I agree, fusion reactors will absolutely revolutionize everything, and even if we can't do better than tokamak reactors, these problems are still pretty mild. I just expect more from scientific journalism

[–] woefkardoes 14 points 9 months ago

Fusion is a very long term goal and I'm sure they are careful to not tarnish its image. But yes sadly the first commercial fusion reactors probably won't be sustainable but once they are a reality investment into the technology will be much greater and hopefully cleaner fuels will become a reality.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I remember about 15 years ago I did a school report on fusion power. I remember there was another model than the tokamak that was more complex to set up but had other advantages going for it. Think it was called the stellaradiator or something. Has it been a developmental dead end?

[–] A_A 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Stellarator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarator

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Ah yeah that’s the one. Thanks

[–] RubberElectrons 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

has it been a developmental dead end?

Nope, there are several companies & universities working on it.

W7x is the latest stellarator to come online, but there's a new Princeton University startup called Thea doing all the complex geometry and control problems of a stellarator in software.

It's a neat and elegant idea, engineering-wise. And no matter whose strategy works out, we all win in terms of understanding plasma physics, and possibly unlocking the secrets of the universe.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

it may be that the author knew that if that was included their work would be used by your ben shapiro types to proclaim that fusion reactors create substances that are both carcinogenic AND radioactive!!!! and can site their article. not saying thats the case, but I could understand such reasoning

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

I think you are severely overstating the level of knowledge of most journalists. Most science reporting to the public goes like this: journalist hears something, contacts a single scientist in the field, or is contacted by a single scientist. They talk to that person for a few minutes, then write their article. That's being generous, many simply copy press releases and add their own interpretation.

There are only a handful of decent scientific reporting agencies targeting the public that actually do a good job.