Everything "has an angle to it". Motivation can be a key indicator behind statements of 'fact'.

Ultimately, people can believe what they want to believe. I have a close relative who believes in a supreme being, in spite of no physical evidence. All their friends go to this beings house on a Sunday for an hour. A bit mental if you ask me.

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

You're right, science is just theory and interpretation. The only people that claim they know the truth are weirdos that lurk in dark corners of the internet.

Fair enough. Having had a brief look, the purpose of the research is currently to see how much energy they can produce from firing two atoms together. To do that, they need to superheated them and turn them into plasma to give them the energy to overcome the repellant magnetic force between the neutrons.

Whilst she's right to point out the papers don't provide details on how much energy is used to produce the plasma in the first place, this is not what the tests are looking at. The production process of the plasma is a separate issue. The assumption that's probably accepted is once the process is scaled up, then there would be considerable scope to make this more efficient.

Seems like a two stage process.

Stage 1) Work out how to produce energy from Fusion.
Stage 2) Work out how to turn Fusion into a large scale industrial process.

We are still on stage 1. No point working on stage 2 until stage 1 is sorted. Although, stage 2 seems more straight forward.

Examples used in the video are probably clear they are only looking at the theory, not the industrial process, but that's Edited out as it doesn't make a good story.

To anyone reading jeeagles posts on this video I urge you to watch the video. Then read his summary and judge as whether that's a balanced view of its contents.

I'm not interested in pursuing ding dong arguments with jeeagles but I do feel it's important that the points in the video are known....if you're interested in this topic of course.

Hossenfelder is very clear in the video as to what she is saying and as to what she raises complaint against. She makes it clear with citations and video proof of where misinformation has been allowed to exist on fusion.

She makes it plain that while it's an exciting and potentially paradigm changing area of research it's important that facts around the total system input required when summarising the energy in against energy out are honestly relayed.... instead of stressing just part of the energy required.....this is important when communicated to the public and in funding summaries.

Hossenfelder is a respected physicist and I know of no criticisms she has received for this as hers is a long standing complaint in this specific area....as again she cites in the video.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Oct 2021 8.03pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I posted on a different thread fusion was not going to happen anytime soon. This interesting video would appear to support that. She explains the physics well and primarily looks at the problems that exist in making the process work. At present, it just looks like a giant gravy train of research that will likely result in nothing. If they had just burnt the money it would have produced more energy.

The very high cost of nuclear fusion means that even if it can ever be made to work it is going to be very very expensive.

an interesting article on fusion costs here:

[Link]

[Link]

Really we should just forget about both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion and concentrate on proven energy production methods that are available right now.

In the coming three decades people will need power in remote areas. They will need generation systems that are cheap, mobile and can be repaired in the field with low technology. The future of energy generation is absolutely definitely going to be solar PV and wind. Costs in these two areas have been fall very quickly and they already offer lower-cost energy than nuclear fission, gas, oil and coal. Solar PV and onshore wind are now the cheapest sources of new-build generation for at least two-thirds of the global population. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) found that between 2010-2019, the cost of solar PV globally dropped by 82%.

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

Advances in battery energy storage are also changing the picture as regards renewable energy as this mitigates against the times when the sun is not shining and wind not blowing.

Vast areas of Africa could become energy exporters creating jobs and supporting local economies. If we invest in developing these energy production facilities we will give incentive for people to remain in such areas and not become economic migrants.

Edited by kuge (03 Oct 2021 10.51pm)

Yes, I remember you mentioning it. It's happenstance that this physicist youtuber has made a recent video concerning the topic.

An amusing end to a paragraph.

Those articles certainly suggest that it's a 'white elephant' and significant eater of funding for little if any prospective return within modern technological reach.

I hear modern nuclear is very safe and that incidents of the past are impossible to repeat, but there's always the permanent problem of storing radioactivity away knowing it will last thousands of years..

However as you are talking investment I think most of us agree that renewables have a part to play and as you say, perhaps with advancements an increasing part. I'm not someone who would know enough about the topic to realise what the bang per buck would be or percentage of usage to keep the lights reliably on. Obviously we can see that Africa and equator areas would benefit from solar and islands like ours from wind.

Battery technology seems to be advancing more quickly after decades of slow progress and I know Tesla have built massive production concerning battery tech.

Africa has been an area of investment for a long time now and I can certainly see the potential for its advancement with renewables. Some parts of the continent are more open than others of course and I regard what's happening there now as little different to the time of Rhodes.

Still, Africa and other parts of the world are as much an humanitarian concern as they are an opportunity for the usual exploitation due to corrupt regimes and self interested investment.

I don't think I'd agree with the idea that improving Africa means that Africans are more likely to stay there. Africa has been increasing in wealth for decades and that's made no difference. To paraphrase Douglas Murray, 'most immigrants from Africa aren't poor in relative terms, they are Africa's middle class as they have the means to pay their way'...'if you make Africa richer all you do is enable many more Africans to leave, and increase its brain drain'....he recognises the moral dilemma there.

To actually stop significant immigration from Africa its infrastructure, institutions and wealth...but even more importantly its stability would have to be improved and increased dramatically 'out of the park'. In terms of time, even if possible those are some considerable time away.

No, to my mind a certain level of investment into Africa is a humanitarian duty. The free market will obviously also have a huge say in its development and we know that this will be a double edged sword.

Aspects like immigration control are about nations taking their borders and nationality seriously. However, as most know that's not been the path chosen for the west.

Still, to return to Africa's energy future I see renewable investment being considerable there. However, obviously all the real juicy stuff will happen and be deployed in the west or China first.

Trickle down....as the original Bush once said.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Oct 2021 1.16am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)