There is an incredible dichotomy that I learned about from David Deustch, which is that things are either:
a) ruled out by the laws of physics, or
b) possible.
Commercial ICF is in the latter category as far as I can tell.
In other words, maybe?
a) ruled out by the laws of physics, or
b) possible.
Commercial ICF is in the latter category as far as I can tell.
In other words, maybe?
AFAIK energy generation with ICF is much closer to the latter than the former.
- Will Capx be lower compared to a advanced fission plant. Almost certainty not.
- Will Fusion plan be significantly cheaper to fuel. Almost certainty not, uranium and thorium are available in waste quantities.
- Will it solve proliferation concerns? No, if you have a control of a fission reactors you have the potential to do all sorts of things.
- Will it solve the nuclear waste issue. Maybe slightly but advanced fission can produce waste that need to be stored for around 300 years and that is not actually that difficult.
And that is of course if you assume that the 100s of billions in investment required will not have be be paid back in any way. That is partly fair because fission didn't have to do that either, but there the investment is shared with nuclear weapons (for better or worse).
So I would say its closer to the second suggestion. I don't see a theoretical path of how a fusion reactor can be built cheaper then a comparable fission reactor.
But I'm not a expert on fission, I have heard of some fission that could be built very small but all actual real designs for suggestion of commercial fission I have seen do not fall into that category.
Also: "Here at SpaceX we specialize in turning the impossible into just late".
b) is two things
b1) possible and worth the cost
b2) merely possible
x) require preexisting conditions not present in the Universe, or