5 ms·

I agree. If a technology (especially one as significant as fusion) is viable and the production kinks need to be worked out, then VC-backers are going to dump

I agree. If a technology (especially one as significant as fusion) is viable and the production kinks need to be worked out, then VC-backers are going to dump money into it in an effort to be first-to-market. The less viable a technology currently is, the more governments will be paying for the research.

jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago
It's not just about viability, it's about complexity and timeline. There's very little appetite for projects with a 30+ year timeline among private investment. You can't expect VC backing for stuff like ITER.
- tompccs 7y ago
  What technologies can you think of which didn't have profitable waypoints? - Internet - packet-switching routers for LANs - Microchips - ballistic missile guidance - Nuclear - radioactive tracers, radiotherapy, watch faces, ... - Microbiology - vaccines, insulin, ... Who on earth is making money out of controlled nuclear fusion? Where are the waypoints? Where can we make something useful in the short to medium time horizon? I also dispute your point of "little appetite for....30+ year timeline" projects, as the MEMS industry has routinely funded 30 year development cycles before technology maturation. The difference is, as I said, there are usually useful waypoints before the technology has fully matured.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  That's an odd thing to say. Ever hear of a thing called 30 year bonds?
  - jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago
    Bond's ain't VC.
raverbashing 7y ago
Well VCs today are not known for taking risks in foreign areas (or knowing much about Physics or other natural sciences) Would something like Intel or MOS technology get vc money today?
- rwallace 7y ago
  > Would something like Intel or MOS technology get vc money today? Yes, because when they were founded, it was already established that you could make money making semiconductors. The more concerning question is whether the invention of the transistor could be funded today. Historically, it was not funded by VC money, but out of the financial surplus of a big monopoly (AT&T). Are today's big, wealthy corporations doing as much of that sort of long-term research?
chmod775 7y ago
Assuming we are talking about generating electricity at scale, you can probably count the number of private entities with enough cash to finance a project like ITER on one hand, and it would be a massive loss to them if it failed. And even if private-ITER worked, you still only have a prototype, not an actual product you can sell. This is not something any VC-investor I know of would risk or can afford.
trhway 7y ago
> If a technology (especially one as significant as fusion) is viable and the production kinks need to be worked out, then VC-backers are going to dump money into it in an effort to be first-to-market. case in point - SpaceX. Before Musk private space on a big scale (not the laughable Pegasus) was may be just a couple notches below fusion. Once Musk shown the way for everybody, now we have VCs going all in. VCs are really very risk averse - they aren't going to dump money into being the first to make fusion because it is risky, they are going to dump money into the 20 startups of the second wave to make money for sure even if most of those startups fail.

jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago

It's not just about viability, it's about complexity and timeline. There's very little appetite for projects with a 30+ year timeline among private investment. You can't expect VC backing for stuff like ITER.

tompccs 7y ago
What technologies can you think of which didn't have profitable waypoints? - Internet - packet-switching routers for LANs - Microchips - ballistic missile guidance - Nuclear - radioactive tracers, radiotherapy, watch faces, ... - Microbiology - vaccines, insulin, ... Who on earth is making money out of controlled nuclear fusion? Where are the waypoints? Where can we make something useful in the short to medium time horizon? I also dispute your point of "little appetite for....30+ year timeline" projects, as the MEMS industry has routinely funded 30 year development cycles before technology maturation. The difference is, as I said, there are usually useful waypoints before the technology has fully matured.
perl4ever 7y ago
That's an odd thing to say. Ever hear of a thing called 30 year bonds?
- jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago
  Bond's ain't VC.

raverbashing 7y ago

Well VCs today are not known for taking risks in foreign areas (or knowing much about Physics or other natural sciences) Would something like Intel or MOS technology get vc money today?

rwallace 7y ago
> Would something like Intel or MOS technology get vc money today? Yes, because when they were founded, it was already established that you could make money making semiconductors. The more concerning question is whether the invention of the transistor could be funded today. Historically, it was not funded by VC money, but out of the financial surplus of a big monopoly (AT&T). Are today's big, wealthy corporations doing as much of that sort of long-term research?

chmod775 7y ago

Assuming we are talking about generating electricity at scale, you can probably count the number of private entities with enough cash to finance a project like ITER on one hand, and it would be a massive loss to them if it failed. And even if private-ITER worked, you still only have a prototype, not an actual product you can sell. This is not something any VC-investor I know of would risk or can afford.

trhway 7y ago

> If a technology (especially one as significant as fusion) is viable and the production kinks need to be worked out, then VC-backers are going to dump money into it in an effort to be first-to-market. case in point - SpaceX. Before Musk private space on a big scale (not the laughable Pegasus) was may be just a couple notches below fusion. Once Musk shown the way for everybody, now we have VCs going all in. VCs are really very risk averse - they aren't going to dump money into being the first to make fusion because it is risky, they are going to dump money into the 20 startups of the second wave to make money for sure even if most of those startups fail.