I’m Not as Happy About Nuclear Fusion News as You Are

Do you understand how far off it still is?

SciGuy
Greener Together
2 min readDec 16, 2022

--

Photo by Yulia Buchatskaya on Unsplash

I’ve seen reports in CNN, New York Times and Washington Post.

And I can’t help wondering why they care all of a sudden.

I mean, I can’t help thinking this more like a matter of accounting. A great precedent for scientists but not worth looking into in terms of policy.

THAT is where I always get a bit scared.

As soon as someone hears something, they fail to understand the depth of it than go around talking about what it means without fulling understanding the scope of the matter.

A while back, I saw this article on Medium. Now, I have a physics MS but I didn’t retain too much about nuclear physics, I honestly haven’t taken advanced courses in it. But it sounds like there’s still a good ways to go.

Also, I feel like there’s a deeper pattern with these kinds of reports.

Exaggerating stuff or acting like this changes policy when you can’t act on these discoveries at this stage. Its good for us, the scientists, but you can’t just act like, ‘hey, let’s increase gas usage since we’re probably never gonna need it again after next year!’

And I’ve seen this exact exchange play out with some reporter from the NY Intelligencer making this EXACT argument

I’m saying that [fossil fuel production] has gone down since 2007. And it has gone down since 2019. I would like to massively increase subsidies for renewables, invest massively in battery storage tech/advanced nuclear and anything else that could plausibly solve the as-yet-unresolved problem…

Just…they don’t say this out of interest, they see it as leverage to be green without ever having to be green at all.

There’s a necessary amount of decrease we need to make, and once that’s made that’s it, there’s no such thing as ‘we did this much, now let’s increase it again.’

I just see this recurring theme that’s reminiscent of Covid where someone learns a little then says a lot and argues angrily to make up for understanding little.

You cannot change policy based on something that COULD make things better. If you’re investing, do you invest all your money in something that COULD happen or do you arrange your assets expecting the worst?

Apparently stocks deserve more attention and worry than the environment.

--

--