5 ms·

I don’t see why spending more money would have led to anything other than a more expensive failure. There are fundamental physical reasons why controlled fusion

I don’t see why spending more money would have led to anything other than a more expensive failure. There are fundamental physical reasons why controlled fusion is unlikely to be a practical commercial power source. Nature is not impressed by how big your budget is.

m0zg 5y ago
See Moon landings and the Manhattan project for an example of what unlimited budget and the best brains were able to accomplish in this country between the 40s and 70s. Then it all went way downhill precisely because of this kind of reasoning, utter lack of vision and ambition, and mismanagement. And even if this were an utter and complete failure in the end, it'd have generated priceless knowledge, and hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern civilians would be alive. No matter how you slice it, this would have been a _way_ better way to spend taxpayer money. That's if it were a failure. If it were a success, we'd end global warming, attach a ginormous rocket booster to the world's economy without dooming the planet, kick the stool from underneath several authoritarian/theocratic regimes, and who knows what else.
- leephillips 5y ago
  There might have been a choice even better than war or a doomed fusion program: we could have spent the money on improving infrastructure, healthcare, education....
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Those were intelligently chosen projects; many more were no doubt rejected. Just throwing money at things doesn't work; beyond the obvious cost, there also is opportunity cost: it takes money from other valuable investments. What makes you say that management and vision declined? NASA does incredible things, as does NIH, NSF, etc. > this would have been a _way_ better way to spend taxpayer money. In order to do research, you need freedom, and political and economic stability, and those require militaries - not solely or most importantly, but necessarily. Sometimes militaries will be misused or used inefficiently, but there is no option to just spend all the money elsewhere.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    This is a fantastic comment. Mainly because you said what I was thinking of saying but couldn’t muster the energy.
  - delecti 5y ago
    > Those were intelligently chosen projects; many more were no doubt rejected It's comparatively easy to say that with hindsight. There was about as much reason in 1940 to predict that making a nuclear bomb was feasible with enough resources as there is today to think the same about fusion power generation. Both started from the standpoint of "theoretically possible, but levels and levels of unknown engineering challenges."
    - leephillips 5y ago
      There is a fundamental difference between the two—a difference that meant we knew we could probably build a fission bomb, and, later, fission reactors, but that controlled fusion is and will always be impractical. Nuclear fusion happens spontaneously in nature. The problem is keeping it from happening, and controlling the process. During the Manhattan project there were tragic events were fisson happened accidentally. Fusion is different because you must actively maintain conditions that nature is trying to disrupt.
      - unsung 5y ago
        > Nuclear fusion happens spontaneously in nature. True, but you mean fission :)
        leephillips 5y ago
        Dang it. Yes, I did. Thank you.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > It's comparatively easy to say that with hindsight. Yes, and I omitted an essential factor: All the funded projects that failed and are mostly forgotten. > There was about as much reason in 1940 to predict that making a nuclear bomb was feasible with enough resources as there is today to think the same about fusion power generation. My impression is that it was believed to be a very likely project, and mostly a race with the Nazis. An excerpt from Einstein's letter to FDR, credited with kicking off the project: In the course of the last four months it has been made probable—through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America—that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future. This phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable—though much less certain—that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/einstein-szilard-letter https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/einstein-szilar...
willis936 5y ago
As someone who has spent a few years on this problem: what do you think are the the fundamental physical reasons why controlled fusion is unlikely to be a practical commercial power source?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  What are your thought? You have actual expertise to contribute. No need to test the GP.
  - willis936 5y ago
    I see no physical limitations. There are engineering hurdles primarily addressed by materials. Making HTS coils cheaply is a big deal and a WIP problem. Test reactors such as ITER and SPARC need to be built as platforms to experiment with first wall and blanket designs. Making nuclear facilities is expensive. I personally do not see any showstoppers here, just expensive work that needs to be done. Will fusion ever be economical? I don't have a crystal ball, but properly charging for the economic cost of carbon emissions is necessary before answering that question. I also can't predict how much cheaper reactors would be than test machines and how long they would run for. The science needs to be funded to answer these questions. When society decides these answers are worth 5x F-35s then we'll have our answers.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Thanks! One quibble: > The science needs to be funded to answer these questions. When society decides these answers are worth 5x F-35s then we'll have our answers. Isn't society funding ITER for $22 billion, and much else? The American and UK people are investing in some of the companies, per the OP.
      - willis936 5y ago
        The 5x F-35 is hyperbole. ITER is currently being funded and does account for about 80% of the current global fusion research budget. Fair enough, its results will be valuable. US pulling of funding throughout the Reagan era slowed progress by a few decades. We won't make up that lost time no matter how much money we spend. For now all the eggs are in the basket and we wait for the results. MIT's HTS coil winding is the space to watch now imo. If it isn't all smoke and mirrors then we could see real test reactors for less money than ITER in our lifetime.

m0zg 5y ago

See Moon landings and the Manhattan project for an example of what unlimited budget and the best brains were able to accomplish in this country between the 40s and 70s. Then it all went way downhill precisely because of this kind of reasoning, utter lack of vision and ambition, and mismanagement. And even if this were an utter and complete failure in the end, it'd have generated priceless knowledge, and hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern civilians would be alive. No matter how you slice it, this would have been a _way_ better way to spend taxpayer money. That's if it were a failure. If it were a success, we'd end global warming, attach a ginormous rocket booster to the world's economy without dooming the planet, kick the stool from underneath several authoritarian/theocratic regimes, and who knows what else.

leephillips 5y ago
There might have been a choice even better than war or a doomed fusion program: we could have spent the money on improving infrastructure, healthcare, education....
wolverine876 5y ago
Those were intelligently chosen projects; many more were no doubt rejected. Just throwing money at things doesn't work; beyond the obvious cost, there also is opportunity cost: it takes money from other valuable investments. What makes you say that management and vision declined? NASA does incredible things, as does NIH, NSF, etc. > this would have been a _way_ better way to spend taxpayer money. In order to do research, you need freedom, and political and economic stability, and those require militaries - not solely or most importantly, but necessarily. Sometimes militaries will be misused or used inefficiently, but there is no option to just spend all the money elsewhere.
- leephillips 5y ago
  This is a fantastic comment. Mainly because you said what I was thinking of saying but couldn’t muster the energy.
- delecti 5y ago
  > Those were intelligently chosen projects; many more were no doubt rejected It's comparatively easy to say that with hindsight. There was about as much reason in 1940 to predict that making a nuclear bomb was feasible with enough resources as there is today to think the same about fusion power generation. Both started from the standpoint of "theoretically possible, but levels and levels of unknown engineering challenges."
  - leephillips 5y ago
    There is a fundamental difference between the two—a difference that meant we knew we could probably build a fission bomb, and, later, fission reactors, but that controlled fusion is and will always be impractical. Nuclear fusion happens spontaneously in nature. The problem is keeping it from happening, and controlling the process. During the Manhattan project there were tragic events were fisson happened accidentally. Fusion is different because you must actively maintain conditions that nature is trying to disrupt.
    - unsung 5y ago
      > Nuclear fusion happens spontaneously in nature. True, but you mean fission :)
      - leephillips 5y ago
        Dang it. Yes, I did. Thank you.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > It's comparatively easy to say that with hindsight. Yes, and I omitted an essential factor: All the funded projects that failed and are mostly forgotten. > There was about as much reason in 1940 to predict that making a nuclear bomb was feasible with enough resources as there is today to think the same about fusion power generation. My impression is that it was believed to be a very likely project, and mostly a race with the Nazis. An excerpt from Einstein's letter to FDR, credited with kicking off the project: In the course of the last four months it has been made probable—through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America—that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future. This phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable—though much less certain—that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/einstein-szilard-letter https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/einstein-szilar...

willis936 5y ago

As someone who has spent a few years on this problem: what do you think are the the fundamental physical reasons why controlled fusion is unlikely to be a practical commercial power source?

wolverine876 5y ago
What are your thought? You have actual expertise to contribute. No need to test the GP.
- willis936 5y ago
  I see no physical limitations. There are engineering hurdles primarily addressed by materials. Making HTS coils cheaply is a big deal and a WIP problem. Test reactors such as ITER and SPARC need to be built as platforms to experiment with first wall and blanket designs. Making nuclear facilities is expensive. I personally do not see any showstoppers here, just expensive work that needs to be done. Will fusion ever be economical? I don't have a crystal ball, but properly charging for the economic cost of carbon emissions is necessary before answering that question. I also can't predict how much cheaper reactors would be than test machines and how long they would run for. The science needs to be funded to answer these questions. When society decides these answers are worth 5x F-35s then we'll have our answers.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Thanks! One quibble: > The science needs to be funded to answer these questions. When society decides these answers are worth 5x F-35s then we'll have our answers. Isn't society funding ITER for $22 billion, and much else? The American and UK people are investing in some of the companies, per the OP.
    - willis936 5y ago
      The 5x F-35 is hyperbole. ITER is currently being funded and does account for about 80% of the current global fusion research budget. Fair enough, its results will be valuable. US pulling of funding throughout the Reagan era slowed progress by a few decades. We won't make up that lost time no matter how much money we spend. For now all the eggs are in the basket and we wait for the results. MIT's HTS coil winding is the space to watch now imo. If it isn't all smoke and mirrors then we could see real test reactors for less money than ITER in our lifetime.