[franl]

Your pessimistic take got me researching. Here’s a great article that describes the issue and some potential workarounds: https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run.... Your assumption rests on the fact that the “winning” tech will use tritium. And yes, maybe that’s the most viable path, leading you to your take. But it seems there are viable paths forward with and without tritium.

[hinkley]

Tritium is the basket most of the eggs are currently in. So if you’re using “other fuel sources” as a counter argument for “fusion is 30 years away and always will be” then I’m sorry but you’re just as much of a bullshitter as they are.

Switching fuels is at least one full international collaboration and two generations of reactor away, and if you think that’s going to happen in fifteen years then boy are you gonna be disappointed by geopolitics.

[franl]

Who said anything about a full fuel switch? All I’m talking about is your claim that this technology will never happen. I shared an article with potential workarounds. And sure, it still might not work long term. But that’s impossible for you to say with certainty. I have no horse in this race aside from being a human that would benefit from low cost energy. I know nothing about fusion beyond what I read in that article, and a few others before it. You can call me names all you want, but that doesn’t change how innovation works. Something is impossible until it isn’t. Many have come before you with similar attitudes with other seemingly impossible technologies, and have been proven wrong in unexpected ways. I’m not waving my hands and saying “this will definitely happen!” I’m saying it could happen, vs you saying it’s a certainty NOT to happen. And again, I’m talking about the technology itself, not the geopolitical, infrastructure, economic, etc. issues around it.