6 ms·

This is fantastic news! Based on this information, I conclude that nuclear fusion is probably only about 20 years away.

daef 8y ago
The question is if we'll live long enough to experience the time after those magical 20 years....
mabbo 8y ago
> probably only about 20 years away Down from the '25 years away' it has been for the last 50. I'm not being facetious, I actually think that's huge win and we should all be happy.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  I've been following fusion research on and off since I've been a little kid. It's always been far in the future. Back then it seemed like I could actually see a fusion reactor when I'm an old man. Now, 25 years later, the rate of progress generally feels like the date has shifted to "not in my lifetime". It's kind of a weird feeling. Edit: Addendum: I vividly remember images with visualization results for numerical simulations on the reactor vessel shape for Wendelstein 7-X. That was back in 1992 or so. This just shows how long this experiment was in the making.
juliangoldsmith 8y ago
And only another 20 after that, of course. We should have strong AI by that time as well.
jandrese 8y ago
It will be the perfect power plant for my flying car.
emeraldd 8y ago
The obligatory XKCD: https://m.xkcd.com/678/ https://m.xkcd.com/678/
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
adrianN 8y ago
Can we stop with the "fusion will always be x years away" meme? Fusion is mostly a number of invested dollars away. A big reason why we don't have fusion reactors yet is because nobody invests sufficient amounts into the necessary research. Check this graph http://imgur.com/sjH5r http://imgur.com/sjH5r from the old Slashdot interview https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions?sdsrc=rel https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fus... It's just disrespectful to all the brilliant physicists and engineers who work on the topic to belittle their efforts like that.
- jgh 8y ago
  > You might say that we’re not a certain number of years away from a working fusion power plant, but rather about $80-billion away (in worldwide funding). That's a surprisingly small number for the impact nuclear fusion could make. I wonder why we haven't seen any billionaires taking up the challenge, even though this might be more impactful than space tourism or people on mars.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    For context, that's over twice the size of the Gates Foundation. You have to compare that to all other possible investments, including energy startups that could pay off a lot sooner. Note that SpaceX is set up as a business, not a charity; Musk may talk a lot about Mars but that's not really where the money goes.
    - inteleng 8y ago
      The money funding SpaceX could hardly be allocated towards sustainable colonization of Mars in a more efficient manner. If you can think of one, please email Elon.
      - skybrian 8y ago
        Sure, SpaceX has good business plan. That's the point. Building rockets only for a future Mars voyage and not making any money along the way would be a bad way to do it. By contrast, fusion will only be a scientific research project for many years and many billions.
zerostar07 8y ago
> 20 years On which reference frame?
Pica_soO 8y ago
If you could integrate fusion into a human being- that would allow for time travel.
lazysheepherd 8y ago
"You Can Always Get What You Want — But Not What You Need" > https://youtu.be/QCw_D7dr7Rw https://youtu.be/QCw_D7dr7Rw If you spare half an hour to Google, you can find out what we want collectively; 1) Find global spending on fusion research and note it down. 2) Pick some other stuff to compare it to. Like global annual military budget. Annual profits of the largest companies and what they sell to make it. Or how much do we spend on 'entertainment'. Or popularity of Kardashians(given even I know that f#cking name...) or whatever. You'll be quick to realize that the fusion is sitting in the corner, waiting for us to "want to have it". It makes me feel depressed to see on every fusion article in 2018, there is a paragraph allocated to explain how fusion is different from fission and how it is not... basically not a bomb. The topic feels home in HN, but I do not know if you ever brought up fusion in a talk with family or even among your young friend circle. I certainly have engaged in that experiment myself. People do not even know what the heck is fusion, let alone lobbying to fund it with tax money. In this state, I say, the advancement on fusion is rather stellar, I congratulate wholeheartedly anyone putting sweat and money in it to bring things to this level.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  Fusion isn't marginal because funding is low. Rather, funding for fusion is low because fusion is marginal. The money would be there if the technology warranted it. But examined closely, fusion doesn't appear promising, so people close their checkbooks.

daef 8y ago

The question is if we'll live long enough to experience the time after those magical 20 years....

> probably only about 20 years away Down from the '25 years away' it has been for the last 50. I'm not being facetious, I actually think that's huge win and we should all be happy.

gmueckl 8y ago
I've been following fusion research on and off since I've been a little kid. It's always been far in the future. Back then it seemed like I could actually see a fusion reactor when I'm an old man. Now, 25 years later, the rate of progress generally feels like the date has shifted to "not in my lifetime". It's kind of a weird feeling. Edit: Addendum: I vividly remember images with visualization results for numerical simulations on the reactor vessel shape for Wendelstein 7-X. That was back in 1992 or so. This just shows how long this experiment was in the making.

juliangoldsmith 8y ago

And only another 20 after that, of course. We should have strong AI by that time as well.

jandrese 8y ago

It will be the perfect power plant for my flying car.

emeraldd 8y ago

The obligatory XKCD: https://m.xkcd.com/678/ https://m.xkcd.com/678/

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

adrianN 8y ago

Can we stop with the "fusion will always be x years away" meme? Fusion is mostly a number of invested dollars away. A big reason why we don't have fusion reactors yet is because nobody invests sufficient amounts into the necessary research. Check this graph http://imgur.com/sjH5r http://imgur.com/sjH5r from the old Slashdot interview https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions?sdsrc=rel https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fus... It's just disrespectful to all the brilliant physicists and engineers who work on the topic to belittle their efforts like that.

jgh 8y ago
> You might say that we’re not a certain number of years away from a working fusion power plant, but rather about $80-billion away (in worldwide funding). That's a surprisingly small number for the impact nuclear fusion could make. I wonder why we haven't seen any billionaires taking up the challenge, even though this might be more impactful than space tourism or people on mars.
- skybrian 8y ago
  For context, that's over twice the size of the Gates Foundation. You have to compare that to all other possible investments, including energy startups that could pay off a lot sooner. Note that SpaceX is set up as a business, not a charity; Musk may talk a lot about Mars but that's not really where the money goes.
  - inteleng 8y ago
    The money funding SpaceX could hardly be allocated towards sustainable colonization of Mars in a more efficient manner. If you can think of one, please email Elon.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      Sure, SpaceX has good business plan. That's the point. Building rockets only for a future Mars voyage and not making any money along the way would be a bad way to do it. By contrast, fusion will only be a scientific research project for many years and many billions.

zerostar07 8y ago

> 20 years On which reference frame?

Pica_soO 8y ago

If you could integrate fusion into a human being- that would allow for time travel.

lazysheepherd 8y ago

"You Can Always Get What You Want — But Not What You Need" > https://youtu.be/QCw_D7dr7Rw https://youtu.be/QCw_D7dr7Rw If you spare half an hour to Google, you can find out what we want collectively; 1) Find global spending on fusion research and note it down. 2) Pick some other stuff to compare it to. Like global annual military budget. Annual profits of the largest companies and what they sell to make it. Or how much do we spend on 'entertainment'. Or popularity of Kardashians(given even I know that f#cking name...) or whatever. You'll be quick to realize that the fusion is sitting in the corner, waiting for us to "want to have it". It makes me feel depressed to see on every fusion article in 2018, there is a paragraph allocated to explain how fusion is different from fission and how it is not... basically not a bomb. The topic feels home in HN, but I do not know if you ever brought up fusion in a talk with family or even among your young friend circle. I certainly have engaged in that experiment myself. People do not even know what the heck is fusion, let alone lobbying to fund it with tax money. In this state, I say, the advancement on fusion is rather stellar, I congratulate wholeheartedly anyone putting sweat and money in it to bring things to this level.

pfdietz 8y ago
Fusion isn't marginal because funding is low. Rather, funding for fusion is low because fusion is marginal. The money would be there if the technology warranted it. But examined closely, fusion doesn't appear promising, so people close their checkbooks.