Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040

just like this time in 2013, link ..., and this one in 2021 link ... Which definition of breakeven are they using this time? ▶ this video

"The Department of Energy plans to announce Tuesday that scientists have been able for the first time to produce a fusion reaction that creates a net energy gain" Oh, just like this time in 2013, link , and this one in 2021 link Which definition of breakeven are they using this time? ▶ this video

Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040: ▶ this video "Theres a famous saying that nuclear fusion is 30 years away and always will be"

I was hopeful for a bit, then I saw some stuff like this: ▶ this video and realized nothing has changed. It's the same old shit: reporters being willfully ignorant, business people misleading the public, and on and on. Wake me up when you have plans for a full-scale, fully-functional fusion plant that can actually be built in an economically feasible way. Until then, I don't care.

It just so happens that a short while after I saw this comment, this [1] turned up on my recommendations feed. What would you say are the counterarguments that lead you to believe fusion is on the horizon? (Ideally in more specific terms than "when a distinguished but elderly scientist", etc.) Just to be clear, I don't personally have a position on this; I don't know enough about the field. But I'm very interested in understanding developments in energy production, as at the end of the day, this is humanity's only real source of leverage. [1] ▶ this video

I haven't had a chance to watch this video yet, but the best video I've seen on fusion plant design came out in the past few weeks. It's titled "Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion by 2040". ▶ this video It really nails the feel of the fusion engineering community I've been in. Little things said in passing in this video don't show up in public facing videos (such as a reactor needing to be primarily heated via ECRH) yet are regular topics with experts.

I like being optimistic, but there is nothing to be optimistic about when it comes to producing electrical power from laser ICF. It's a weapons program. Also, I spent a few years as an engineer at a stellarator. This video[0] recently came out and I find it's the best crash course on the nuances of reactor design that I've seen. It really nails the thoughts and feelings of fusion researchers. It was especially refreshing to hear in public that ECRH is the only viable heating method for a reactor. If you watch this you might think I'm pessimistic about fusion, but I'm not. Fusion has been sold as this secret Ace up our sleeve that will come in and decarbonize our grid in a matter of decades. It isn't that. That's what's been sold because it's difficult to justify the field when the timelines don't decarbonize the grid in 50 years. The important thing to know is that the world doesn't end in 50 years. Energy demands are ever increasing and the supply is ever diminishing. Fusion science is expensive and time consuming. Humans will have to do the work if they want to stay on the current track beyond the next 100 years. It might seem like a subtle point and a doomed one to make considering how shortsighted we as a society have demonstrated to be. 0. ▶ this video