[ludsan]

Goodness gracious. This is the definition of cynical -- an argumentation of "why hasn't this solved everything?" and an appeal to an electric bill. I don't know why these fusion energy discussions seems to attract the worst of our impatience and edge-lord cynicism. At least we haven't had a smarmy "always 5 decades away" post yet.

Science and engineering is made of hundreds of unsung triumphs with incremental decades-long payoffs. Like it or not, the "Q>1" mark has been a target for decades. I am glad to see it finally surpassed, and look forward to the order-of-magnitude increase we need to make the economics work.

[moloch-hai]

You wholly miss the point.

What improvements are available? Get more neutron kinesis from each target, say 10 kWh? Bring the input energy down, through more efficient lasers, maybe even to 1 kWh? Bring the cost of the target down, from $10M each to, what, $10? Let us assume further that tritium is free, and that collecting the neutrons and driving a steam turbine (the major cost of operating a nuke) is also free.

But 10 kWh of hot neutrons translates to, at best, 4 kWh of electrical energy, and $2.50 per kWh is an order of magnitude more than we pay now. So, even in the best of all conceivable outcomes, this turkey does not fly.

We get "breakthroughs" of greater magnitude on a regular schedule in solar panel and wind turbine manufacture, that do not get trumpeted by the DoE.

This is a weapons program, operated by weapons researchers, pursuing weapons goals. The announcement is an attempt by the US DoE to help secure funding by making it look like they are involved in something besides nuclear weapons. How cynical do you need for it to be?

[ludsan]

One misses the point if one assumes that this is about which technology is most appropriate for de-carbonizing the world in the near future -- it is clear that the LCoE of wind and solar are phenomenal, and will continue to ramp up with the exponential curve of adoption. Solar and wind, AND storage, will get there first by a long shot. For that, I am grateful. Yay for learning curves.

But I don't accept your premise of an exclusive or. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The economics of fusion will not be what we need as a game changer for this generation, but learning curves and technological progress are like contributing to your 401k when you're in your 20s, and they will apply to fusion just like they did for solar. And by next generation, it would be lovely to have a gamut of technologies to choose from for different use-cases (powering spaceflight, for example).

The world is enriched by scientific and engineering progress, and just because I like Messi doesn't mean I think Ronaldo is shit. I think there is a tendency in these fusion discussions to put up a strawman and to assume that any excitement about fusion detracts from the practical tools that we can apply today. I can only assume that this tendency comes from the green-washing energy companies have engaged in (e.g. "green hydrogen" from natural gas). I understand this cynicism, because it has been earned. However cynicism can prevent us from being happy for real accomplishments -- and yes, the Q>1 is as arbitrary as celebrating the year 2000, but it IS an accomplishment.

[moloch-hai]

If anybody ever demonstrates electric power from fusion, lo those many decades on, the world might stifle a yawn, looking on from its paradise of fantastically cheap and abundant solar and wind power.

One thing is certain: the nuke weapons will be incrementally more sophisticated.