pull down to refresh

In general, nuclear fusion startups “tend to be a little aggressive in what they’re promising,” Jerry Navratil, a professor of fusion energy and plasma physics at Columbia University, told CNN last month. There’s a big difference between producing energy from fusion and having a practical system that puts power on the grid and is safe, licensed and operating, he added.
Who knows... maybe this startup knows something we don't. Still, if I had to put money in a prediction market, I would not bet on success before 2050 ;)
reply
11 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 19 Dec
Fortunately builders, tinkerers, entrepreneurs, and other visionaries frequently ignore what academics say is impractical.
reply
Many academics have been working on this too, for years. And are still doing just that. Many don't think it is impractical.
For now, it just hasn't lived up to the hype (ITER, anyone?). But again, who knows? I'll be happy if it happens. I just wouldn't bet any money on it, especially not on the timeframe set out in the linked article.
reply
Breaking: I am announcing the first 2x gridscale blockchain powered nuclear energy plant in this comment. Your article is now obsolete.
reply
Its depends ironically enough on if the US government is going to give them billions of dollars... They do not even have their SPARK system operational yet which is supposed to prove that their design can result in a positive power output.
Love fusion but this was a nice splashy headline to try and get more money from the Federal Government which at the moment cant even figure out how to fund itself.
reply
Does this mean cheaper energy yet?
reply