Serious question: how does an article like this get written without mentioning SPARC[1] once? They're hardly secretive, they're MIT's people, they're moving on a plan to get results in ~5 years, and they're talking about the same kind of things: tokamaks, better computer modeling, and easier to make higher temperature superconductors for stronger magnets.
I'm just a layperson, I only know pop science level stuff here, but they seem clearly like the best game in town -- so, seriously, can a person in the physics world shed some light on why they aren't at least a small part of every article about fusion, but ITER is?
Because SPARC is already happening. This is planning for research in areas that the next reactor will need including a neutron source to test materials and a blanket test facility.
See Bob Mumgaard's slides from last year's annual meeting of Fusion Power Associates where he outlines the research for technologies needed for by all the approaches to fusion power.
Quote from the last slide: "It would be a travesty for somebody to have a concept that works and have fusion stall because we, CHOSE not to prioritize the parts that help everybody."
This is where government funded research helps the emerging fusion power industry.
God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit. I'm a layman too but I get the impression that the theory is basically there and we just need to figure out the engineering. That's a solvable problem with lots of money and lots of teams.
Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?
As a technical answer: this is about the federal program, and SPARC isn't part of it, while ITER is.
More practically, Commonwealth & other private fusion efforts have been advocating for (A) federal funds to be allocated to solving the thorny nuclear materials science issues common to (essentially) all fusion schemes (B) a NASA-COTS-inspired cost-share approach to building the eventual pilot plant. (Presumably the industry players would like to get federal support for building their pilot plants (like ARC), much the way SpaceX got support for Falcon 9 / Crew Dragon development.)
This plan reflects (A) for sure, and a step in the direction of (B). I was involved in the early stages of the community input to the plan. I think there's openness to increased partnership with industry like this.
I am pro-nuclear, and I think it would be a mistake to assume this article is also pro-nuclear. Heck, the very first six words ("U.S. fusion scientists, notorious for squabbling") prime a reader to see those hardworking people as bickering nerds working on fleeting, individual, theoretical interests.
I sincerely doubt we will see any uranium-based energy technology ascend to dominance/ubiquity while over half of Earth's known uranium deposits are in the Afghanistan/Kazakhstan/Ukraine region alone. Nobody would want to buy crude (priced exclusively in USD in most markets) if nuclear were widespread. We might have to lay off a few Stuxnet malware developers then too. Takin' their jobs :p
This is more like "Fusion physicists rally around plan to improve message asking for more money". It's not like there's a serious plan to build a power plant.
Except at Lockheed's Skunk Works, which is quietly plugging away on their own.
The skunkworks program has no published details and what has been published has been put in the “been-there, tried that” category by physicists. The slunkworks program is little more than a way to funnel money.
If you read between the lines, the private companies got their wish: a change in emphasis for the federal program toward doing the supporting work on nuclear materials science that (for example) Commonwealth Fusion has been suggesting.
The other wishlist item is to build support for doing cost-share programs with industry to implement the larger facilities. If this gets traction, then the government wouldn't actually build the power plant, it would be more like NASA COTS where they help sponsor private companies that actually carry out the work. The INFUSE and ARPA-E fusion programs are tentative steps in this direction.
Edit: BTW, rallying around an improved pitch is big deal for the federal fusion program. Budgets have generally been in decline ever since it peaked in the 70's, and for many years there was nothing much in terms of a vision for the next steps.
Are at an inflection point for fusion power? With interest and funding for it finally gaining steam? I’ve noticed several announcements about independent efforts this past year [1–6] but not sure if (a) it’s always been this way or (b) my view is skewed by HN.
Not yet, in my opinion. Things will really change once some group achieves 'scientific breakeven' (gain > 1) or better yet 'engineering breakeven' (gain > 10). ITER targets gain ~5-20 sometime after 2035, and SPARC targets gain ~ 2-10 sometime after 2025. So there's a possible inflection point on the horizon, which explains all the press.
I can only speak about NIF but they're under stress right now as their funding agency, the NNSA, is reviewing the progress of NIF as questions about its efficacy at achieving fusion become stronger after several failed campaigns. NIF needs to put up a pretty face so the press releases might be part of a combined effort to spin a positive picture of their progress, plus it serves as a recruitment tool since the lab is going through its largest demographic shift: the boomers are retiring.
Additionally, with the new administration it's expected that nuclear may not be viewed favorably as wind and solar continue dropping in price. So there's a lot of threats going on and all these press pieces may be attempts at buttering up the people in power and also the general population to get them excited about fusion and hopefully etch bits off of the general fear regarding nuclear power.
Personally, NIF is stuck, it's not gonna work under its current design, and convincing Congress to fork out some 60 billion dollars for a modest increase in laser energy when we probably need 10x laser energy does not seem like a good idea. Especially when the food lines are getting longer and we're approaching an insolvency event. It's hard to justify.
Yes, yes we are at an inflection point. But maybe not the kind you are thinking of.
There will never be a commercial tokamak power plant. There has never, at any time, been any reasonable expectation of getting practical, commercial power from magnetic-confinement hot-neutron fusion.
Renewables, with practical energy storage, will always be much, much cheaper than fusion could ever have been, even if it could be made into a workable idea. Any practical fusion plant would have to absolutely huge -- an order of magnitude bigger than the biggest fission plant. Then, it would destroy its most expensive parts with neutron flux in short order. To continue using it, it would have be be rebuilt, frequently, and at even more ruinous expense, using robots.
"Break-even" is nowhere near enough to get practical power out, because the energy extraction process must be so inefficient, with two stages of heat exchange before you get a working fluid you can run through your turbine.
Tokamak fusion research is, first, foremost, and always, a jobs program to maintain a population of high-neutron-flux physicists as a population to draw upon for weapons work. Actual useful power has never been the point, or any sort of practical goal.
Thus, the burgeoning hype is meant to counter the dawning realization that the whole program always was, still is, and can only ever be a shuck. They need enough billions poured into the project to make it politically self-sustaining, where no amount of failure can ever threaten its funding, because so much has already been sunk that it would be too embarrassing to admit failure.
As it is, to ever actually break even, all the fusion plants that could be built would have to operate for decades just to pay back all the money that has already been sunk, without any commercial construction, before even starting to pay back any of the actual (huge) construction costs. But the only way to keep them operating would be via enormous public subsidies, because they could never compete on a level field with solar and wind. So, the longer they were operated, the deeper in the hole they would get.
I'm not a fan of this sentiment. Sometimes things are just really f'ing hard, and no amount of "pushing people" is going to change the reality of how long those things take.
I mean, if you look at both Tesla and SpaceX, nothing they've done was thought to be "impossible" from the outset from a scientific perspective. Electric cars already existed when Tesla was started, and we've been shooting rockets into space for decades. This isn't at all meant to minimize the huge achievements of those companies, but the science was never really in question.
I read a letter in the Financial Times over the weekend...
> Forty years ago, when studying for my engineering degree, I learnt a rule of thumb that said that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. I was therefore reassured by the date given in the report (“Sites sought for Step change in energy supply”, December 3) for the Step nuclear fusion plant — 2040.
I'd argue that one of Musk's strengths is _not_ doing the very hard things, but finding projects that are relatively low-hanging fruit. Electric cars, multi-use rockets, driving AI. Those aren't the harder problems. Fusion, for example, is on a different level.
I get the impression that there's still plenty of details that we don't understand how to do. It's not like solar + batteries where we have plenty of working solar + battery setups, and we just need to figure out how to make more of them more cheaply. It looks like there's still some fundamental research needed before fusion can generate more power than it consumes.
Heck, 10-ish years ago, I met someone who told me his cabin in the woods was off-grid solar because an off-grid system was cheaper than running electricity to the cabin. We're not even close to that state with Fusion.
I'm impatient too, but perspective is important here. Even the leading private efforts don't have plans to put power on the grid for at least 10 years. Also, before this report, there wasn't an official plan of any sort for the US federal fusion program to get to a pilot plant -- so this is progress. (FWIW, I participated in the early community input stages of this report.)
>For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.
Musk has a good nose for what's possible to commercialize in a medium-term (5-10 year) time horizon on a few $bn budget. I have reason to believe he's considered fusion (he has a background in physics after all). Instead, he's made a play in batteries & solar.
Now, if someone had ~$1-5bn to gamble, it might be possible to leapfrog the existing crop of private efforts by ~5 years. Just pick one concept and build the engineering-breakeven experiment (gain ~ 20) without the intermediate scientific-breakeven experiment (gain ~ 1). It would be significantly riskier, but it would save time if it worked.
And fortunately soon Musk will need fusion for Mars travel and colonies. He just personally got extra 100B to burn - i think SpaceX will start to hire nuclear scientists and engineers soon :)
I can’t evaluate your design but I can evaluate your messaging. You need to do something to distinguish yourself from cranks and scammers, like write it up in a paper and get it published - and stop referring to yourself in plural.
I've been helping with messaging for somebody looking for demonstration funding for an experimentally proven clean oil recovery technology and it makes me feel hopeless seeing there are so many people struggling to demonstrate potentially game changing technologies, often because people investing or allocating money have little technical competence.
- Separate the Youtube account you use for this technology from the one you use personally.
- Specify in nontechnical language the advantage this tech has over similar fusion technologies. (still working on this myself)
- Seek peer review and then highlight that peer review directly on your website. My intuition is that most people or departments who are capable of funding a demonstration are not capable of validating the science behind your technology.
- I would recommend writing and attaching a succinct summary of your technology distinct from your patent, and devoid of the legalese and cruft that fills up a patent.
See if you can convince yourself that the arguments he makes about non-equilibrium systems don't apply to your concept, and then write a white paper explaining your argument.
Also, get an SSL certificate for your website. It's somewhat hard to believe you are able to create a safe and effective fusion reactor while at the same time connecting to your website uses an outdated and insecure protocol.
I’m guessing you’re referring to HL-2M which indeed in testing. But that tokamak is not designed to generate electricity but rather to study long pulse durations (~5s) at reactor relevant temperatures.
The big problem with fusion is the enormous costs associated with producing energy. I guess we need to generate large amounts of energy to justify the expenditures. Based on that, I believe that China is the only country that has both the money as well as the large-scale need to make fusion practical.
How much of the excess renewable energy is being wasted rather than stored? Maybe fuel generation like hydrogen or ethanol, or kinetic can help make nuclear less crucial?
Ethanol is wasteful, hydrogen is a beast to store, kinetic requires too many moving parts. If you want to store renewables you should turn them into methane, best storage volume, safe and proven hardware for storage, transportation and power generation. It’s even better if you can efficiently obtain atmospheric CO2 for the reaction, closes the loop.
Honestly, fission is probably the best 0 carbon power technology though, it just blows everything out of the water. We’re almost recovered from the no nuke nonsense of the 60s and the rumblings of new power plant designs and companies are growing louder so there’s hope yet.
Right now it's cheaper to deploy fossil fuels than using one of the more expensive storage technologies. Hopefully with time the price will come down though. Trends are quite promising.
No one is giving you numbers for why this is wrong, so let me ballpark.
Typical solar irradiance is 1000W/m^2. Mean sunshine hours where I live is 3000hrs/y. Assuming 100% efficiency, 100% solar irradiance, perfect angle etc for those 3000hours, we get ~10^10J of energy. Those are bad assumptions, but very generous.
In a gram of deuterium, per e=mc^2, we get ~10^12J. There is 100x more energy in a single gram of deterium than a year of intense sunshine. Deterium is far from rare -- 1 part in ~10,000. Consider the vast amounts of deterium in the oceans and realize if fusion becomes a reality, nuclear, solar, oil, wind etc all become irrelevant overnight.
I still think weather does not allow this triplet to cover all scenarios. There are times in the PNW where you won't see the sun for 2-3 weeks, long enough to deplete almost any grid storage solution
Well, maybe. We can probably meet our current energy needs with solar/wind and some kind of energy storage and more long-distance transmission lines, but it won't be cheap or easy. (Maybe it'll be cheap in the long run, but in the short run it's a lot of infrastructure to build out.)
Fusion shouldn't be considered an essential prerequisite to address climate change, but it would be better to have it as an option than not. Being able to generate constant power reliably is very convenient.
Won't batteries run into the Lithium problem? I heard somewhere that the global Lithium reserves allow us to convert the entire car fleet of humanity to electric, but not anything beyond that, certainly not allowing large scale battery deployments that would make a dent.
From what I know, wind/solar cannot power industrial needs, only residential. So we can get power at home to heat our house and watch netflix, but there will be no TVs or heaters to run off of the power.
Serious question: what happens after? Will it literally be 'free energy'? And are we ready as a society to handle this properly? How do we ensure that this will benefit everyone and not create an enormous imbalance by itself?
I guess the existing economics will be broken at some point if the cost of everything will be driven down in such a way. Are there any articles/works that explore this issue?
No, the cost structure of fusion is going to be much like fission: the cost of building the reactor has to be spread over time (with interest). Even though the fuel is cheap, you are (in a financial sense) 'burning' the reactor, which is expensive and must be bought up front. We don't know for sure how it will work out, but none of the predictions I've seen show fusion producing dramatically lower cost of electricity.
[+] [-] wcarss|5 years ago|reply
I'm just a layperson, I only know pop science level stuff here, but they seem clearly like the best game in town -- so, seriously, can a person in the physics world shed some light on why they aren't at least a small part of every article about fusion, but ITER is?
1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_(tokamak)
(And, for those with an interest who still haven't seen Zach Hartwig's absolutely excellent 2017 talk: https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk -- watch it!)
[+] [-] baking|5 years ago|reply
See Bob Mumgaard's slides from last year's annual meeting of Fusion Power Associates where he outlines the research for technologies needed for by all the approaches to fusion power.
http://www.firefusionpower.org/FPA19_Speed_Mumgaard_CFS.pdf
Quote from the last slide: "It would be a travesty for somebody to have a concept that works and have fusion stall because we, CHOSE not to prioritize the parts that help everybody."
This is where government funded research helps the emerging fusion power industry.
[+] [-] free_rms|5 years ago|reply
Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?
[+] [-] lambdatronics|5 years ago|reply
More practically, Commonwealth & other private fusion efforts have been advocating for (A) federal funds to be allocated to solving the thorny nuclear materials science issues common to (essentially) all fusion schemes (B) a NASA-COTS-inspired cost-share approach to building the eventual pilot plant. (Presumably the industry players would like to get federal support for building their pilot plants (like ARC), much the way SpaceX got support for Falcon 9 / Crew Dragon development.)
This plan reflects (A) for sure, and a step in the direction of (B). I was involved in the early stages of the community input to the plan. I think there's openness to increased partnership with industry like this.
[+] [-] sbierwagen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Lammy|5 years ago|reply
I sincerely doubt we will see any uranium-based energy technology ascend to dominance/ubiquity while over half of Earth's known uranium deposits are in the Afghanistan/Kazakhstan/Ukraine region alone. Nobody would want to buy crude (priced exclusively in USD in most markets) if nuclear were widespread. We might have to lay off a few Stuxnet malware developers then too. Takin' their jobs :p
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...
[+] [-] Animats|5 years ago|reply
Except at Lockheed's Skunk Works, which is quietly plugging away on their own.
[+] [-] willis936|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lambdatronics|5 years ago|reply
The other wishlist item is to build support for doing cost-share programs with industry to implement the larger facilities. If this gets traction, then the government wouldn't actually build the power plant, it would be more like NASA COTS where they help sponsor private companies that actually carry out the work. The INFUSE and ARPA-E fusion programs are tentative steps in this direction.
Edit: BTW, rallying around an improved pitch is big deal for the federal fusion program. Budgets have generally been in decline ever since it peaked in the 70's, and for many years there was nothing much in terms of a vision for the next steps.
[+] [-] garmaine|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] divbzero|5 years ago|reply
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21806334 "General Fusion"
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23979608 "ITER"
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24629828 "SPARC"
[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24986528 "MAST Upgrade"
[5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209666 "NIF"
[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25261068 "KSTAR"
[+] [-] lambdatronics|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raziel2701|5 years ago|reply
Additionally, with the new administration it's expected that nuclear may not be viewed favorably as wind and solar continue dropping in price. So there's a lot of threats going on and all these press pieces may be attempts at buttering up the people in power and also the general population to get them excited about fusion and hopefully etch bits off of the general fear regarding nuclear power.
Personally, NIF is stuck, it's not gonna work under its current design, and convincing Congress to fork out some 60 billion dollars for a modest increase in laser energy when we probably need 10x laser energy does not seem like a good idea. Especially when the food lines are getting longer and we're approaching an insolvency event. It's hard to justify.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|5 years ago|reply
However I also have the same impression, and HN is one of my leading indicators so it could well be coalescing.
[+] [-] ncmncm|5 years ago|reply
There will never be a commercial tokamak power plant. There has never, at any time, been any reasonable expectation of getting practical, commercial power from magnetic-confinement hot-neutron fusion.
Renewables, with practical energy storage, will always be much, much cheaper than fusion could ever have been, even if it could be made into a workable idea. Any practical fusion plant would have to absolutely huge -- an order of magnitude bigger than the biggest fission plant. Then, it would destroy its most expensive parts with neutron flux in short order. To continue using it, it would have be be rebuilt, frequently, and at even more ruinous expense, using robots.
"Break-even" is nowhere near enough to get practical power out, because the energy extraction process must be so inefficient, with two stages of heat exchange before you get a working fluid you can run through your turbine.
Tokamak fusion research is, first, foremost, and always, a jobs program to maintain a population of high-neutron-flux physicists as a population to draw upon for weapons work. Actual useful power has never been the point, or any sort of practical goal.
Thus, the burgeoning hype is meant to counter the dawning realization that the whole program always was, still is, and can only ever be a shuck. They need enough billions poured into the project to make it politically self-sustaining, where no amount of failure can ever threaten its funding, because so much has already been sunk that it would be too embarrassing to admit failure.
As it is, to ever actually break even, all the fusion plants that could be built would have to operate for decades just to pay back all the money that has already been sunk, without any commercial construction, before even starting to pay back any of the actual (huge) construction costs. But the only way to keep them operating would be via enormous public subsidies, because they could never compete on a level field with solar and wind. So, the longer they were operated, the deeper in the hole they would get.
[+] [-] gameshot911|5 years ago|reply
For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|5 years ago|reply
I mean, if you look at both Tesla and SpaceX, nothing they've done was thought to be "impossible" from the outset from a scientific perspective. Electric cars already existed when Tesla was started, and we've been shooting rockets into space for decades. This isn't at all meant to minimize the huge achievements of those companies, but the science was never really in question.
Viable fusion is simply much harder.
[+] [-] howardr|5 years ago|reply
> Forty years ago, when studying for my engineering degree, I learnt a rule of thumb that said that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. I was therefore reassured by the date given in the report (“Sites sought for Step change in energy supply”, December 3) for the Step nuclear fusion plant — 2040.
(Edit: Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall but will include the link anyway https://www.ft.com/content/e5af6548-a3a9-451f-8f92-268679d5d...)
[+] [-] dmos62|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|5 years ago|reply
I get the impression that there's still plenty of details that we don't understand how to do. It's not like solar + batteries where we have plenty of working solar + battery setups, and we just need to figure out how to make more of them more cheaply. It looks like there's still some fundamental research needed before fusion can generate more power than it consumes.
Heck, 10-ish years ago, I met someone who told me his cabin in the woods was off-grid solar because an off-grid system was cheaper than running electricity to the cabin. We're not even close to that state with Fusion.
[+] [-] lambdatronics|5 years ago|reply
I'm impatient too, but perspective is important here. Even the leading private efforts don't have plans to put power on the grid for at least 10 years. Also, before this report, there wasn't an official plan of any sort for the US federal fusion program to get to a pilot plant -- so this is progress. (FWIW, I participated in the early community input stages of this report.)
>For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.
Musk has a good nose for what's possible to commercialize in a medium-term (5-10 year) time horizon on a few $bn budget. I have reason to believe he's considered fusion (he has a background in physics after all). Instead, he's made a play in batteries & solar.
Now, if someone had ~$1-5bn to gamble, it might be possible to leapfrog the existing crop of private efforts by ~5 years. Just pick one concept and build the engineering-breakeven experiment (gain ~ 20) without the intermediate scientific-breakeven experiment (gain ~ 1). It would be significantly riskier, but it would save time if it worked.
[+] [-] benhurmarcel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Razengan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pontifier|5 years ago|reply
Fusion power has been set back 5 years.
Someone please help me evaluate my design. Please!
http://www.DDPROfusion.com
[+] [-] jl6|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UnchartedSystem|5 years ago|reply
for those curious: http://www.envirotechdme.com
If I could offer you some pointers:
- Separate the Youtube account you use for this technology from the one you use personally.
- Specify in nontechnical language the advantage this tech has over similar fusion technologies. (still working on this myself)
- Seek peer review and then highlight that peer review directly on your website. My intuition is that most people or departments who are capable of funding a demonstration are not capable of validating the science behind your technology.
- I would recommend writing and attaching a succinct summary of your technology distinct from your patent, and devoid of the legalese and cruft that fills up a patent.
[+] [-] lambdatronics|5 years ago|reply
See if you can convince yourself that the arguments he makes about non-equilibrium systems don't apply to your concept, and then write a white paper explaining your argument.
[+] [-] MauranKilom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xnyan|5 years ago|reply
Have you submitted your research for peer review, and if not, why?
[+] [-] spo81rty|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sam|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coliveira|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnord77|5 years ago|reply
this doesn't seem terribly "ambitious"
[+] [-] lambdatronics|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilaksh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway316943|5 years ago|reply
Honestly, fission is probably the best 0 carbon power technology though, it just blows everything out of the water. We’re almost recovered from the no nuke nonsense of the 60s and the rumblings of new power plant designs and companies are growing louder so there’s hope yet.
[+] [-] est31|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tahoeskibum|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hasz|5 years ago|reply
Typical solar irradiance is 1000W/m^2. Mean sunshine hours where I live is 3000hrs/y. Assuming 100% efficiency, 100% solar irradiance, perfect angle etc for those 3000hours, we get ~10^10J of energy. Those are bad assumptions, but very generous.
In a gram of deuterium, per e=mc^2, we get ~10^12J. There is 100x more energy in a single gram of deterium than a year of intense sunshine. Deterium is far from rare -- 1 part in ~10,000. Consider the vast amounts of deterium in the oceans and realize if fusion becomes a reality, nuclear, solar, oil, wind etc all become irrelevant overnight.
I recommend this https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/
for a layman's introduction of the energy scales involved here.
[+] [-] bpodgursky|5 years ago|reply
Including transit, shipping, airlines, and other industries where batteries won't quite cut it (not to mention deep-space exploration).
[+] [-] mrfusion|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waiseristy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elihu|5 years ago|reply
Fusion shouldn't be considered an essential prerequisite to address climate change, but it would be better to have it as an option than not. Being able to generate constant power reliably is very convenient.
[+] [-] est31|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orthecreedence|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wallwart|5 years ago|reply
I guess the existing economics will be broken at some point if the cost of everything will be driven down in such a way. Are there any articles/works that explore this issue?
[+] [-] lambdatronics|5 years ago|reply