10 thoughts on “Fusion Energy”

    1. Isn’t fusion a nuclear proliferation risk?

      Long before it is practical for electric power generation, D-T fusion could be an intense source of “fast” neutrons. So we might want to keep fusion out of the hands of a lot of people?

    2. It’s no wonder that the innumeracy of the masses allows these sorts of stories to perpetuate.

      If, for instance, 80% of “climate change” was “caused by” the northern hemisphere, then the people of the southern hemisphere are proportionally worse for climate than the north, since over 85% of the Earth’s population lives in the northern hemisphere.

      So, too, the proportion of advancements in any scientific pursuit between the hemispheres.

      Speaking of hemispheres, makes one wonder about the presense of damage to the hemispheres of the brains of these “scholars”…

      Good grief.

  1. From the article “Similar concerns can be found in the materials used for fusion energy. These include critical minerals, including lithium, tungsten and cobalt.”
    Oh you mean the same minerals required for batteries for the green energy transition?

  2. Sod off, Swampy…..

    The greens will not be happy, even when decrying those that have fire against those that have not.

  3. There’s something for everyone.

    Climate change is an issue that lends itself to the “techno-fix” approach – in other words, it can be tempting to avoid making important changes to our behaviour because we think we can depend on technology to fix everything. This is known as the “mitigation obstruction” argument.

    In other words, complaining about technological fixes that obsolete the author’s virtue signaling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *