Obviously not everything is a race, and adoption matters much more than invention, but was interesting seeing China, France, and Britain’s (and I think Canada maybe?) fusion teams one upping their fusion length records. I think my money is still on China, but I’m not a fusion expert so I’m not quite sure hoe far apart all the contenders are from each other.
🇨🇳
I wouldn’t be surprised if Britain went the rout of the US and just started literally eating coal again. France… Fuck France.
China all the way baby.
From what I know, China seems firmly is the lead.
I’m still in the “fusion is not viable” camp. It’s going to be useful for scientific research, but never power generation.
i think it will be but only decoupled from capitalism and it’s incentive structures entirely. Even if just as efficient as the average fission reactor (which are also not particularly “profitable”) the safety and potentially unlimited fuel supply once spun up would make it superior. It will have a potentially fragile fuel cycle at first. And it will never be as quick to deploy as a good solar panel or simple to make as a water wheel or basic generator, this will require an advanced and forward thinking and planning state apparatus.
But there is the potential for scale. scale that could only be matched by a hypothetical megastructure like a space based solar array.
and even if it turns out to truly be a bust for effective power generation there is always use as an advanced space drive
The first nation to actually pull this off will be equivalent to the first to the industrial revolution or oil refining.
China already has literal blueprints for deploying 10-foot tall mini-fusion reactors all over the country and providing nearly limitless, extremely safe free energy, that could last for tens of thousands of years.
That sounds incredible! Where can I read about this?
I know I follow it as much as I can. They will absolutely be the nation to do it (assuming there isn’t some final, impossible barrier to practical energy production).
And they will lead the 2nd industrial revolution or whatever we end up calling it. I think that’s why there’s so much desperation from the U.S. and the west to go to war. It’s not purely because they do capitalism better then capitalists. It’s because they are on the verge of this energy revolution (bye bye oil, petrodollar, hello commercial reactors in Africa and South America, mutual relationships, etc)
Wait. Are you saying they actually have the ability to build 10-foot tall mini-fusion reactors?
I think maybe we can build something smaller than a literal star, but there’s no practical way to do fusion even on a planetary scale.
So if we surpass being a Type 1 civilization I guess, a million years after we have abolished capitalism.
you might be right but i hope you’re wrong
I don’t think we need it. We’re already orbiting a fusion reactor, after all.
Nuclear is far more effective, energy efficient and less environmentally damaging than solar.
My problem with fission reactors is they take a really long time to get running whereas solar can be deployed quickly, even in areas that are underdeveloped. We need to decarbonize global electricity production at a rate far too fast to build nuclear reactors for everyone in the world.
(Even worse, tech idiots want to waste their time building reactors just to power their stupid data centers.)
But sure, I’m not anti-nuclear.
Besides, my point is that fusion isn’t necessary. Even if it’s not actually a viable technology for electricity production we’ll be fine, there are other options that don’t require undiscovered science. Nuclear fission is one of those options, as is solar and wind and hydro etc etc.
My problem with fission reactors is they take a really long time to get running whereas solar can be deployed quickly, even in areas that are underdeveloped. We need to decarbonize global electricity production at a rate far too fast to build nuclear reactors for everyone in the world.
Those solar panels also must be manufactured, which require building more factories and mines. In the end, the difference in industrial investment scale is not that important.
Isn’t that what was said about nuclear power in general?
And I find it extremely hard to believe, that millions of moving actors/parts, scientists, and companies all over the world would be investing in something specifically for power generation, if it wasn’t viable.
The fact that the only serious investment comes from governments implies quiet the opposite, that it’s really only useful for scientific research.
I think it’s still incredibly useful for research! But that’s it.
