Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

An answer matched in tenor and tone to the question, but nonetheless entirely serious,

is that because while the obstacles are grave, the consequences of failing to overcome them are much graver still,

and to the best of our collective knowledge,

industrial scale fusion would be the least bad answer to our energy demands for the next epoch.

That is true but also does not obviate the need for other parallel efforts and other technologies whose challenges are also very grave, e.g. the need for very near term very large scale carbon sequestration, for a modern electrical grid with deep redundancy and resilience, the need for effective safe scalable stores for energy from whatever source, etc.




> the consequences of failing to overcome them are much graver still,

Why is that? Fusion is not needed, although if it turned out to be cheap that would be nice.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: