Fusion will not provide unlimited energy. And not even affordable energy. There is nothing to see here but physicists having fun with other people's money.
Mate, I've read a few of your comments here. Are you some sort of anti-fusion shill?
Physicist having fun with other people's money?! On top of the fact that this demo reactor costs a fraction of the development cost of the F-35.
Eric Weinstein:
"We can't afford to pay these people. We can't afford to give them an accelerator just to play with in case they find something at the next energy level, these people created our economy. They gave us the rad lab and radar, they gave us two atomic devices to end World War Two that created the semiconductor and the transistor to power our economy through Moore's Law as a positive externality of particle accelerators that created the World Wide Web.
And we have the insolence to say, why should we fund you with our taxpayer dollars? Now, the question is, are you enjoying your physics dollars?"
So, how are you having fun with your physics dollars?
These are all different physicists. The ones doing other things are competing for the money being spent on the fusion projects instead.
I would rather the other ones get it, because maybe something of value might come from that.
That said, plasma fluid dynamics physicists are chronically underfunded, and they can often use money from fusion projects for their experiments. I never begrudge money to plasma fluid dynamics physicists. But we shouldn't expect to get useful fusion out as a result.
In one sentence you suggest funding one group without the expectation anything will come from it. And then the next you say we shouldn't fund one group because there is no expectation anything will come from it.
I am anti-boondoggle. $Billions in for nothing out is a losing proposition.
Kinetic neutrons are almost the worst energy delivery vehicle conceivable, even worse than gamma rays. (Only neutrinos would be worse.) Visible photons are good.
