/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9314527

>>9283513
>Fucking engineers cant even geht two Protons close to each other
But its hard anon.

>>8990104
That's lockheed martin, they're trying a design that's already been tried. It failed before, no surprise if it fails again.

Lockheed's fusion effort is just a publicity stunt.
>>There's literally 0% chance
show your math ass hole

>>Should we divert all energy research funds to new fission ideas like molten salt reactors instead?
No. If you diverted fusion funding for MSRs you'd barely have any funding at all.

I will say this though, clean coal and carbon capture research are a waste. Clean coal is a scam designed to extend the life of an energy source that should have been killed decades ago. Carbon capture ends up being more expensive than nuclear because of the thermodynamics of removing carbon. If we're gonna divert money to fucking crazy nuclear plant designs it should be from that.

>>8544080
It's possible, fusion just isn't funded

>>8357060
No it's because we aren't funding fusion

>>8204845
it would if we funded it

>>8175114
fusion

>>8175804
no way this chart is legit

are you telling me 98% of all people are literal dicklets? I thought 18cm would be average with me being slightly above average

>>7333918
Fusion never.

>>7209039
According to their own advocates, it's an approach which you could spend a billion dollars a year on forever, while other technologies are advancing and making the problem dramatically easier, and never see results.

Now, how could that possibly make sense?

Well, there's a large, established group of "conventional fusion" researchers and bureaucrats. Their salaries come first, and cutting any of them is absolutely off the table. Their minor facilities and pet projects come second, and cutting any of them is only acceptable to continue the flow of salary.

But these salaried men and their minor facilities and pet projects, which, in the political realm of conventional fusion research, will necessarily suck up the first billion dollars a year of fusion funding, and never accomplish anything in any amount of time.

This is what ADVOCATES of this approach tell us.

>>6702560
They're feasible in theory, but are very challenging engineering projects e.g. new materials science is needed for commercial scale tokamak walls, and they don't get the funding they deserve.

This presentation is a great explanation of why it's so hard: http://wsx.lanl.gov/Disruptions/Disruption-Risk-poster-Wurden-LAUR-11-11465.pdf

>>6687179
It's criminally underfunded. If we'd spent the money on it that was instead spent on retarded wars that serve no national security interest, it would be a reality by now.

>>6578210
Daily reminder that commercially practical fusion power may not happen in our generation, in spite of such advances, because it's so criminally underfunded.

If I could magically change one major thing about government policy, it would be to abolish the EU's ridiculous and often perverse CAP subsidy incentives and give ALL the money to ITER and related projects instead.