Not really? How do you define efficiency here?
Thermonuclear bombs literally create lots of heat, and don’t tend to drive anything that produces work. It’s the opposite of efficient.
Just like lighting gasoline on fire and claiming that that’s more efficient than a combustion energy…
I’m talking about net energy. Harnessing it is a whole different story.
Not really making nukes take a ridiculous amount of energy and you only get to use it once where the energy to create ITER gets split across its operating lifespan.
Further fission here requires a fission first stage which represents a huge additional energy input.
GPT pro says 3 to 30x energy release compared to the entire supply chain input for a megaton class weapon.
I trust the argument. You can look into it yourself. Long story short, it is massively energy positive compared to controlled fusion.
I really don’t trust that LLM estimate, they are really bad at that kind of thing but for the sake of argument let’s take that as a baseline.
ITER is supposed to be a 10-20x return on energy provided (10x being the safe bet) which mean it may or may not be better depending on the specific bomb design, but it’s not massively better.
People talk about fusion as useless but the current best design in construction was constructed in
What if we used them to run Tesla turbines