Posts: 7,819 +6,787
Maybe its been considered before by people actually doing fusion research, and maybe they decided that given the fact that fuel for aneutronic fusion is exceptionally rare on Earth to be a good case against aneutronic fusion. After all, the nearest likely source of the fuel is on the Moon and that presents perhaps even more difficult-to-solve logistical problems - not to mention the expense of transporting it back to Earth. No such Earth transportation currently exists (not, of course, that it could not be developed).Environmentalists will shut it down just as fast as they did nuclear power. Remember that, however close we are to economically viable fusion power, we need the much-more-difficult to master aneutronic fusion in order to eliminate any and all radiation. And even when we do that, it'll be attacked for some other reason.
And, BTW, I get that deuterium for fusion fuel is not as plentiful as some think.
This is another case where I just don't get your reasoning. We should abandon decades of research by people well-versed in the field and on their way to a potential solution to chase another far-off idea?
While some research avenues are approaching the holy grail of break-even in fusion research, I highly doubt that they have abandoned research into harnessing the resulting energy, such as it is, from these avenues of research.
Commercial fusion reactors are likely still far off, however, I don't think that we should just abandon potential avenues just because they are difficult.
Perhaps you should take your proposal for aneutronic fusion to NASA, the DOE, or DARPA. Maybe they will throw a few scraps of research money your way, and you would have some decent competition from the entities already engaged in fusion research. Heck, NASA would probably love to have an aneutronic fusion engine in their toolbox.
Ah, snarky comments about environmentalists, too. After all, who on Earth needs a healthy environment? Hmmm. I forgot. I'm talking to someone who thinks that raising CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere is a great idea even though CO2 is a scientifically proven greenhouse gas and there are already signs of substantial global warming. After all, no one worth anything lives in those coastal cities that will be flooded when enough glaciers melt, right?As famed environmentalist Paul Ehrlich said: "giving society cheap, abundant energy is be the moral equivalent of giving an ***** child a machine gun." Many other environmentalists have expressed similar points of view.