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.

  • Des [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Des [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        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)

        • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I’ve read that the current industrial revolution going on in China is actually more like the 4th industrial revolution.

        • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          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.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

          • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Nuclear is far more effective, energy efficient and less environmentally damaging than solar.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

              • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                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.