• octoperson@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wikipedia’s figures for the last time they made this claim. The exact figures might be a bit different this time round, but I doubt they’ve found 99% efficiency gains. Livermore sends out this sort of press release pretty regularly and it always comes down to the same creative accounting

    Basically, there’s a whole load of input energy that they just don’t count. Heat? Doesn’t count. UV? Doesn’t count. Plasma? Doesn’t count. this diagram from the wiki might be instructive. There may be decent justifications for counting it like this - I don’t know, I’m not a nuclear physicist. But I think the way they continue to report it to the media is simply dishonest.

    • JBloodthorn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The logic is that they don’t count ignition costs because they only have to be paid once. So it’s producing more than it consumes, and would eventually start netting a surplus.