6 ms·

Fusion as a power source is only 30 years away now :)

by erobbins 7y ago

drallison 7y ago
and, if past experience is correct, it will be 30 years away for the next two or three decades.
- walshemj 7y ago
  I believe that was what they said at the festival of Britain in 1951. "Zeta Hotter Than the Stars" "To Cheap to Meter " :-)
Iv 7y ago
Actually with the level of funding it got, that was predicted: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec824b604c0571f0.webp https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec824b... What the hell happened to optimism and trust in science? We used to be able to say "In 10 years there'll be a man on the moon" without having ever launched anyone in space. Now people doubt that in 50 years we will have a marginally better battery technology... Fusion would be there already if only we had believed in it.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Funding. Approx five yrs ago I was told by a "big name" in fusion research "It can be done. But the effort needs more money." In comparison, the most recent DoD budget (in the USA) has ballooned to three-quarters of a trillion. It's clear we're not interested in the future.
  - flagfeedingusa1 7y ago
    It's strange, you have to be educated somewhat to make a comment this ignorant. Where exactly do you think the internet came from that you are using right now at this moment? Where do you think a multitude of inventions and technologies came from? A huge chunk of that DoD budget is specifically for research and development. It's bizarre it's like people learn just enough to solidify their world views then turn off.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    Just so you realize, the DoD budget does pay for a lot of research. About 15% is directly going into research, and there's about another 10%-ish that's research disguised as procurement. And that research isn't all weapons system--I've been funded by the DoD to do compiler research.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Far less than 25% of the DoD budget is research. Quite a bit could charitably be called R&D with a heavy emphasis on development, but even then it’s not 25%. That said, they do a lot of great research and some of it even stays unclassified.
      - jcranmer 7y ago
        My source is the DoD's budget itself: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Financial_Summary_Tables.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg..., although I am guesstimating at the fraction of procurement put into indirect research.
        Retric 7y ago
        I assume your referring to: “RESEARCH, DEV, TEST & EVAL“ which yes includes the word research, but that’s far from the only thing involved. Which is why it sticks on Dev Test and Eval. Some of that money involves setting up assembly lines.
    - robocat 7y ago
      What percentage of that research is publically published? I presume the bulk of it is secret squirrel.
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      Yes. I do realize. I also realize this reactor is not being built in the USA. That's a signal. That's a tell.
- nine_k 7y ago
  If we only believed more in the philosopher's stone! There are fundamental problems in achieving economically viable fusion. Nice and clean reactions that power the sun are way too slow, and need immense volume. Faster reactions produce neutrons and still require temperatures several times higher than inside Sun. Where economy and safety are not the primary concerns, fusion has long been achieved: in bombs.
  - Iv 7y ago
    It is because we believed in it that chemistry was invented! The worst case by pursuing an impossible thing is that you acquire a ton of knowledge in the process. If ITER fails, what we will have learned about superconducting magnets manufacturing and high-temperature plasma will surely be useful.
- geedy 7y ago
  Optimism is really, really hard. It requires you to risk looking foolish. Our emotional needs to feel connected work against us staking a position too far away from the norm. But few great things have been accomplished without the risk of looking foolish, at least at the outset.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    What? I constantly see people being optimistic based on nothing more than misplaced wishful thinking. Optimism is the default, officially approved thing you're supposed think about fusion. It's being skeptical that requires effort, since it requires doubting what the media and authority figures tell you.
- solveit 7y ago
  That's one of the most depressing pictures I've ever seen.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  In 20 years we will have less pessimism!
- electrograv 7y ago
  I’m still optimistic about science in general, but sometimes I question the wisdom of our resource allocation: Tech companies making selfie sharing apps make enough money to fund an entire space program several times over, but instead reinvest it in making the next generation of selfie sharing apps. And because all the money is in selfie sharing apps, that’s where a large percentage of the brightest minds go to spend their career (as opposed to something less financially responsible, like nuclear fusion engineering, astronomy, or space flight)
  - hueving 7y ago
    That's because that's what society wants. People pay for apps or watch ads to get their selfie app. SpaceX lands 3 boosters back on earth and fewer people watch than daily active Snapchat users.
  - ikeyany 7y ago
    It turns out bright minds love science, but they also love a decent standard of living and not having their career jeopardized be every time Congress tries to pass a budget. And isn't that a bit of a dig at our astronomers and fusion engineers?
- rgbrenner 7y ago
  This chart always gets trotted out whenever this comes up. You cannot know what it will cost to invent something before it is invented. You cannot know how many deadends you will have to go down before you find one that works. In fact, it may be that the invention depends on knowledge or technology that we don't have, and maybe won't have for many many years. For example, today fusion researchers are using computers to simulate plasma flows, gain a better understanding of plasma, and design better reactors... something that was not possible in the mid-70s when that chart was created.. and would not be possible to do by hand (as was done in the 70s). Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone into creating computers capable of doing that... where is that in your chart? And to preempt this line: saying they could buy a supercomputer is not a rebuttal. A Cray-2 was the 2nd fastest computer in the world from 1985-1990 (10-15 years after your chart). It's the equivalent to an ipad 2 (a 2011 32-bit mobile low-power processor). I'm using a computer many times faster than that just to type this post.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    The chart refutes the idea that experts promised fusion power on a certain timespan, got the resources they requested as necessary, and then failed to deliver. That false narrative is the basis of the incorrect aphorism "fusion is 30 years away and always will be". The chart is not intended to be definitive proof that we would have had fusion power if we had spent the money (lv's last throwaway line notwithstanding.) No one knows what would have happened. To estimate that, we must use our prior based on how long/expensive other major tech developments have been. That's very different than pretending we know fusion's track record. Incidentally, NASA is currently spending huge amounts of money on computer simulations for the equipment that will return humans to the moon half a century after they were last there. That doesn't mean those simulations are necessary to get to the Moon, as indeed they weren't possible in 1969.
  - credit_guy 7y ago
    In addition to what you said, I think our perception of the Manhattan and Apollo projects is skewed by survivorship bias [1]. These projects kept hitting milestones, so they kept getting additional funding, until their successful final delivery. It's quite likely that many, many more projects (laser weapons, scramjets, ekranoplanes) experienced a funding flatline like the fusion famous graph, simply because their milestones proved elusive. It's better to deliver results than excuses and delays. [1] https://xkcd.com/1827/ https://xkcd.com/1827/
- antonvs 7y ago
  It's not about belief. The change you're observing is a response to the fact that we've implemented most of the low-hanging fruit. What we're left with are much more difficult problems.
dylan604 7y ago
Maybe Linux as a desktop will be a thing by then as well?
pontifier 7y ago
I was just awarded a patent on my fusion reactor design, so I sure hope I can get it working in less than that! http://www.ddprofusion.com/US10354761.pdf http://www.ddprofusion.com/US10354761.pdf

Fusion as a power source is only 30 years away now :)

drallison 7y ago

and, if past experience is correct, it will be 30 years away for the next two or three decades.

walshemj 7y ago
I believe that was what they said at the festival of Britain in 1951. "Zeta Hotter Than the Stars" "To Cheap to Meter " :-)

Iv 7y ago

Actually with the level of funding it got, that was predicted: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec824b604c0571f0.webp https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec824b... What the hell happened to optimism and trust in science? We used to be able to say "In 10 years there'll be a man on the moon" without having ever launched anyone in space. Now people doubt that in 50 years we will have a marginally better battery technology... Fusion would be there already if only we had believed in it.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
Funding. Approx five yrs ago I was told by a "big name" in fusion research "It can be done. But the effort needs more money." In comparison, the most recent DoD budget (in the USA) has ballooned to three-quarters of a trillion. It's clear we're not interested in the future.
- flagfeedingusa1 7y ago
  It's strange, you have to be educated somewhat to make a comment this ignorant. Where exactly do you think the internet came from that you are using right now at this moment? Where do you think a multitude of inventions and technologies came from? A huge chunk of that DoD budget is specifically for research and development. It's bizarre it's like people learn just enough to solidify their world views then turn off.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  Just so you realize, the DoD budget does pay for a lot of research. About 15% is directly going into research, and there's about another 10%-ish that's research disguised as procurement. And that research isn't all weapons system--I've been funded by the DoD to do compiler research.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Far less than 25% of the DoD budget is research. Quite a bit could charitably be called R&D with a heavy emphasis on development, but even then it’s not 25%. That said, they do a lot of great research and some of it even stays unclassified.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      My source is the DoD's budget itself: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Financial_Summary_Tables.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg..., although I am guesstimating at the fraction of procurement put into indirect research.
      - Retric 7y ago
        I assume your referring to: “RESEARCH, DEV, TEST & EVAL“ which yes includes the word research, but that’s far from the only thing involved. Which is why it sticks on Dev Test and Eval. Some of that money involves setting up assembly lines.
  - robocat 7y ago
    What percentage of that research is publically published? I presume the bulk of it is secret squirrel.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Yes. I do realize. I also realize this reactor is not being built in the USA. That's a signal. That's a tell.
nine_k 7y ago
If we only believed more in the philosopher's stone! There are fundamental problems in achieving economically viable fusion. Nice and clean reactions that power the sun are way too slow, and need immense volume. Faster reactions produce neutrons and still require temperatures several times higher than inside Sun. Where economy and safety are not the primary concerns, fusion has long been achieved: in bombs.
- Iv 7y ago
  It is because we believed in it that chemistry was invented! The worst case by pursuing an impossible thing is that you acquire a ton of knowledge in the process. If ITER fails, what we will have learned about superconducting magnets manufacturing and high-temperature plasma will surely be useful.
geedy 7y ago
Optimism is really, really hard. It requires you to risk looking foolish. Our emotional needs to feel connected work against us staking a position too far away from the norm. But few great things have been accomplished without the risk of looking foolish, at least at the outset.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  What? I constantly see people being optimistic based on nothing more than misplaced wishful thinking. Optimism is the default, officially approved thing you're supposed think about fusion. It's being skeptical that requires effort, since it requires doubting what the media and authority figures tell you.
solveit 7y ago
That's one of the most depressing pictures I've ever seen.
BurningFrog 7y ago
In 20 years we will have less pessimism!
electrograv 7y ago
I’m still optimistic about science in general, but sometimes I question the wisdom of our resource allocation: Tech companies making selfie sharing apps make enough money to fund an entire space program several times over, but instead reinvest it in making the next generation of selfie sharing apps. And because all the money is in selfie sharing apps, that’s where a large percentage of the brightest minds go to spend their career (as opposed to something less financially responsible, like nuclear fusion engineering, astronomy, or space flight)
- hueving 7y ago
  That's because that's what society wants. People pay for apps or watch ads to get their selfie app. SpaceX lands 3 boosters back on earth and fewer people watch than daily active Snapchat users.
- ikeyany 7y ago
  It turns out bright minds love science, but they also love a decent standard of living and not having their career jeopardized be every time Congress tries to pass a budget. And isn't that a bit of a dig at our astronomers and fusion engineers?
rgbrenner 7y ago
This chart always gets trotted out whenever this comes up. You cannot know what it will cost to invent something before it is invented. You cannot know how many deadends you will have to go down before you find one that works. In fact, it may be that the invention depends on knowledge or technology that we don't have, and maybe won't have for many many years. For example, today fusion researchers are using computers to simulate plasma flows, gain a better understanding of plasma, and design better reactors... something that was not possible in the mid-70s when that chart was created.. and would not be possible to do by hand (as was done in the 70s). Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone into creating computers capable of doing that... where is that in your chart? And to preempt this line: saying they could buy a supercomputer is not a rebuttal. A Cray-2 was the 2nd fastest computer in the world from 1985-1990 (10-15 years after your chart). It's the equivalent to an ipad 2 (a 2011 32-bit mobile low-power processor). I'm using a computer many times faster than that just to type this post.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  The chart refutes the idea that experts promised fusion power on a certain timespan, got the resources they requested as necessary, and then failed to deliver. That false narrative is the basis of the incorrect aphorism "fusion is 30 years away and always will be". The chart is not intended to be definitive proof that we would have had fusion power if we had spent the money (lv's last throwaway line notwithstanding.) No one knows what would have happened. To estimate that, we must use our prior based on how long/expensive other major tech developments have been. That's very different than pretending we know fusion's track record. Incidentally, NASA is currently spending huge amounts of money on computer simulations for the equipment that will return humans to the moon half a century after they were last there. That doesn't mean those simulations are necessary to get to the Moon, as indeed they weren't possible in 1969.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  In addition to what you said, I think our perception of the Manhattan and Apollo projects is skewed by survivorship bias [1]. These projects kept hitting milestones, so they kept getting additional funding, until their successful final delivery. It's quite likely that many, many more projects (laser weapons, scramjets, ekranoplanes) experienced a funding flatline like the fusion famous graph, simply because their milestones proved elusive. It's better to deliver results than excuses and delays. [1] https://xkcd.com/1827/ https://xkcd.com/1827/
antonvs 7y ago
It's not about belief. The change you're observing is a response to the fact that we've implemented most of the low-hanging fruit. What we're left with are much more difficult problems.

dylan604 7y ago

Maybe Linux as a desktop will be a thing by then as well?

pontifier 7y ago

I was just awarded a patent on my fusion reactor design, so I sure hope I can get it working in less than that! http://www.ddprofusion.com/US10354761.pdf http://www.ddprofusion.com/US10354761.pdf