OK but physics pertains to all forms of energy production and last time I looked Nuclear plants charge people money for what they produce.

[removed]

I would be incredibly surprised if solar research has received less than $35 billion over the last 70 years. Maybe fusion wouldn’t be decades from being practical if it had been given more funding than a handful of aircraft carriers or three quarters of a social media company.

Hmm...I predict spicy cherries some day. Chirrlies

>But look at how fast every other technology evolves

See, that right there is the fundamental error all of you guys are making. That's not how progress works at all. Most of the time progress is painstakingly slow and its actually slower now than almost any time since the start of the industrial revolution. When a new technological front opens up you do indeed get rapid progress, but after 15 years or so progress slows to a crawl again. At the rate fusion research is going it will take 100+ years to actually reach a point it could reach a real net gain end to end. And even if it does so what? The cost in terms of steel, concrete, etc is going to be astronomically high regardless.

[removed]

Seems like a lot of money. We went to an Asian Fusion last night and spent less than $100.

Hmmm, it's more like 1.3 trillion, their own website has a much larger number than what your first Google number says

2021. but maybe a few data points are missing

[removed]

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Stop over hyping reactor metldowns. There have been more deaths per terawatt from fucking WIND POWER!!!

[deleted]

But is that impossible, I don't think so. I'm not going to say we're 10 years away from it being viable because we've been 10 years away for the past 50 years. But look at how fast every other technology evolves, this is literally the beginning for where it all starts coming together. I'd bet people alive today will see fusion energy become a reality.

Anddd? That amount of energy scales up by 10% with mass as.only 10% of the material is required to turn into plasma to start the reaction, as I've stated. Increasing the density lowers the amount of energy required, as I've also stated (and cited).

The link you provided puts 3.3 trillion as the cost of ww2.

The wiki page for the Manhattan project puts it as 1.89 Billion, or about 22 Billion today.

Yes, it's very simple. The lasers impart an insane amount if energy on a tiny area creating the conditions necessary to achieve fusion. Just think of it like using a spark plug to ignite fuel in your cars engine.

Your lasers would need to be 100x as efficient and your reaction 100x more powerful to be a useful energy return..

And you do?

I don't think you understand how thus technology works. There's no way to actually scale it up 1000x without putting 1000x as much energy in to achieve ignition.

Her next statement is that commercialization is decades away, which both her and the announcement agreed with. Nothing contradicts my statement.

Also, I have cited nearly every claim I've made and you have not. We're not equally discussing this in good faith. Pretending fission is harmless is a joke. It's worth the risk IMO, but stop downplaying actual nuclear meltdowns

Her next statement is that commercialization is decades away, which both her and the announcement agreed with.

And thanks for literally ignoring the entire comment you replied to

No, we got 1% return in reality. It's only 150% in theory if you assume no loses which obviously isn't real.

There is! Check out the comment we just posted :)

https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1602907470133100547

Fusion reactions arent even remotely close to viable.

You can assemble different reactor types in close proximity, which has never been done, and eliminate 99% of nuclear waste. Its never been done because we dont build them with this intended we just yeet the stuff into the ground.

From our newsletter:

What has caused this production increase? In short: demand from China. Nowadays, China buys around 91% of all cherry exports from Chile. Chile's cherry harvest happens just before the Chinese new year; therefore, cherries have become a popular gift in China, culturally considered a symbol of prosperity. The fruit is marketed as something close to luxury and packed in elegant 5 kg boxes in the Chinese market.

Furthermore, two things have also facilitated such prosperity in the Chilean cherry industry: strong government support and a recent influx of labor. In 2005, the government established a free trade agreement with China (now its largest export partner, ahead of the US), eliminating trade barriers between the two countries. Wisely, they've also set rigorous production standards, ensuring exported cherries are of the highest quality.

On the other hand, cherry plantations require a large amount of field labor, which the country has found in the roughly 700K immigrants that arrived in Chile between 2015 and 2017. These immigrants, mainly from Haiti and Venezuela, have driven labor costs down in the industry and allowed it to keep growing quickly.

Although presented with pandemic-related challenges lately, the cherry industry is quickly becoming a crucial component of Chile's trade. It diversifies exports from a historical overreliance on copper, which accounts for roughly half of its exports.

Source: Our World in Data
Tools: Rawgraphs, Affinity Designer, Sheets