• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Scientists Made A Breakthrough In Fusion — Except It’s More Media Hype

by Mark Mills
December 14, 2022, 9:45 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
3

fusion lasersI’m going to go out on a limb with a year-end prediction. The old joke in the physics community is still true: Fusion is always 50 years away.

That detracts nothing from the news of an awesome scientific accomplishment from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Using its massive, multibillion-dollar laser machine, the LLNL team finally blasted through the first milestone on the path to practical fusion.

For the first time, albeit briefly, they induced a fusion reaction that produced “net energy,” i.e., the reaction yielded more energy than contained in the laser beams used to fry the fuel pellet.

Some news outlets saw this as “a massive step in a decades-long quest to unleash an infinite source of clean energy that could help end dependence on fossil fuels.” Not so fast.

While the “net energy” achievement is big for scientists, it’s not a “massive step” for power engineers. Why?

We need to account for the grid energy required for powering those lasers. Doing so more than wipes out the net gain of 20%.

Each unit of laser energy put into the fuel pellet gobbled 200 units of grid energy. A lot of work needs to be done.

Not least, materials scientists and manufacturing engineers will have to come up with breakthroughs for fabricating the fusion fuel pellets, millions of which will be needed per year per reactor.

Right now, each single jewel-like fuel pellet is hand-crafted and costs about $1 million. Odds are we solve that challenge, eventually. And far better lasers are already feasible and will be built, eventually.

When it comes to the physics of nuclear phenomena, the potential is too exciting not to pursue. As advocates point out, the hydrogen in 50 cups of water burned in a fusion reactor would match the energy of two tons of coal.

Similarly, with today’s fission reactors, the uranium in one-fiftieth of a pound of nuclear fuel matches one ton of coal. But we need better and cheaper fission reactors.

But the odds of solving an array of big problems, whether for fusion or fission, have recently gone up. Artificial intelligence tools are revolutionizing research capabilities in new supercomputers.

In the meantime, we should expect a proliferation of headlines and rhetorical hyperbole about other energy revolutions, whether hydrogen, solar cells, or batteries.

The hype about energy revolutions is characterized by three fallacies that distort thinking about energy:

First is the magic wand fallacy wherein policymakers and pundits believe the invention of the new energy machine will change everything and do so practically overnight.

In the real world, it takes a lot of engineering and time to convert new physics into useful machines at societal scales. From the first steam engine to useful trains, it took 50 years, and from the first internal combustion engine to useful cars, 50 years.

From the first photovoltaic cell, it took 40 years to useful ones, and from the first nuclear fission to useful commercial nuclear power plants, also about 40 years.

Second is the helicopter fallacy, wherein we find there’s never one technology that solves all problems in any given domain, whether flying, farming, or producing power. The invention of the helicopter inspired claims it would revolutionize car and air travel.

One would no more use a helicopter to cross the Atlantic than use a nuclear reactor to run a train, or photovoltaic systems to run a country.

Finally, there’s the moonshot fallacy, a trope used for every aspirational goal. But the global energy challenge is not the same as putting a dozen humans on the moon, it’s the equivalent of putting all of humanity on the moon.

In no small irony, humanity today still gets roughly 300% more energy from burning wood than from either solar and wind combined, or from nuclear fission.

The world gets over 80% of its energy from burning hydrocarbons. Odds are that’s where we’ll see more useful revolutions in energy tech in the foreseeable future.

Read more at NY Post

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 3

  1. David Lewis says:
    3 years ago

    The media is made up of very poorly educated people in the sciences. In addition, in attempt to sell their press, they made sensational headlines.

    Pellet fusion isn’t the only hope. There is also “cold” fusion done at 900 degrees. This is where a small conventional nuclear reaction supplies with what can be thought of as a sparkplug to supply subatomic particles to catalyze fusion at the lower temperature. It might not ever be economically feasible and if it can be developed I’m sure it is decades away.

    From the article, no one would “use a nuclear reactor to run a train.” I used to work 100 feet from a decommissioned nuclear reactor that was designed to power airplanes. The project was abandoned when the question was asked what would happen if such a plane crashed.

  2. Steve Bunten says:
    3 years ago

    Well said. Although I didn’t know the details of the power requirements for the lasers or the costs of the “fuel pellets” but as an engineer and former nuclear operator I could see the difficulties of moving fusion to producing electricity at a level to replace any fossil fuel plants. Don’t see it happening even in the next decade. Way too many unknowns.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • Hurricane MelissaSorry, AP: Hurricane Melissa’s Strength Isn’t Proof Of Climate Change
    Oct 30, 2025
    The AP attributes Melissa’s rapid intensification to climate change, ignoring long-term hurricane data and natural variability […]
  • coral reef clown fishNew Study Finds Great Barrier Reef Coral Cover At Its Highest Since 1985
    Oct 30, 2025
    New study finds Great Barrier Reef coral cover at its highest cover since 1985, with no long-term decline despite past bleaching events. […]
  • Earth spacePhysician: Adaptation, Not Alarmism, Is The Most Effective Climate Solution
    Oct 30, 2025
    An Australian physician says human ingenuity and adaptation—not alarmism—offer the most effective path to climate resilience. […]
  • cnn harry eatonCNN Data Analyst Admits Most Voters Simply Don’t Care About Climate Change
    Oct 29, 2025
    Most Americans remain unconcerned about climate change despite decades of alarmism, CNN’s Harry Enten admits. […]
  • COP30 BrazilAs COP30 Looms, Trump Challenges Unhinged ‘Climate Crisis’ Narrative
    Oct 29, 2025
    Trump slams the climate hoax, questions the green new scam and so-called climate crisis, and defends U.S. fossil fuels ahead of COP30. […]
  • Bill GatesBill Gates Retreats From Climate Doom, Tells Activists To Focus On Urgent ‘Social Issues’
    Oct 29, 2025
    Bill Gates, once a climate alarmist, softens his doomsday stance and urges activists to focus on more immediate issues like welfare and poverty. […]
  • Trump signs an executive action to support the coal industry as Lee Zeldin looks on.China Files Comments Urging EPA To Keep Biden-Era Power Plant Rules
    Oct 29, 2025
    China’s Federal Register comments backing Biden-era EPA rules highlight Beijing’s interest in shaping U.S. energy policy, Zeldin says. […]
  • Exxon gas stationExxonMobil Sues California Over Forced Speech, Climate Reporting Laws
    Oct 28, 2025
    ExxonMobil says California’s disclosure and reporting laws violate its free speech by forcing the company to accept the state’s view on climate change. […]
  • cop30‘UN COP FLOP’: Most Countries Will Miss Climate Targets Ahead Of Major Summit
    Oct 28, 2025
    Most countries are set to miss their climate pledges as the UN COP30 summit nears, highlighting global inaction despite international commitments. […]
  • mosquitoes swarmingMeteorologist: Iceland’s Mosquitoes A Byproduct Of Global Shipping, Not Global Warming
    Oct 28, 2025
    NPR blames climate change for mosquitoes in Iceland, but a meteorologist shows how they arrived by global shipping, not warming. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky