I wrote:
> A test reactor is likely to consume more electric power than it produces > by fusion. It wouldn't be a test reactor otherwise. It would be a prototype > commercial reactor. The ratio of input power to the entire reactor probably > has no bearing on what a commercial prototype would be like, unless the > test reactor requires many orders of magnitude more input power than could > possibly reach the target in any real-world configuration. That is the case > with some tokamak and inertial confinement reactor designs. > The First Light Fusion gadget is a railgun that physically accelerates the sample to achieve inertial confinement. Railguns are reasonably energy efficient. They are being developed for use as naval weapons aboard ships, which have limited energy supplies. Inertial confinement with lasers takes a terrific amount of energy overhead, with gigantic power supplies for the lasers. I have no knowledge of the technical details of the First Light Fusion claims other than the cursory explanation at their website, but I see no basis to think the energy overhead is extravagant the way it is with a tokamak. I do not understand why Krivit concluded that energy overhead is a barrier to developing this, or that they are lying about the overhead. There is no doubt that inertial confinement fusion works. They say "no long-lived radioactive waste is produced." I find that a little harder to believe. Reasonably low energy overhead is plausible, but I don't see how they can avoid intense neutrons and long-lived radioactive waste.
