On Saturday, 17 November 2018 09:17:50 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 16 November 2018 09:57:39 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656

What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about
something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what
good reporting looks like.

Parroting, with no criticality. Lets say they find out that much smaller designs (which is what the article dealt with) made sustained fusion possible. They shut down the NIF and ITER, billions wasted. Now how, given the difficulty of just confining the plasma, are they going to siphon off power from it? Will it consist in just wicking away heat to convert to electricity, as they do now with fission reactors? Fusion is still inevitably 50-100 years in the future, best case. Worst case, it never happens. Reality; fission reactors are here and perfected. The fuel they use, the cost is one the least costly components of the plant, unlike with oil, gas. There is no upside to replacing huge, efficient fission plants with some kind of speculative fusion power.

It's just a news story about a business. Not about fusion. In the
business section, not the science section.

First paragraph:

"We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say: nuclear fusion reactors that could provide abundant, cheap and clean energy."