about fusion and how little has come of it in terms of power generation it just seems like it’s currently not possible for us to do and may never be possible.
One thing that doesn’t really get mentioned a lot when people talk about fusion power and what not is that any situation that would produce a useful amount of energy would also produce amounts of gamma radiation that are much higher than anything we’ve ever intentionally or accidentally blown up. It doesn’t produce any waste but a continuous fusion reaction that could be used to boil water and generate electricity would most likely require much more shielding than any fission reactor.