Obviously not everything is a race, and adoption matters much more than invention, but was interesting seeing China, France, and Britain’s (and I think Canada maybe?) fusion teams one upping their fusion length records. I think my money is still on China, but I’m not a fusion expert so I’m not quite sure hoe far apart all the contenders are from each other.
From what I know, China seems firmly is the lead.
I’m still in the “fusion is not viable” camp. It’s going to be useful for scientific research, but never power generation.
i think it will be but only decoupled from capitalism and it’s incentive structures entirely. Even if just as efficient as the average fission reactor (which are also not particularly “profitable”) the safety and potentially unlimited fuel supply once spun up would make it superior. It will have a potentially fragile fuel cycle at first. And it will never be as quick to deploy as a good solar panel or simple to make as a water wheel or basic generator, this will require an advanced and forward thinking and planning state apparatus.
But there is the potential for scale. scale that could only be matched by a hypothetical megastructure like a space based solar array.
and even if it turns out to truly be a bust for effective power generation there is always use as an advanced space drive
The first nation to actually pull this off will be equivalent to the first to the industrial revolution or oil refining.
China already has literal blueprints for deploying 10-foot tall mini-fusion reactors all over the country and providing nearly limitless, extremely safe free energy, that could last for tens of thousands of years.
I know I follow it as much as I can. They will absolutely be the nation to do it (assuming there isn’t some final, impossible barrier to practical energy production).
And they will lead the 2nd industrial revolution or whatever we end up calling it. I think that’s why there’s so much desperation from the U.S. and the west to go to war. It’s not purely because they do capitalism better then capitalists. It’s because they are on the verge of this energy revolution (bye bye oil, petrodollar, hello commercial reactors in Africa and South America, mutual relationships, etc)
I’ve read that the current industrial revolution going on in China is actually more like the 4th industrial revolution.
Wait. Are you saying they actually have the ability to build 10-foot tall mini-fusion reactors?
China allegedly has blueprints for it, or if they don’t, it’s something they plan to create blueprints for in the coming years and decades.
They probably have draft proposals that are ready to go after the technology is invented. That way they’re ready for a fusion breakthrough if it ever comes.
It looks increasingly like China is expecting a breakthrough in the coming years. This isn’t so much science fiction, anymore.
I might be jaded from Western scientists always “”“expecting”“” a breakthrough and it never coming, but to be fair they have to perpetually pretend they’re close to a breakthrough to get more grant funding and investments. There’s no interest in science for its own sake in the West.
China is clearly emerging as the leader of scientific development, though, and the political economy in China is obviously different. I’m still pessimistic about fusion, but if anyone figures it out it’ll be them.
That sounds incredible! Where can I read about this?
I think maybe we can build something smaller than a literal star, but there’s no practical way to do fusion even on a planetary scale.
So if we surpass being a Type 1 civilization I guess, a million years after we have abolished capitalism.
you might be right but i hope you’re wrong
I don’t think we need it. We’re already orbiting a fusion reactor, after all.
Nuclear is far more effective, energy efficient and less environmentally damaging than solar.
My problem with fission reactors is they take a really long time to get running whereas solar can be deployed quickly, even in areas that are underdeveloped. We need to decarbonize global electricity production at a rate far too fast to build nuclear reactors for everyone in the world.
(Even worse, tech idiots want to waste their time building reactors just to power their stupid data centers.)
But sure, I’m not anti-nuclear.
Besides, my point is that fusion isn’t necessary. Even if it’s not actually a viable technology for electricity production we’ll be fine, there are other options that don’t require undiscovered science. Nuclear fission is one of those options, as is solar and wind and hydro etc etc.
My problem with fission reactors is they take a really long time to get running whereas solar can be deployed quickly, even in areas that are underdeveloped. We need to decarbonize global electricity production at a rate far too fast to build nuclear reactors for everyone in the world.
Those solar panels also must be manufactured, which require building more factories and mines. In the end, the difference in industrial investment scale is not that important.
Isn’t that what was said about nuclear power in general?
And I find it extremely hard to believe, that millions of moving actors/parts, scientists, and companies all over the world would be investing in something specifically for power generation, if it wasn’t viable.
The fact that the only serious investment comes from governments implies quiet the opposite, that it’s really only useful for scientific research.
I think it’s still incredibly useful for research! But that’s it.
I wonder if it’s just so far outside the scope of what capitalists know to risk model that it’s not a compelling bet. The “it’s 20-50 years on” timelines are also a hard sell.
If you win by delivering a reactor, you unlock so many knock-on effects.
Does your business immediately get subsumed on national security grounds? Does a massive reshape of the energy market cut off your current gravy trains? How do you monetize “too cheap to meter”?
Researchers don’t care. They’re in it for the cool project.
How do you monetize “too cheap to meter”?
Oh, this one is easy.
You make it illegal for anyone else to do fusion and charge rents because you own the patent.
The same can be done with solar and places where you attempt to set up panels being blocked by local government. The amount of solar needed to actually steadily run a household is pretty huge. Manufacturing/industrial-wise it’s not exactly feasible compared to nuclear.
So? My point was that fusion can be monetized. The fact that solar can also be monetized is obvious, I think.
There is an excellent YouTube video explaining all the challenges for making a commercial fusion power plant, and, in short, no one is even close to a working design.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Definitely betting on China given they’re the only major country that is able to do a sustained decades long investment needed to commercialize this tech.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Britain went the rout of the US and just started literally eating coal again. France… Fuck France.
China all the way baby.
🇨🇳
