[Pxtl]

I hate things like this.

Climate change is an emergency, one that we're far behind on tackling. Talking about future technologies that are many decades away (if ever) is the opposite of helpful.

Imagine in 1943 the headline:

"Can hypersonic missiles put the brakes on Hitler's Army?"

[darkmarmot]

Well, nukes (which didn't exist then) sure put the brakes on Japan's military.

[Pxtl]

Yes, but nukes weren't decades away from being deployed in active intended use-case. Fusion is at least 10 times further-off right now than nukes were early in the war. That's why I pointed to a modern weapon like hypersonics, and not nukes - because we're talking about many decades.

And more to the point, nobody waited for nukes. The allies tackled the problem with the tools they had available at the time, and made use of the nukes when they were ready.

edit: the comparable timeline would be "currently approved power plants that are planning construction could put the brakes on climate change", I mean, if it were true. Because deadlines for substantial impact on climate change are "next few years, decade or two tops", and fusion will be ready far too late.

[darkmarmot]

I agree that we should be rolling out as many modern, small scale fission reactors as possible, right now, in order to deal with CO2 output. But, at the same time, I think we should pursue fusion with the same gusto that we currently direct towards blowing up 3rd world countries. Also, recent advances might herald fusion in less time than you'd think: https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusio....