No but ITER might be. It’s reaching the point where there’s a good possibility that a different method organization or country is going to beat them to sustainable fusion.
Is the dream of nuclear fusion dead?
Submitted 2 months ago by Midnight@slrpnk.net to energy@slrpnk.net
Comments
infinitevalence@discuss.online 2 months ago
Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Being first to sustainable fusion is not the sole requirement for success. Simply contributing to the field is a significant benefit in the long-run.
A big, high budget project like this can try different approaches, where even failures can teach us useful information for future projects that may have no association with this one.
infinitevalence@discuss.online 2 months ago
o yeah, I dont see ITER as a bad investment, just that the side goal of actually generating net energy is probably a pipe dream given its delays. We can create fusion, and we can create more fusion energy than what is put into the fuel, but we cant do all these things yet at the same time, and we cant do them without secondary devices requiring too much power.
ITER will help bring down the costs of manufacturing because its size requires building up supply lines, but it still probably wont be the first to get online.
RangerJosie@sffa.community 2 months ago
Not unless the oil companies can gain control and bury it.
wewbull@feddit.uk 2 months ago
Betteridge law of headlines…No.
…but fusion is a long way away from a continuous power source. They can perform single events with a net positive energy output now. That’s great, but now you need to build the equivalent of a combustion engine. Controlled continuous fusion events.