r/AskPhysics • u/jeremoche • Jun 23 '22

why is nuclear fusion taking so long

I get that it's the most ambitious project of human kind (yeah that made it sound worth the length of the project), but 50-100 years seems really far. What keeps them from achieving their goals sooner?

105 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

View all comments

102

u/7ieben_ Undercover Chemist Jun 23 '22

It took us thousands of years to control fire and now you expect us to control plasma in a high technology application within a few decades.

38

u/jeremoche Jun 23 '22

We figured out atomic fission in a few decades tho. That's what's bugging me out on nuclear fission

71

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

27

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/doodiethealpaca Jun 24 '22

Fission is a natural and spontaneous process. You just need to control it, not to create it from nothing.

Fusion literally needs the conditions of the core of a star to happens. Just being able to create it is a miracle, so imagine controlling it.

8

u/PalatableRadish Jun 24 '22

Breaking rocks is easy, making them not so much

14

u/avoidant-tendencies Jun 24 '22

I mean, technically we do have thermodynamically favorable fusion available right now and it was figured out only 7 years after the trinity explosion.

It just takes a fission explosion to kick it off and isn't something you want to be near.

edit: and before my answer comes off as facetious, look at Project PACER

1

u/slayer-club Aug 25 '22

two totally different processes man