Well, I cleaned my nose, and now it's my gut. Either way, I still can't help but be suspicious. For example, they say that fusion would be the answer to "the climate problem". Which would mean that they would lose that angle of control over us. So, what do they do about that? Pretend to harness fusion so that they can then pretend that "it doesn't work like we thought it would", and that we should just drop the whole idea and go back to shutting farms down, and making people eat bugs and starve to death, if they don't freeze first. I dunno, just my own opinion, and I know that it could be wrong.
I'm curious though Anon, I've read some of your other responses and you seem to really enjoy science and physics. Do you mind sharing what you do for a living?
Right now, I am retired, but I used to be a system engineer for advanced space and military systems.
The answers are probably more banal than you expect. The DoE has long "supported" fusion research under the rubric of being a magical power source---which is a convenient cover for simply doing the research to understand fusion physics and get a better grip on thermonuclear weapon design. Occasionally, they have to announce some "breakthrough" to prompt further congressional support. And the road show keeps on rolling, with no sense of urgency. I was told all this in grad school back in the 70s by those who were working government grants.
It's a great way to hinder the further exploitation of fission power. ("The perfect is the enemy of 'good enough'.") Especially when claims of no radioactive waste and cheap energy are thrown around. Complete prevarications. Some of these claims could be true if we had deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion, but we are as far from that as we were from the present kind decades ago.
Well, I cleaned my nose, and now it's my gut. Either way, I still can't help but be suspicious. For example, they say that fusion would be the answer to "the climate problem". Which would mean that they would lose that angle of control over us. So, what do they do about that? Pretend to harness fusion so that they can then pretend that "it doesn't work like we thought it would", and that we should just drop the whole idea and go back to shutting farms down, and making people eat bugs and starve to death, if they don't freeze first. I dunno, just my own opinion, and I know that it could be wrong. I'm curious though Anon, I've read some of your other responses and you seem to really enjoy science and physics. Do you mind sharing what you do for a living?
Right now, I am retired, but I used to be a system engineer for advanced space and military systems.
The answers are probably more banal than you expect. The DoE has long "supported" fusion research under the rubric of being a magical power source---which is a convenient cover for simply doing the research to understand fusion physics and get a better grip on thermonuclear weapon design. Occasionally, they have to announce some "breakthrough" to prompt further congressional support. And the road show keeps on rolling, with no sense of urgency. I was told all this in grad school back in the 70s by those who were working government grants.
It's a great way to hinder the further exploitation of fission power. ("The perfect is the enemy of 'good enough'.") Especially when claims of no radioactive waste and cheap energy are thrown around. Complete prevarications. Some of these claims could be true if we had deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion, but we are as far from that as we were from the present kind decades ago.