4 ms·

funding has been basically nonexistent and dwindling. Achieving nuclear fission required $23 billion (today dollars) and 0.1% of the US population to work on it

by dtech 6y ago

funding has been basically nonexistent and dwindling. Achieving nuclear fission required $23 billion (today dollars) and 0.1% of the US population to work on it (Manhattan project) Fusion funding is measured in tens of millions and does not have 350.000 people working on it.

Arnt 6y ago
ITER alone "is expected to be in excess of €20 billion" says Wikipedia, so fusion has gotten more funding than those $23b.
- kaliszad 6y ago
  It costs about the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project though, I would suspect, much of the cost of the Manhattan project was probably never accounted for, because much of the work was done by the military or other personnel paid for either way. You know, war time and such. But I haven't looked for any data on that, it could be it was all accounted for to the penny. ITER is an international, purely scientific, peaceful project that is already going on for many more years than the original Manhattan project. Also fusion doesn't just happen by itself, when you "put the right elements close together". The problem that ITER tries to solve, even considering the advances over last 80 years, is quite a bit harder than nuclear fission in my opinion. Both are very hard, don't get me wrong, but fusion is considered the harder problem of those two. It is good to ask, whether something is effective, efficient or at least has meaning. But with such endeavours, you can only really judge afterwards because it has never been done before. So the whole ITER project, with machinery that redefines the meaning of custom, costs about 4x as much, as the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport or 4x times as much as the current Lufthansa bailout. I wouldn't consider both to be very efficient spending of public money, but I am no expert. ITER is financed by most of the developed countries in some capacity, the compared projects are only financed by Germany.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    Two side remarks: ITER is expected to cost >€20B, achieving fission cost $23B as estimated in hindsight. You say the cost of fission is roughly equals that of fusion, but fission is ITER + past projects + perhaps future project. 1. That implies that the total cost of past fission projects was a very small fraction of ITER's cost. 2. I find it difficult to believe that an eleven-digit hindsight estimate excludes military costs, let alone that the beancounters couldn't/wouldn't estimate "much of the cost".

by dtech 6y ago

Arnt 6y ago

ITER alone "is expected to be in excess of €20 billion" says Wikipedia, so fusion has gotten more funding than those $23b.

kaliszad 6y ago
It costs about the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project though, I would suspect, much of the cost of the Manhattan project was probably never accounted for, because much of the work was done by the military or other personnel paid for either way. You know, war time and such. But I haven't looked for any data on that, it could be it was all accounted for to the penny. ITER is an international, purely scientific, peaceful project that is already going on for many more years than the original Manhattan project. Also fusion doesn't just happen by itself, when you "put the right elements close together". The problem that ITER tries to solve, even considering the advances over last 80 years, is quite a bit harder than nuclear fission in my opinion. Both are very hard, don't get me wrong, but fusion is considered the harder problem of those two. It is good to ask, whether something is effective, efficient or at least has meaning. But with such endeavours, you can only really judge afterwards because it has never been done before. So the whole ITER project, with machinery that redefines the meaning of custom, costs about 4x as much, as the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport or 4x times as much as the current Lufthansa bailout. I wouldn't consider both to be very efficient spending of public money, but I am no expert. ITER is financed by most of the developed countries in some capacity, the compared projects are only financed by Germany.
- Arnt 6y ago
  Two side remarks: ITER is expected to cost >€20B, achieving fission cost $23B as estimated in hindsight. You say the cost of fission is roughly equals that of fusion, but fission is ITER + past projects + perhaps future project. 1. That implies that the total cost of past fission projects was a very small fraction of ITER's cost. 2. I find it difficult to believe that an eleven-digit hindsight estimate excludes military costs, let alone that the beancounters couldn't/wouldn't estimate "much of the cost".