Reply To: would nuclear energy really be accessible to all?

[Brian H]

Lerner wrote: The problem is that most investors are willing to invest in possible failures in areas where there have been successes–such as pharmaceuticals. “we know most drugs fail, but some make oodles of money, so…” New sources of energy are much rarer–the last one being fission (or maybe solar-electric) so it is harder for investors to see that they are risking money for something that has some failures but will suceed sooner or later. That is why most, although not all, fusion investors have technical backgrounds themselves so they can put fusion in context. (Also big money tends to move in herds and fusion is way outside the trodden paths of wind solar and geothermal where government subsidies can make a profit more likely, although far from certain.)

And politicians don’t invest for success, but for Points. Political Points accrue to whoever strokes the most voters’ and vested interests’ erogenous & economic zones. (E.g.: Many many billions have been paid out for carbon offsets fulfilled by companies destroying HF, with its much higher GHG rating, which they manufactured in order to have it to destroy. About half of all EU’s payments to “offsetters” have been scammed this way, or close variations of the ploy. Others are, e.g., promising to plant forests which are never created, or already exist, or are regrowing on their own. )

If you were a talented grifter, you could probably persuade them to drop a billion or two on you for promised reductions of carbon emissions over the next decade of umpty-two gigatons. And then astonish them by actually delivering.