this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
264 points (81.7% liked)

Technology

85243 readers
4281 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] probable_possum@leminal.space 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Fusion isn’t as bad as fission or fossil fuel. To date, terrestrial fusion has been a net-negative energy system. That's strictly worse than fission or fossil.

My mistake. I did not specify in what regard. I had the waste in mind. Fusion waste is radioactive for a few decades. Fuel wise, there is an abundance of Deuterium, like a gram of it in every bucket of ocean water give or take. Tritium? That's the harder part.

You are right. It doesn't work yet. And it will be too late to solve the current energy crisis. If they get it working at all. But I see no harm in trying.

Your remaining statements: I did not intend to say that solar and wind power are bad, but they are not flawless (again: sustainability and sourcing).