6 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion Tax payers have paid billions for this over d

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion Tax payers have paid billions for this over decades and while no doubt physics has benefited there's nothing to show for it in terms of a practical large scale application to generate energy from fusion. Why do you think merely throwing money at this project will do the trick after all this time? Politicians can of course use your argument to score over opponents in the realm where details don't count.

the8472 8y ago
Not all funding is equal. For example compare investments in the Space Launch System vs. Falcon Heavy. Investments in ITER are also fairly inefficient due to the political strings attached. Countries get concessions in exchange for funding, which makes it logistically far from optimal. It's also a slow-moving behemoth which makes it difficult to incorporate newer technologies as they appear, e.g. improved superconductors. I think it would at least be a good idea to throw some more money at smaller projects that can iterate faster than ITER. Also, past funding is not necessarily equal to current-day funding. Materials sciences and computing have advanced, so we can build on technologies that simply didn't exist back then. One example is simulation of plasma instabilities.
Tepix 8y ago
There has been a lot of progress. Lots of hurdles were overcome. If you put the chance of success st 5% if we invest another 50 billion, we should do it. In the long run, it will ensure our future.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  If da Vinci had 50 billion, he still wouldn’t have achieved flight. There were things he just didn’t know, and until those things were learned, all of his efforts were in vain. We’re still learning too.. and there’s no telling if we know enough to achieve fusion. It may require physics that we won’t learn for another 100 years. Until it’s invented, we don’t know what’s required.
  - emiliobumachar 8y ago
    I wouldn't bet against it, 50 billion in 1500 would be about 50% of the GDP of the largest economy of the time (China). It's Apollo program funding level. http://www.newgeography.com/content/005050-500-years-gdp-a-tale-two-countries http://www.newgeography.com/content/005050-500-years-gdp-a-t...
  - NullPrefix 8y ago
    >It may require physics that we won’t learn for another 100 years It may require physics that we won’t learn without another 50 billion

the8472 8y ago

Not all funding is equal. For example compare investments in the Space Launch System vs. Falcon Heavy. Investments in ITER are also fairly inefficient due to the political strings attached. Countries get concessions in exchange for funding, which makes it logistically far from optimal. It's also a slow-moving behemoth which makes it difficult to incorporate newer technologies as they appear, e.g. improved superconductors. I think it would at least be a good idea to throw some more money at smaller projects that can iterate faster than ITER. Also, past funding is not necessarily equal to current-day funding. Materials sciences and computing have advanced, so we can build on technologies that simply didn't exist back then. One example is simulation of plasma instabilities.

Tepix 8y ago

There has been a lot of progress. Lots of hurdles were overcome. If you put the chance of success st 5% if we invest another 50 billion, we should do it. In the long run, it will ensure our future.

rgbrenner 8y ago
If da Vinci had 50 billion, he still wouldn’t have achieved flight. There were things he just didn’t know, and until those things were learned, all of his efforts were in vain. We’re still learning too.. and there’s no telling if we know enough to achieve fusion. It may require physics that we won’t learn for another 100 years. Until it’s invented, we don’t know what’s required.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  I wouldn't bet against it, 50 billion in 1500 would be about 50% of the GDP of the largest economy of the time (China). It's Apollo program funding level. http://www.newgeography.com/content/005050-500-years-gdp-a-tale-two-countries http://www.newgeography.com/content/005050-500-years-gdp-a-t...
- NullPrefix 8y ago
  >It may require physics that we won’t learn for another 100 years It may require physics that we won’t learn without another 50 billion