Defensible Claims and Rejected Comparisons
This repo publishes only solid, public, mechanism-based environmental claims; a scale-mismatched 'cleaner than X' comparison was rejected.
Not every plausible-sounding environmental claim is defensible, and this page documents the discipline applied here. The rule is simple: publish only claims that rest on a specific mechanism, a public baseline, and a fair comparison. Claims that rely on a scale mismatch or an unbuilt-plant number are rejected.
What is defensible
- Architecture claims: direct energy conversion removes the steam cycle, so the burner is water-light. Mechanism-based.
- Class claims: fusion plants are compact, high-power-density generators. Physically grounded.
- Mechanism-avoidance: no large withdrawal means no intake mortality; no bulk discharge means no thermal plume.
- Fuel-resource claims: deuterium is unlimited; helium-3 is ~400x gated. Both stated together.
What was rejected, and why
An internal comparison asserting that one machine is categorically cleaner than a named alternative was rejected because it relied on a scale mismatch — comparing quantities defined on different bases. We do not publish it. We also do not publish water- or land-intensity numbers for unbuilt machines, because a single figure would imply a measured result that does not exist for a design-and-simulation study.
Why this matters
Credibility is the asset this repo protects. Every honest gate stated elsewhere — helium-3, availability, plug physics — is only believable because the positive claims are equally disciplined. By publishing mechanism-based, same-basis, design-and-simulation-framed claims and rejecting scale-mismatched ones, the water, land, and resource case stays defensible under scrutiny.