5 ms·

Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't understand why governments and private foundations alike aren't throwing money at Fusion scientists. It seems far and away

by DC-3 9y ago

Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't understand why governments and private foundations alike aren't throwing money at Fusion scientists. It seems far and away the best possible investment one could make today in humanity's future.

skellera 9y ago
Uncertainty. The risk is much higher investing in fusion than an application. I'm sure once a proven breakthrough occurs, money will begin to flood in. The potential is massive.
- fred_is_fred 9y ago
  It's also a tough sell since it seems like science fiction whereas roads, schools, medicare, social security, etc are current tangible needs that people understand. I'd venture to say at least 50% of the American population believes you can get sick from being outside without a jacket and so trying to explain to them why you spent most of the budget on fusion would just make people's heads explode.
tzahola 9y ago
Why pay for uncertain research when you can just wait for others to figure it out and then use their proven technology? Aka, first-mover disadvantage.
- riku_iki 9y ago
  But how to extract know-how from first movers?
  - tzahola 9y ago
    Buy it?
  - badpun 9y ago
    Don't scientists disseminate their findings for free (via publishing papers)?
    - riku_iki 9y ago
      There are probably many papers in semicondactor area, but it is hard to build company producing consumer CPUs. The same is for search engines for example..
jcranmer 9y ago
Throwing money at a problem gets you "more", not "better". If your problem is that you need more scale, then throwing more money at a problem will get you that scale. If what you need is a breakthrough, feeding more money tends to lead to more heartbreak (see, e.g., Alzheimer's--we've spent several billion dollars on a cure and the only thing to show for it is that reducing amyloid plaques doesn't seem to do a damn thing). Fusion is still very much in the latter category: we don't have a working fusion reactor we need to make feasible, we have a vague sketch of one that might become a feasible reactor, if we achieve a few breakthroughs (and even then, we have several more issues to work through to actually make it economical).
- _nalply 9y ago
  I didn't downvote you because I find your assertion about throwing money at a problem to the point. Others have downvoted you perhaps because your other assertion that there's no working fusion reactor might be unfounded, in other words, we might have already working fusion reactors but they are just not yet profitable. (I am not an expert.)
pitaj 9y ago
There little military application.
- cmpxchg8b 9y ago
  Little military application from a near limitless supply of energy? That sounds like a lack of imagination.
  - pitaj 9y ago
    It was more a hypothesis, maybe there's little perceived application.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by DC-3 9y ago

skellera 9y ago

Uncertainty. The risk is much higher investing in fusion than an application. I'm sure once a proven breakthrough occurs, money will begin to flood in. The potential is massive.

fred_is_fred 9y ago
It's also a tough sell since it seems like science fiction whereas roads, schools, medicare, social security, etc are current tangible needs that people understand. I'd venture to say at least 50% of the American population believes you can get sick from being outside without a jacket and so trying to explain to them why you spent most of the budget on fusion would just make people's heads explode.

tzahola 9y ago

Why pay for uncertain research when you can just wait for others to figure it out and then use their proven technology? Aka, first-mover disadvantage.

riku_iki 9y ago
But how to extract know-how from first movers?
- tzahola 9y ago
  Buy it?
- badpun 9y ago
  Don't scientists disseminate their findings for free (via publishing papers)?
  - riku_iki 9y ago
    There are probably many papers in semicondactor area, but it is hard to build company producing consumer CPUs. The same is for search engines for example..

jcranmer 9y ago

Throwing money at a problem gets you "more", not "better". If your problem is that you need more scale, then throwing more money at a problem will get you that scale. If what you need is a breakthrough, feeding more money tends to lead to more heartbreak (see, e.g., Alzheimer's--we've spent several billion dollars on a cure and the only thing to show for it is that reducing amyloid plaques doesn't seem to do a damn thing). Fusion is still very much in the latter category: we don't have a working fusion reactor we need to make feasible, we have a vague sketch of one that might become a feasible reactor, if we achieve a few breakthroughs (and even then, we have several more issues to work through to actually make it economical).

_nalply 9y ago
I didn't downvote you because I find your assertion about throwing money at a problem to the point. Others have downvoted you perhaps because your other assertion that there's no working fusion reactor might be unfounded, in other words, we might have already working fusion reactors but they are just not yet profitable. (I am not an expert.)

pitaj 9y ago

There little military application.

cmpxchg8b 9y ago
Little military application from a near limitless supply of energy? That sounds like a lack of imagination.
- pitaj 9y ago
  It was more a hypothesis, maybe there's little perceived application.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]