Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Because we want an energy source that can be operational tomorrow, not one that will be operational 20 years from now.



Any nuclear effort started now would be realistically operative in 10 years (best case scenario)

That's not really a good reason not to invest in something potentialy world-changing


Probably, but if you invest in not just one, but many, that might decrease/keep decreasing.


LFTR is operational yesterday, you think Fusion is operational tomorrow?


No it's not.

There was some small scale experiments, to have a fully working industrial prototype, the amount of problem to solve is just colossal. I think 40+ years is a much more reasonable guess. The thing is we don't even have a realistic timeline for those, because even that requires more research. We need way more data to say something about LFTR.

Fusion on the other hand has an estimate timeline. If everything goes well with ITER, DEMO should be operational around 2040-2050+. And actual power plants will use DEMO design. That's what we know today. With more research, we could find better design and faster ways to get fusion (Wendelstein 7-X) or we can find more trouble along the way.


Fusion is always 40-50 years away, going back to the first experiments in the 1950s.

It's hard to take such estimates seriously.


Fusion is mostly a certain amount of research dollars away. Funding has been steadily declining.[1]

[1] http://imgur.com/sjH5r


the biggest obstacle to LFTR is money and support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIDytUCRtTA

fusion's is money and scientific discovery.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: