3 ms·

Ah yes, and how much money? The answer always seems to be “More”.

by JackFr 5y ago

MauranKilom 5y ago
Please consult this graphic from 1976 if you are actually interested in the answer. https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png
- drdeca 5y ago
  Could you clarify how to read this chart? The y axis is, funding given different plans? Or.. I got the impression that this is meant to depict a relationship between when practical fusion would be developed and how much funding it receives, but I don’t see how to get that from the chart. Also, not sure why imgur has that image marked as adult content.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    These are projections made in 1976. They can be read as different project plans made at that time for different amounts of funding. For example, "if we follow the blue plan, it would require 9 billion (2012) US dollars of funding in 1982 (etc.) and we would achieve fusion by 1990." The 1976 projection was that, assuming funding was kept at the level of 1976 (~1 billion a year), fusion would not be achieved in the foreseeable future. It further shows that actual funding has been below that level. In short: Yes, getting fusion off the ground sooner would have required more money. Not "always more", but more than "we project no success" levels.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      Those plans would not have worked, though. They were for programs that assumed tokamaks worked better than they actually do. And by the 1980s it was realized (Lidsky; Pfirsch and Schmitter) that heat transfer limits would make any tokamak power plant unattractive.
apendleton 5y ago
I mean, yes, obviously if the criticism is that they're getting too little money, clearly they want more. Some technologies are fundamentally expensive to develop (the Apollo program, the Manhattan project, etc.). That doesn't mean the people saying so are automatically charlatans, especially given that they've never gotten what they've asked for -- it's not like some bomber development project where they get what they want and then keep coming back for more. The relatively paltry amounts the US has been devoting to fusion energy research are lower than any of the scenarios laid out in a 1976 DOE planning document[1] about what it would take to achieve fusion power, and lower even than just continuing at 1970s levels (a plan they labeled in that document as "fusion never"). [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA_AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA234&ots=vl9dP06svu&dq=%22possible%20paths%20to%20a%20reactor%20from%201976%22&pg=PA234#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA_AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA234&ots...

Ah yes, and how much money? The answer always seems to be “More”.

by JackFr 5y ago

Ah yes, and how much money? The answer always seems to be “More”.

Please consult this graphic from 1976 if you are actually interested in the answer. https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png

drdeca 5y ago
Could you clarify how to read this chart? The y axis is, funding given different plans? Or.. I got the impression that this is meant to depict a relationship between when practical fusion would be developed and how much funding it receives, but I don’t see how to get that from the chart. Also, not sure why imgur has that image marked as adult content.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  These are projections made in 1976. They can be read as different project plans made at that time for different amounts of funding. For example, "if we follow the blue plan, it would require 9 billion (2012) US dollars of funding in 1982 (etc.) and we would achieve fusion by 1990." The 1976 projection was that, assuming funding was kept at the level of 1976 (~1 billion a year), fusion would not be achieved in the foreseeable future. It further shows that actual funding has been below that level. In short: Yes, getting fusion off the ground sooner would have required more money. Not "always more", but more than "we project no success" levels.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Those plans would not have worked, though. They were for programs that assumed tokamaks worked better than they actually do. And by the 1980s it was realized (Lidsky; Pfirsch and Schmitter) that heat transfer limits would make any tokamak power plant unattractive.

apendleton 5y ago

I mean, yes, obviously if the criticism is that they're getting too little money, clearly they want more. Some technologies are fundamentally expensive to develop (the Apollo program, the Manhattan project, etc.). That doesn't mean the people saying so are automatically charlatans, especially given that they've never gotten what they've asked for -- it's not like some bomber development project where they get what they want and then keep coming back for more. The relatively paltry amounts the US has been devoting to fusion energy research are lower than any of the scenarios laid out in a 1976 DOE planning document[1] about what it would take to achieve fusion power, and lower even than just continuing at 1970s levels (a plan they labeled in that document as "fusion never"). [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA_AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA234&ots=vl9dP06svu&dq=%22possible%20paths%20to%20a%20reactor%20from%201976%22&pg=PA234#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA_AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA234&ots...