824
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
824 points (98.5% liked)
science
15012 readers
233 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Simply based on past and current trends. The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.
Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what's happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.
Naturally this is all speculative of course, and being wrong on this is great either way as one way or another we will continue to get better at getting energy.
Past and Current is not Future though.
That logically doesn't make sense though, because it's assuming the same amount of "step it up" (AKA 'progress'), which is not guaranteed. Fusion realized can far outstrip consumables, "winning the race" as it were, even if it takes longer to do so.
Your logic is also not taking to consideration how much reward you get for the effort. Even if one takes more effort to do than the other, if the results are much greater rewards, then it is better overall to do the greater rewards option.
Well, it hasn't been invented yet. I think we should probably all wait until it actually has, before passing judgment on it.
Also, it has the promise of doing that, in the same way that's flying had the promise of a greater form of travel than horseback or cars, especially when long distances were concerned (AKA greater rewards).
Overall, I sense a general agenda from you, based on your comments, that you wish to forgo the investment in research and development for fusion, and instead concentrate on renewals like a solar, etc.
If so, I would again just reiterate how one has much greater potential rewards than the other, as renewables won't get us to 100% of what we need (at least until the time comes when we figure out how to collect the solar energy from orbit in huge quantities and beam it down to Earth).
Also, it doesn't have to be an either/or, it can be a both. Your comments would better serve Humanity better if you didn't discourage fusion development, but instead promote both, as they both have positives that would be beneficial to Humanity.
Personally I would love to see both developed rigorously in parallel, a "pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time" type of philosophy.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. :p
Correct...? This is the problem of induction. As you've pointed out it's flawed, and it's also the best we can do for predicting the future.
This is the problem of induction again. Yes, fusion could have a breakthrough and then really take off. So could other technologies. The question is how likely are these things to happen? So far it's not looking too great for fusion being special in that way.
I'm not passing judgment for the very reason it doesn't exist. I'm making a speculation of what the end point will be based on how things have been going. The fact that it still doesn't exist is a point against the technology btw.
?? If you're reading my other comments you'd see I literally explicitly say that fusion is still worth pursuing, even if it can't be an energy source... Furthering science is good, even if it fails to do what we might've been trying to do. There's essentially always other benefits that are often unforeseen at the time.
So, to recap: