[chiefalchemist]

Share or not, the optimist in me sees fusion as liberating in so many was. Unfortunately, the realist in me sees it as been massively disruptive.

As you noted, oil isn't a form of energy, it's a weapon. Take away the power of that weapon and there's not telling what would happen.

Best of times. Worst of time.

[zo1]

I'm a pessimist/realist when it comes to it as well. We as a global population are still figuratively learning to clean up our own feces, faffing about with useless programs and dragging dead-weight because we refuse to properly fix problems.

[pfdietz]

The pessimistic in you should see it as a massive boondoggle. For fundamental reasons, there's very little chance this, and likely other, fusion efforts will lead to a competitive source of energy.

[i_am_nomad]

Thank you. Every time I see a fusion article - and it’s always a breathless “just around the corner” puff piece - I scan it to see if they’ve solved neutron embrittlement, or even come close. So far, no one has.

[pfdietz]

Or volumetric power density, or simply the cost of the non-nuclear part of the power plant.

But of course no one has solved the neutron damage issue. How could they? To develop a material, if that's even possible, that could withstand 14 MeV neutrons well enough, one would need a fusion reactor to make those neutrons to test the materials (and tritium breeding to keep it running). This circular dependency would be very difficult to traverse.