More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
growthbusiness.co.uk
More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
1–10 of 686 posts
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#2This is great news.
That said, what the literal fuck -- we've previously been investing 1/850,000th of global GDP in one of 4-5 truly promising energy technologies while the world burns before our eyes?
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#3The article doesn't seem to mention why exactly but I'm guessing it's some combination of 1) visible climate change (extreme heat, wildfires, drought, etc.) so people want better energy sources and 2) the mayhem Russia started seeing as it is one of the bigger energy providers.
Or has there been anything else?
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#4This is great news. That said, what the literal fuck -- we've previously been investing 1/850,000th of global GDP in one of 4-5 truly promising energy technologies while the world burns before our eyes?
Exactly. The past of fusion has been grim, but the future looks (probably) bright. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-f...
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#5I don't believe the hype. From what I can see fusion still isn't anywhere near being a viable source of energy, other than in the form or solar power.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#6Where is this $1.9 billion over the last decade figure coming from? ITER alone has surely burned through more than double that.
Edit: Sounds like it might only be counting investment in private companies.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#7Crazy to imagine what would’ve happened if in the past it had been more than sub-fusion never.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fus...
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#8The article doesn't seem to mention why exactly but I'm guessing it's some combination of 1) visible climate change (extreme heat, wildfires, drought, etc.) so people want better energy sources and 2) the mayhem Russia started seeing as it is one of the bigger energy providers. Or has there been anything else?
Better high temp super conductor lowering barrier to entry maybe? (im pretty ignorant of this field)
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#9The article doesn't seem to mention why exactly but I'm guessing it's some combination of 1) visible climate change (extreme heat, wildfires, drought, etc.) so people want better energy sources and 2) the mayhem Russia started seeing as it is one of the bigger energy providers. Or has there been anything else?
The really big deal in the last decade has been better magnets -- many of the "novel" approaches attracting recent funding are probably doomed to fail, but the MIT-associated consortia that simply aspire to building better tokamaks with modern magnets look encouraging.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#10The article doesn't seem to mention why exactly but I'm guessing it's some combination of 1) visible climate change (extreme heat, wildfires, drought, etc.) so people want better energy sources and 2) the mayhem Russia started seeing as it is one of the bigger energy providers. Or has there been anything else?
Some breakthroughs in plasma modelling, too. https://www.sciencealert.com/physics-breakthrough-as-ai-succ...