[conspire] Fusion

[Ron]

Steve Litt wrote on 2025-10-02 21:59:

>>> Ron said on Thu, 2 Oct 2025 15:40:06 -0700
>>> 
>>> Why fusion will never happen
>>>
>>> https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/why-fusion-will-never-happen/
> 
> 1) Superconductors are already much, much better than they were in
>     2012. Other things will improve too.

And each improvement in things like superconductors will equally benefit 
wind, hydro, tidal, anything that spins turbines.

No advantage to just fusion (nor fission) there.



> 2) The article is built on the premise that air, water, and
>     non-radioactive earth are zero cost.

I don't follow. I remember it making the case that the costs are what 
kills it before it's commercialized.

And he may not specifically call out air, water, and pollution costs - 
which are valid - but those only make his case stronger.


> Nuclear fission doesn't pollute the atmosphere normally,
> but where are you going to put the spent but still dangerously
> radioactive spent fuel?

Don't ask me to defend fission, although Candu (Canada deuterium 
uranium) designs seem pretty good and small modular reactors could maybe 
be beneficial, but I'm not arguing that fission will stage a comeback.

Again, due to financial aspects similar to fusion but even less speculative.


> And tell me true, would you like a nuclear
> fission plant built within 40 miles of your home?

No problem if a Candu reactor, but again, I never argued in favour of 
fission reactors, so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor


> As far as windmills and photovoltaic, those are nice, and they're part
> of the equation, but they use more land than coal, oil, gas, or fusion.

No way.  Wind and solar can co-exist on land that is used for other 
things like crops or livestock grazing (or at sea for wind).

Coal destroys entire mountain tops, and leave dangerous tailing piles.

Oil derricks kind of pollute the land they're situated on and are never 
cleanly removed. Can't graze cattle nor grow food crops between the wells.

Gas fracking - I'm not too sure what condition they leave the land in 
but they're not great for the aquifers.


> And they're more delicate.

Probably true, but cheaper and that's what the financiers care about. 
And, if a wind "farm" were decommissioned, I wouldn't have issues eating 
crops grown on the land (nor while the windmills are operational).

Seems the land use is heavily in favour of renewables.


Some plants grow preferentially in partially shaded fields, like where 
solar panel arrays exist.