> The history is of radical overpromising, and continual announcement of "breakthroughs" that do not bring plausible competitive viability any nearer.
It sounds like your issue is with the PR, not the technology. Is there something faulty or misleading with the progress made in the triple-product score?
> The current funding level, given the abysmal prospects for any return, is too high. It was even higher before. We'll never get any of that back.
30 years of fusion research is what a single Nimitz aircraft carrier costs. The "even higher" level was one Nimitz carrier per decade. And it only lasted one decade. Eyeballing the funding graph, the US has spent a total of 3 aircraft carrier's worth of funding for fusion in total, since research began.
It sounds like your issue is with the PR, not the technology. Is there something faulty or misleading with the progress made in the triple-product score?
> The current funding level, given the abysmal prospects for any return, is too high. It was even higher before. We'll never get any of that back.
30 years of fusion research is what a single Nimitz aircraft carrier costs. The "even higher" level was one Nimitz carrier per decade. And it only lasted one decade. Eyeballing the funding graph, the US has spent a total of 3 aircraft carrier's worth of funding for fusion in total, since research began.