Ask HN: Why can't the fusion be to 2020s what moon landing was to 1960s?

1 pointsnewman5554y ago2 comments

Somewhat naively, I see fusion as the "holly grail" that can fix a lot of problems caused by the modern world energy demands, first and foremost the climate change issue and everything that comes / will come with it.

So I'm curious if fusion is a resources problem (i.e. if we were to put 100x the funding could we get there by end of the decade) or is it something else, like the necessary technology simply not being there yet?

p.s. I'm not saying that cheap energy is solution to other environmental problems or human society problems, but I just humbly think it would still be a game changer. I'm curious if someone disagrees with this as well.

2 comments

aliasEli4y ago

With the moon landings there were no giant scientific problems. All relevant physics was known and it was (correctly) believed that the remaining technological problems could be solved. Yes, this was expensive, but almost all scientists believed it could be solved.

With fusion there is a big scientific problem. You need to confine some extremely hot matter under a high pressure. We currently do not have the science to solve this.

newman555OP4y ago

ok so science is not there yet and it’s not a “money” problem.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse