They made such a big deal about fusion discovery re our nuclear capacity to undercut conversation about clean cheap energy. (That conversation could have gotten out of hand!) If national security was really the goal, clean cheap energy is exactly what they would have discussed.

Dec 14, 2022 · 9:28 PM UTC

8
16
66
Replying to @marwilliamson
Even with fusion solar and wind will still be just as valuable to many people,fusion will still have to run on wires long distances.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Yes ... National Security ... is NOT defense spending ... National Security ... is spending money on things that will protect our Planet!
Replying to @marwilliamson
What is your stand on the Covid19 vaccine?
Replying to @marwilliamson
Nuclear fusion is (potentially) clean cheap energy. Making a big deal about fusion is part of the conversation. It's not a distraction, it doesn't undercut, because nobody believes that fusion power will supply our energy requirements in the foreseeable short term.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Definitely a strong psyops framing, nothing to impact climate change in any positive way
Replying to @marwilliamson
If national security was part of the energy discourse, we’d be reduce our economy’s energy use by investing in mass transit and abolishing wasteful practices like planned obsolescence & artificial scarcity. We can’t scale up renewables to meet the energy demands of profit.
Replying to @marwilliamson @spmarx
But fusion is clean cheap energy… almost infinite amount of it… The only plausible negative people can point to is it will take decades to build commercial reactors.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
We discussed the solar farm. Imagine one the size of Rhode Island. It would change the paradigm once people saw it in operation. They would shit. It would take about 3 years to build, very easy. Creating lots of jobs for entry level ppl; would pay for itself later. Trust me.