More popular buzz about Fusion startups in the New York Times

[natebrau]

It's a fluff piece, no new tech news, but just the fact that it's made it into the NYT shows that Fusion startups are getting mainstream attention.

Key quote-
'Fusion’s backers, though, say a tipping point may come when big investors rush to participate. “Once the money starts getting behind things, the sky is the limit,” said Harding, the hedge fund founder. “There aren’t many fusion projects in the world, but there are many investors.” '

(although originally published in the New York Times, Seattle Times doesn't have a paywall, so I'm including that link instead)
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/n ... ainstream/

[mvanwink5]

but just the fact that it's made it into the NYT shows that Fusion startups are getting mainstream attention.

Astute comment. Fluff is about all institutional investors can handle, but it is key to get them on board. Still SJ says Helion is planning to deploy the fusion generators and sell the power to utilities. Ambitious. Potentially more money in it, lots by an order of magnitude.

[Carl White]

I'll add this in here instead of creating a new topic, since it's along the same lines.

"The chase for fusion energy"

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586 ... index.html

[Skipjack]

Yeah, lots of fluff everywhere right now. Noticed a lot of articles getting some things wrong too.
Oh well. At least people are taking notice.

[mvanwink5]

I'll add this in here instead of creating a new topic, since it's along the same lines.
"The chase for fusion energy"
https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586 ... index.html

They missed Zap Energy.
They missed the fact that no Tokamaks including ITER have solved their first wall problem in contradistinction to Helion, General Fusion, TAE, and Zap Energy (not even included in their survey)
Further, Helion, General Fusion, TAE have all demonstrated their ability to achieve the science and engineering ends of their process and are now building devices based on that. This is not 'speculation' nor is it hype. But the author misses this crucial point.

The article author also finds some dissent from someone but provides no supporting basis for the person's dissent, which proves once again that journalists are typically ignorant parrots without real judgement or knowledge.

[Skipjack]

I'll add this in here instead of creating a new topic, since it's along the same lines.
"The chase for fusion energy"
https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586 ... index.html

They missed Zap Energy.
They missed the fact that no Tokamaks including ITER have solved their first wall problem in contradistinction to Helion, General Fusion, TAE, and Zap Energy (not even included in their survey)
Further, Helion, General Fusion, TAE have all demonstrated their ability to achieve the science and engineering ends of their process and are now building devices based on that. This is not 'speculation' nor is it hype. But the author misses this crucial point.

The article author also finds some dissent from someone but provides no supporting basis for the person's dissent, which proves once again that journalists are typically ignorant parrots without real judgement or knowledge.

Yeah, they completely missed ZAP despite the fact that they are the one company with an official timeline of 17 months for Q>1.
And I agree on the dissent part. I suppose they think it makes their articles more "fair and balanced" or something.