deleted by creator
nice to see more progress.
we need this now more than ever.
Excluding all the ancillary services, including the lasers that maintained the plasma, which was the principle part of this latest test.
Factoring everything in, they’re at about 15% return.
This is still very good for this stage, but the publications are grossly misleading.
That’s what I came to the comments to find. Thank you. Would have been much bigger news if it was net energy positive.
15% return is still net energy positive isn’t it? Or is that not 15% above the input?
I can’t read the full article (paywalled for me) but it references the National Ignition Facility so the way it goes is super lasers blast a tiny hydrogen thing and that creates a tiny bit of fusion that releases the energy. The energy of the laser blast is what’s being called the input and the fusion energy released the output. What is misleading is that a greater amount of energy was used create the laser blast than the laser blast itself outputs. If you consider the energy that went into creating the laser blast the input (rather than the laser blast itself), then it’s usually not a net positive energy release.
Thx. Rip tho
What other energy are you referring to? Like warming up the laser?
Remember when incandescent light bulbs were the norm? They worked by sending full line voltage through a tiny tungsten wire that would get so hot that it glows, making some light, but 95% of the energy that gets consumed is frittered away as heat? The high-power lasers needed to make fusion happen are a lot like that.
I believe all this article is saying is that 15% more energy than what came out of the lasers as useful laser light was liberated in the reaction.This completely ignores the energy it took to power those massively inefficient lasers.
I think it also ignores the fact that the 15% more energy liberated wasn’t actually, like, harnessed by a generator. I believe (and I may be wrong) this was testing only the reaction itself. Actually hooking that up to a turbine and using it to create energy that is cost competitive with contemporary sources is still a completely unsolved problem.
pixelscript@lemmy.ml got it, but basically lasers are pretty inefficient. The article I just found said (in a different run of this facility) they put 400MJ into the laser to get 2.5MJ out of it. So that makes the whole firing system what, 0.6% efficient? Your fusion reaction would have to give more than 400MJ to truly be in the positive for this particular setup/method, but again this facility is a research one and not meant to generate power - there isn’t even a way to harness/collect it here.
Oh so the laser’s generating mostly heat and a little coherent radiation, and they’re only referring to the coherent radiation as the “energy input” to the process.
Hmm. Kinda sketch.
Especially because that’s not trivial. If we have no way of obtaining laser light other than that process, and the laser is the only way to feed the fusion reactor, then that’s 100% on the balance books of this process.
but the publications are grossly misleading.
I think you’re only referencing the headline, the article itself clearly states what you said
Is the headline not part of an article?
When one says a publication is grossly misleading, it certainly implies the entire publication
“article” vs “publication”
Two different things.
The link takes you to an article. Publications are in actual scientific journals, not intended for popular consumption.
Why have we accepted the standard of misleading headlines? “Oh well you didn’t read the article, I guess you and 90% of eyeballs get to be fundamentally misinformed” is an unhinged take.
I never said a misleading headline was acceptable. I said the publication is not misleading and that it covers the criticisms dude up above was leveling.
The headline is part of the publication though.
No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication.
Maybe one day we will produce a civilization capable of using technology as it comes out instead of one that decided to call it quits decades ago. Oh sure we got cellphones but we are still burning coal. Because nuclear is scary.
If companies can’t be trusted to dispose of coal waste properly, what’s the likelihood they’ll dispose of nuclear waste properly? And reactors that don’t produce dangerous waste, don’t produce enough energy to be worth the cost unless you add the cost of proper disposal of the waste. And since they don’t have to do that, they just store it in temporary storage pools indefinitely, the cost is much cheaper to stick with current tech. So fission will never be safe.
I don’t think companies can do that actually. It is very regulated area. Also I think there is a lot of nuclear scare going on. Nuclear is not at all dangerous as it most people think, it just sounds scary.
At present we have oil and coal companies that are responsible for a lot of deaths and burning the planet. Nuclear is in no way near ammount of damage coal and oil are making right now. So even with nuclear accidents(sounds scary yea) it’s better than coal and oil.
If you think companies care, you haven’t been paying attention. Nuclear waste will continue to pile up and will exist until the Earth is gone. You think we’ll store it safely that long? Keep replacing the containers. Protect it from natural disasters or wars. There is not safe place to put it that won’t eventually end up in the ground water and eventually evaporate and become airborne except deep inside the earth and we don’t have the tech and even if we did it would be way more expensive than just investing in new battery tech and renewables.
I don’t think companies care, I said > I don’t think companies can do that actually. It is very regulated area.
What I’m arguing for in favor of nuclear power sources is that is cleanest source of energy we have from all and least deadly from all. But the reasons we can’t have it on the entire world scale are in short, capitalism. Politics + oil/coal lobby.
Because nuclear is scary.
Nuclear isn’t scary. It’s waste, on the other hand, is.
But you know, it’s not like we’ve not had multiple examples of nuclear power plants failing catastrophically and destroying things around them for miles, and for decades/centuries.
Having said that, if they did come out with new technology version of a nuclear power plant that is safe and that with a catastrophic failure does not harm the environment around itself then I would be all for it. I just don’t think the technology is there for that. I hear they’re working on it though.
Nuclear fusion does make this prospect potentially real. The only thing they emit is neutron radiation, and a mean lifetime of free neutron is 14 minutes 47 seconds.
As per current fission technology, while nuclear waste is real issue, nuclear power is historically one of the most ecological ways to produce power. Catastrophes are now less and less likely, with many lessons learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima - lessons that are now implemented in all reactors around the world.
I live in a city powered by a reactor of the same model there was in Chernobyl, but modified following the incident. I fully trust it.
Catastrophes are now less and less likely, with many lessons learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima
I swear I do not mean this as a disrespect on you, as your comment was well written/said, but I’ve been hearing that kind of phrasing from companies that run power plants that catastrophically fail for many decades now. I’m definitely in a once-bitten twice shy mode at this point.
I’ll leave it at this, I hope you’re right, but I can believe you, or my lying eyes (to quote a comedically philosophical man).
I live in a city powered by a reactor of the same model there was in Chernobyl, but modified following the incident.
I live nearby a nuclear plant (not Chernobyl design) as well, though now all three of its reactors has been decommissioned because of age.
I fully trust it.
You’re not trusting that Chernobyl style design (that’s flawed) you’re trusting it’s operators do not f up and trigger the flaw like they did last time with Chernobyl, and humans are never 100% perfect 24/7. Also, Mother Nature tends to have some input as well.
By “lessons learned” I don’t mean just operators acting differently. The very reactors are built another way, as to physically not allow what happened on either station. It’s not that my city is powered by unaltered Chernobyl reactor - it was modified as to not allow the graphite rods to be dropped so late, and made automatic on a mechanical level.
Fukushima-style disaster is simply not possible in my area, but then again, for reactors that are endangered, measures were taken.
In other words you want special pleading. All other energy techs are allowed to have problems and produce waste except for one.
All other energy techs are allowed to have problems and produce waste except for one.
The other ones don’t fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
The other ones don’t produce waste that is the worst kind of toxicity for Humanity that lasts for hundred of years.
Solve those problems, and I’ll get on board that train.
The other ones don’t fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
Comparing (some) other forms of energy’s deaths to nuclear is like comparing mosquito bites to shark bites. A sharks kill a lot less people than mosquitoes, but a mosquito bite won’t make the news.
Well, we all die at some point, be it from malaria, nuclear fallout, cancer, car accidents, heart failure, stupidity, etc.
There are more mosquitoes on the planet than they are nuclear reactors, So I’m not sure what you think you’re trying to show with that graph.
The point is a nuclear reactor failing catastrophically, yeah it’s a more rare event than dying from malaria, but we seem to treat malaria treatment better than we do reactor designs and operations, especially when profits are involved.
And a person dying for malaria, doesn’t put a pox of the lands around them for centuries making it unusable to anyone else. The risk versus reward calculation is much different, it’s not strictly just a quantity of deaths issue.
And even if you want to talk just about the odds of failure/death, I’m sure all the dinosaurs scoffed at the idea of being killed by an asteroid, until one fateful day (how’s that for a non-sequitur example!). Or flying by plane is the safest form of travel, unless you’re in a 737 Max, then safety be damned.
Does climate change caused by the coal industry not fall under the “pox of the lands” category?
Does climate change caused by the coal industry not fall under the “pox of the lands” category?
Eventually, yes, but a lot slower. And you can definitely put one as an S tier threat and the other one as an A tier threat.
And as I stated, if we have fusion and solar/battery then we don’t have to worry about that from either of them anymore.
The graph is per terra-watt hour. My point is that watt for watt nuclear is actually one of the safest forms of energy.
Many deaths over a period of time aren’t necessarily better than less deaths in an instant.
My point is that watt for watt nuclear is actually one of the safest forms of energy.
And flying is the safest form of travel, which makes the Boeing 737 Max the Chernobyl of planes I guess.
The point is the chance of failure, even if they haven’t happened in a higher quantity so far, is very high, higher in nuclear power plants as they are currently designed or have been designed in the past, than other forms as you have described or supposedly newer ones that are on the designing boards as we speak. And when they fail, they fail too catastrophically, too horrendous for Humanity to have too many of those.
Just one more time, because I don’t want to keep the conversation up, but I’m not anti-nuclear, just anti-old and current nuclear. Get those new smaller salt based low risk of catastrophic failure easier to operate by humans and handles human errors more gracefully reactors out there and I’ll be just fine with those.
The other ones don’t fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
BP gulf oil spill.
The other ones don’t produce waste that is the worst kind of toxicity for Humanity that lasts for hundred of years.
Fracking, contaminated ground water
BP gulf oil spill.
Fracking, contaminated ground water
I would still argue those are less catastrophic than Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. Their destructive effects disappear a lot quicker than a nuclear catastrophe negative effect would.
Having said that, oil is second worse after nuclear. I’m not advocating for oil.
My hopes are on fusion and solar/battery.
No form of energy generation is 100% perfect.
My hopes are that goalposts don’t keep moving in this thread.
My hopes are that goalposts don’t keep moving in this thread.
Well, then stop moving them. /shrug
The other ones don’t fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
take a look some excerpts:
December 1952: The Great Smog of London caused by the burning of coal, and to a lesser extent wood, killed 12,000 people within days to months due to inhalation of the smog.[18]
The Vajont Dam in Italy overflew. Filling the reservoir caused geological failure in valley wall, leading to 110 km/h landslide into the lake; water escaped in a wave over the top of dam. Valley had been incorrectly assessed as stable. Several villages were completely wiped out, with an estimated between 1,900 and 2,500 deaths.
as /u/afraid_of_zombies said:
All other energy techs are allowed to have problems and produce waste except for one.
As far as the smog goes that was before catalytic converters and improved laws to reduce smog, and as far as the dam goes yeah you build any dam in a bad place and it’s going to break, it’s kind of actually another metaphor for what I’m talking about, which is nuclear is more risky because it’s more dependent on humans being more perfect to Implement / operate it.
As far as the smog goes that was before catalytic converters and improved laws to reduce smog
Then take into account modern nuclear reactors, as other commenters said. Nuclear is the way to go for safest and cleanest energy of all energy sources we have. Things that are stopping it are coal/oil lobby, nuclear scare and capitalists and politicians scared other countries might make nuclear bomb out of it.
I’d love to have a nuclear powerplant in my country, we are choking here because of coal and coal lobby just makes things worse by supporting energy sources sold as “renewable clean sources” that need batteries to work on and as a fallback, when there is less sun or wind always go back to coal.
Then take into account modern nuclear reactors, as other commenters said.
I definitely will, when they’re in production. I haven’t had anyone tell me that they are yet, just on the drawing book. I’m all for salt based small reactors that are a lot safer to deal with.
The coal industry emits magnitudes more unvetted radiation than any nuclear power plant will in it’s whole lifetime; as in, radiation is undetectable around a modern nuclear plant.
Plus coal and oil extraction has it’s own problems with radiation. Nuclear produces stable, storable waste that if handled and buried correctly will never become an ecological issue.
They’re built to a modern standard where it’s practically foolproof. Fukushima held up to an enormous earthquake followed by several tsunamis; that’s despite the poor operation of the plant.
The damage we would have to cause to compromise and get rid of any nuclear reliance is far more immediate and concerning.
Nuclear isn’t actually as complicated nor unpredictable as you’d think. They’ve solved ways to avoid melt downs such as the fuels being improved, the amount they process at one time, their cooling and the redundancies. The physical design of a modern station takes into account the worst situations that any given amount of fuel can give in a meltdown such as deep wells that are situated under a reactor to melt into. You won’t likely ever see in our lifetimes a station reaching critical meltdown and it not be because a government or private company cut corners.
Scientists are doing this work, they know what they know and they know what they’re doing, it’s not really for everyone to politically involve ourselves with when no one ever does any valid research or basic knowledge of science without fear mongering.
So that’s a wall of text, with all the same standard counter points that is always made, some of which I disagree with, so I’ll just say I’m not anti-nuclear, I’m just anti-nuclear in its current design form.
You give me a design that can protect the environment from catastrophic effects and with a waste product that can be safely handled, and I’ll get on board.
I had read there is some salt based designs kicking around that seem to start going in that direction, but I don’t know if they’ve been moved forward or not.
Fukushima held up to an enormous earthquake followed by several tsunamis; that’s despite the poor operation of the plant.
Actually it wasn’t so much the poor operation of the plant, but the failure of the design of the plant to not take into account that after a major earthquake the elevation of the land that the plant sits on would go down, which makes the wall they put up the protect the plant from the ocean (especially after a tsunami) shorter than it should have been.
Nuclear isn’t actually as complicated nor unpredictable as you’d think.
I’m actually quite informed on the subject.
without fear mongering.
Someone disagreeing with you is not fear-mongering.
Generally when a fact is established it does become the “standard counterpoints” people use.
You personally said “Nuclear waste is scary” - that’s why I said people fearmonger. If you’re informed you’d actually understand it’s a very safe form of waste
Also you said it wasn’t due to poor operation, but then state an example of a plant being poorly operated. If those were obvious and established problems that they already should have been able to account for, then someone dicked it up. Nuclear is only dangerous when it’s irresponsibly used. We already have accounted for the mayor pitfalls. It’s not worth saying it’s dangerous, bad for the environment, or scary in terms of waste.
Nuclear energy isn’t some half theory or some risky experiment, it’s pretty well established and understood at this point.
I also said people in general shouldn’t be so politically involved when they’re not informed, I actually said that because I shared and hoped you would be able to agree on that. I wasn’t demeaning you.
You personally said “Nuclear waste is scary” - that’s why I said people fearmonger.
The point I was trying to make was that the plants operation was one risk, while it’s waste output was a second risk.
That wasn’t fear-mongering, that was stating facts.
But to be blunt, if an area is destroyed because of nuclear waste then that is kind of scary, a land that can’t be lived in anymore (or for a very long time) it’s something right out of a fiction story (Mordor-ish).
Expressing that is not fear mongering, its a real possibility, we see that today around nuclear reactors that have catastrophically failed. We humans rarely ‘salt the Earth’ so we can’t live in a place anymore, it’s anathema to what we believe in.
Nuclear is only dangerous when it’s irresponsibly used.
Which always happens sooner or later because human beings are involved. The current designs can’t cope for humans being humans (especially for those who love profits) and their flaws are exaggerated to catastrophic proportions.
I also said people in general shouldn’t be so politically involved when they’re not informed, I actually said that because I shared and hoped you would be able to agree on that. I wasn’t demeaning you.
Well since you were replying to me directly in an argumentative tone, I could only assume that point was directed at me. And that statement is that I’m commenting uninformed, which is not correct, and hence why I pushed back.
What I do usually to avoid that misunderstanding is that I explicitly state something along the lines of “not you directly, but generally” when I’m trying to make a general comment in response to a specific individual.
I do appreciate you clarifying, and hope that was an honest clarification, and not just trying to avoid the pushback of the criticism that was initially correct.
And finally, I do agree, people should be informed when they comment, but as long as they’re not being obstructive there’s nothing wrong with also just expressing oneself to others, your fears and hopes, without knowing all the facts. This is supposed to be a conversation, and people can learn new facts while the conversation is happening, versus having to know everything before they enter the conversation.
I think nuclear energy is a great idea in theory, but I have absolutely zero trust in companies handling nuclear waste responsibly. It’s not like they have a great track record.
That being said, pretty excited about this if it’s as safe as they say.
So nationalize them. Problem solved.
Do you trust our current governmental structures to manage something with that much potential for harm when it goes wrong? I sure don’t. Sure, it might go great for a long while, but then you get one far-right administration that wants to cut regulations.
I trust them far more than greedy corporations run by greedy billionaires, absolutely. For many reasons, not the least of which is the elimination of the profit motive.
You’re acting like we don’t already have these. This isn’t new and we have tons of prior experience to learn from.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you are.
Lol if only you knew how wrong that statement was.
How many nukes does the US have?
You have every right to not trust companies, I don’t either. Good thing we have multiple government regulators and multiple non-profit engineering/standards boards also involved.
That’s why there were no incidents in Japan a decade ago. Especially not after multiple reports of potential danger 🤷♂️.
I have the same reserves as the person you commented on. “We” may have great agencies working to prevent issues, but it’s not the case everywhere in the world. And if you want to use fission as a solution for climate change, you need to have every developing country to use it too, whatever the stability of the region.
Just look at Ukraine where the safety of one their reactor is on the line because of the war, and the mines Russia put all over. Chernobyl 2.0 if things go wrong :(
That’s why there were no incidents in Japan a decade ago. Especially not after multiple reports of potential danger 🤷♂️.
Oh yes let’s do this. Thousands of plants across the world operating for multiple decades and you mention something the exposed people to less radiation than you get on a 4 hour flight. Omg something isn’t perfect! Wow we should give you an award.
have the same reserves as the person you commented on. “We” may have great agencies working to prevent issues, but it’s not the case everywhere in the world
Which is why there are international bodies.
And if you want to use fission as a solution for climate change, you need to have every developing country to use it too, whatever the stability of the region.
Citation needed. Please show me multiple peer reviewed studies that back up this claim. There are 190 countries or so please show me how it physically impossible that if each and every single one of them doesn’t have a nuclear reactor themselves climate change can’t be worked on at all, not even slightly.
Just look at Ukraine where the safety of one their reactor is on the line because of the war, and the mines Russia put all over.
Yeah maybe Russia shouldn’t have invaded.
Chernobyl 2.0 if things go wrong :(
No. Very different plant design, but you knew that. Just hoping that I didn’t.
Yeah sure, the Fukushima region is/was thriving and people were happy to live next to a nuclear disaster. The cleanup will take another decade and lots of money. It’s not just about the immediate radiation.
International bodies, like the ones that (afaik) can’t access Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants anymore ? Sure it may be more related to nuke production, and that’s a tangential problem.
Stand off your high horse and your hyperboles. I didn’t say that it was impossible to work on climate change without 190 going nuclear. However it’s ignoring that most pollution comes from developing countries, countries that do not want to sacrifice their development, and would need nuclear or renewable. Guess what is cheaper and safer?
For Ukraine, yeah, but did you or I have a say in this war ? Do we have a say on Russia preventing 90% of workers that know the plant to go to work ? No such risk with renewables (except maybe hydro, as shown by Russia too).
Did I say that the plant would explode exactly like Chernobyl? No. The plant can be a disaster if one or multiple missiles hit it, with the mines and explosives reported as being set everywhere. Could the plant resist such impacts ? Probably, maybe. Do I care to find out ? No thanks.
Don’t bother to respond if you are to take this discussion in bad faith. We can discuss things like adults without being hurt by the other side having a different opinion.
More gish gallop from the coal lobby.
the Fukushima region is/was thriving and people were happy to live next to a nuclear disaster. The cleanup will take another decade and lots of money.
I have worked on a Superfund site that is going to extend past 100 years, but your ten years is soooo impressive to me.
International bodies, like the ones that (afaik) can’t access Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants anymore ?
Yeah organized religion is shit not sure what you want from me. Maybe we can ban religion and ban your coal employers.
Sure it may be more related to nuke production, and that’s a tangential problem.
But you sure as hell brought it up.
Stand off your high horse and your hyperboles. I didn’t say that it was impossible to work on climate change without 190 going nuclear. However it’s ignoring that most pollution comes from developing countries, countries that do not want to sacrifice their development, and would need nuclear or renewable. Guess what is cheaper and safer?
Don’t lie it is unbecoming of even a lobbyist.
For Ukraine, yeah, but did you or I have a say in this war ? Do we have a say on Russia preventing 90% of workers that know the plant to go to work ? No such risk with renewables (except maybe hydro, as shown by Russia too).
Well it certainly didn’t help that thanks to Big Fossil Fuels Russia has a natural gas stranglehold on Europe. Maybe if stopped listening to coal lobby people on the internet and built nuclear Russia would have backed off.
Did I say that the plant would explode exactly like Chernobyl? No. The plant can be a disaster if one or multiple missiles hit it, with the mines and explosives reported as being set everywhere. Could the plant resist such impacts ? Probably, maybe. Do I care to find out ? No thanks.
Again with the lies from Big Coal
Top kek.
Removed by mod
You seem to be implying that fusion is a gimmick of an idea by comparing it to Hyperloop which was nothing but that.
Fusion is a mechanism which has been providing humanity with energy from the first moments in the form of the sun. It’s a well known functional form of energy generation. The struggle isn’t whether or not it could possibly work, but just to make it practical enough to make it work.
This isn’t even necessarily about a single company promising that they have an idea that may work, this is an example of it functioning in some capacity.
Your comparison is simply arbitrary.
Removed by mod
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t search through your comment history to find your own arguments for you. Consider editing the actual top level comment if you want to use these arguments without retyping them.
Removed by mod
It’s not my job to do either of those things. It may have been in your interest to make a comprehensible point though.
Lol what? This is a crazy take. I’m not reading you’re comment history to make sense of a single comment
Not me, but I think fusion is not a 1:1 equivalent to the hyperloop.
Removed by mod
Just say what you want to say instead of riddling us with your smug responses.
Removed by mod
Firstly, the energy output falls far short of what would be needed for a commercial reactor, barely creating enough to heat a bath. Worse than that, the ratio is calculated using the lasers’ output, but to create that 2.1 megajoules of energy, the lasers draw 500 trillion watts, which is more power than the output of the entire US national grid. So these experiments break even in a very narrow sense of the term.
It’s so refreshing to see an article at least mention the way these tests are measured are based on the energy just in the laser itself and not the total energy used.
I agree it’s good that the article is not hyping up the idea that the world will now definitely be saved by fusion and so we can all therefore go on consuming all the energy we want.
There are still some sloppy things about the article that disappoint me though…
-
They seem to be implying that 500 TW is obviously much larger than 2.1 MJ… but without knowing how long the 500 TW is required for, this comparison is meaningless.
-
They imply that using more power than available from the grid is infeasible, but it evidently isn’t as they’ve done it multiple times - presumably by charging up local energy storage and releasing it quickly. Scaling this up is obviously a challenge though.
-
The weird mix of metric prefixes (mega) and standard numbers (trillions) in a single sentence is a bit triggering - that might just be me though.
Electricity stuff is funny because it combines metric and imperial units sometimes to make bastard measurements
Huh? Whatchu talkin bout Willis?
Watt is a Joule per second
Volts, Amps, kWh, MJ… These are all metric.
Sssch don’t tell the Americans or they will try to wrangle in BTU in nuclear power plants
WE INVENTED IT AND BUH GAWD, WE WILL MEASURE IT IN MURICA UNITS!
Ignore how nonsensical BTUs are: Gonna shove energy and weight into a single measurement and it changes based on the initial temperature of the water.
Y’all do know what BTU stands for, right?
British Thermal Units. It’s the energy needed to heat 1 lb of water 1 degree F.
The bad part is that no one bothered to set the starting temp of the water so there’s 5 separate standards for what the hell a BTU actually is, which makes it a really bad standard.
-
Why are so many people talking about nuclear fission waste here?
We’ll probably be able to harvest solar power from space then beam it to Earth in a practical way first, than nuclear fusion becomes practical.
There is a very efficient way to beam solar power from space. It is called light.
It’s not efficient, a huge amount of it gets diffused or absorbed
It doesn’t need to be efficient. Capture all the light that hits earth for 5 minutes and that’s the world energy demand for a year.
How would you store it though?
solar george
Wow, you’re right! We should just build a Dyson sphere around the sun. 100% efficiency achieved. What could possibly go wrong?
Did you understand the person you respond to as saying its inefficient because the sun shines in other directions than the array proposed?
I’m pretty sure the person talked specifically about the beam from the array to earth being inefficient.I was joking, but apparently nobody picked up on my snarky sarcasm. Disregard.
I saw the headline and thought “In what reality is that newsworthy? That actual seems really low for Fusion Power” and then I saw the actual return was closer to 15% and I thought “Now That is News. That’s incredible how little yield we’re getting from the most destructive force on earth. Should have made that the headline.”
Fusion reactor SLAMS surprised scientists with it’s INCREDIBLE output
Should quit wasting time with this tech that’s always 30 years and many billions of dollars away and focus our efforts on building as many new fission plants as possible.
