297
South Korea’s artificial Sun ran for 102 seconds and it could change the future of energy
(timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
297 points (77.9% liked)
Technology
86580 readers
3248 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can just say fusion reactor
The article, like so many others concerning nuclear technology, refused to address the unit cost of energy.
Why is building a large, complex, and temperamental fusion engine more economical than churning out an equivalent number of wind turbines or solar panels? The article doesn't say
Wind and solar can't get us free of CO2 yet.
This is the problem, this idea of 100% carbon free or "whelp, might as well give up and burn coal".
We will always need buffers to grids of solar and wind power, they point is we are reducing outputs significantly, aiming for a range the planet can deal with.
Funny for an ecologist to admit that you don't care about climate change if nuclear power is can be ended.
For your interest, it's at least 20 years that renewables do absolutely nothing for CO2 emissions. Meanwhile nuclear power is carbon free since the 70's.