7 ms·

Well to be fair I don't think anyone is even remotely close to a viable on grid Fusion Reactor. It's a meme at this point but we're still several decades away f

Well to be fair I don't think anyone is even remotely close to a viable on grid Fusion Reactor. It's a meme at this point but we're still several decades away from that point. Does more budget help that? My understanding is that most of the problems are around building sufficiently small and powerful Magnets and "Fusion" budget doesn't help solve the problems in that space.

willis936 5y ago
High field magnets do enable potentially economically viable designs. There are still engineering challenges that require effort. Materials will be in high neutron flux and high thermal gradients for years. Throwing money at problems warms up the industries around them. No one will get good at making HTS tapes unless they can pay to keep the lights on. Also, the plasma physics research is far from complete. Study of burning plasmas (coming with ITER) and different configurations of optimized stellarators (coming never?) are important places to shine the flashlight on. We aren't on the home stretch, but that isn't a reason to stop, slow down, or even not speed up.
- adamsmith143 5y ago
  >We aren't on the home stretch, but that isn't a reason to stop, slow down, or even not speed up. Agreed, I'm very pro fusion but at this point you have companies like Commonwealth Fusion that have raised multibillion dollar amounts on their own so maybe that's a more viable path than DOE/NSF Grants to Universities?
  - willis936 5y ago
    It is quite exciting to see CFS' series B funding. I worry about commercializing too soon because companies need to turn a profit. The publicly funded fusion scientists and engineers are quite good at what they do and could efficiently spend money on research and new machines until the blueprint for a reactor is ready. The benefit of public programs is that they don't need to make quarterly profits and some problems are bigger than a year. CFS has a path to be profitable even if they don't make a blueprint for reactors. Research needs high field magnets and they're positioning themselves to be the supplier of them.
    - adamsmith143 5y ago
      > I worry about commercializing too soon because companies need to turn a profit Is this really the case though when Tech Startups routinely go public without ever turning a profit and with no clear vision on how they eventually will?
      - willis936 5y ago
        I don't fully understand it, but I think the answer is usually some form of "attention economy". Also, I'm not sure how often startups get 1.8 Bn USD in series B. That sounds like a lot.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        It is, anyway, a lot to waste. It is not unusual for very large investments to yield zero. Any Tokamak effort will necessarily be one of those, because operating a plant would cost far more than the similarly-rated fission plant, and those are markedly uncompetitive. But none of the money will vanish: every penny goes into a ready pocket.
        willis936 5y ago
        What an awfully easy to make take that offers no insight.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        It explains how those boondoggles get the investment they do. A nuke industry without pervasive corruption would have very different economics. But corruption is very hard to root out, particularly when it has instead been made wholly legal.
        willis936 5y ago
        It's simply not rooted in reality. You think engineers work at half market rate as a grift?
sgift 5y ago
The meme at this point has a second part that almost no one bothers to quote and answers your question: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec824b604c0571f0-pjlq https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec824b... If you never properly fund something then you shouldn't be surprised if it never happens.
- willis936 5y ago
  Great chart. Here is the source copied from the higher resolution version found on reddit, for those curious: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, 1976. "Fusion power by magnetic confinement: Program plan" ERDA report ERDA-76/110. Also published as S.O. Dean (1998), J. Fus. Energy 17(4), 263-287, doi:10.1023/A:1021815909065 The graph was taken from PPPL FIRE's 1976 report, freely available here: https://fire.pppl.gov/us_fusion_plan_1976.pdf https://fire.pppl.gov/us_fusion_plan_1976.pdf Obviously the 1976 chart did not have inflation data from 1976 to 1998, so you can see why we are below Logic I even though the budget is close to 500 M. The entire PPPL FIRE site is a treat for anyone with some time on their hands. http://firefusionpower.org/ http://firefusionpower.org/
- adamsmith143 5y ago
  Is this really accurate though? Afaik there are fundamental engineering and physics barriers that need to be solved to get there? How is this funding broken down, what constitutes "Fusion Funding" in the first place? In my comment I mentioned Magnets being a current barrier, in that case funding in Materials Science or EE would be more relevant and the 500M Fusion Funding number is irrelevant.
  - willis936 5y ago
    Check out my cousin comment. The PPPL FIRE 1976 report starting around page 30 addresses these questions. Also the PPPL FIRE site (also linked) has many resources that highlight areas of research. Plasma physics is a large task in fusion energy science, but it is not the only task. FES being the motivator of those materials research ventures means money in FES goes into those areas.

willis936 5y ago

High field magnets do enable potentially economically viable designs. There are still engineering challenges that require effort. Materials will be in high neutron flux and high thermal gradients for years. Throwing money at problems warms up the industries around them. No one will get good at making HTS tapes unless they can pay to keep the lights on. Also, the plasma physics research is far from complete. Study of burning plasmas (coming with ITER) and different configurations of optimized stellarators (coming never?) are important places to shine the flashlight on. We aren't on the home stretch, but that isn't a reason to stop, slow down, or even not speed up.

adamsmith143 5y ago
>We aren't on the home stretch, but that isn't a reason to stop, slow down, or even not speed up. Agreed, I'm very pro fusion but at this point you have companies like Commonwealth Fusion that have raised multibillion dollar amounts on their own so maybe that's a more viable path than DOE/NSF Grants to Universities?
- willis936 5y ago
  It is quite exciting to see CFS' series B funding. I worry about commercializing too soon because companies need to turn a profit. The publicly funded fusion scientists and engineers are quite good at what they do and could efficiently spend money on research and new machines until the blueprint for a reactor is ready. The benefit of public programs is that they don't need to make quarterly profits and some problems are bigger than a year. CFS has a path to be profitable even if they don't make a blueprint for reactors. Research needs high field magnets and they're positioning themselves to be the supplier of them.
  - adamsmith143 5y ago
    > I worry about commercializing too soon because companies need to turn a profit Is this really the case though when Tech Startups routinely go public without ever turning a profit and with no clear vision on how they eventually will?
    - willis936 5y ago
      I don't fully understand it, but I think the answer is usually some form of "attention economy". Also, I'm not sure how often startups get 1.8 Bn USD in series B. That sounds like a lot.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        It is, anyway, a lot to waste. It is not unusual for very large investments to yield zero. Any Tokamak effort will necessarily be one of those, because operating a plant would cost far more than the similarly-rated fission plant, and those are markedly uncompetitive. But none of the money will vanish: every penny goes into a ready pocket.
        willis936 5y ago
        What an awfully easy to make take that offers no insight.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        It explains how those boondoggles get the investment they do. A nuke industry without pervasive corruption would have very different economics. But corruption is very hard to root out, particularly when it has instead been made wholly legal.
        willis936 5y ago
        It's simply not rooted in reality. You think engineers work at half market rate as a grift?

sgift 5y ago

The meme at this point has a second part that almost no one bothers to quote and answers your question: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec824b604c0571f0-pjlq https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec824b... If you never properly fund something then you shouldn't be surprised if it never happens.

willis936 5y ago
Great chart. Here is the source copied from the higher resolution version found on reddit, for those curious: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, 1976. "Fusion power by magnetic confinement: Program plan" ERDA report ERDA-76/110. Also published as S.O. Dean (1998), J. Fus. Energy 17(4), 263-287, doi:10.1023/A:1021815909065 The graph was taken from PPPL FIRE's 1976 report, freely available here: https://fire.pppl.gov/us_fusion_plan_1976.pdf https://fire.pppl.gov/us_fusion_plan_1976.pdf Obviously the 1976 chart did not have inflation data from 1976 to 1998, so you can see why we are below Logic I even though the budget is close to 500 M. The entire PPPL FIRE site is a treat for anyone with some time on their hands. http://firefusionpower.org/ http://firefusionpower.org/
adamsmith143 5y ago
Is this really accurate though? Afaik there are fundamental engineering and physics barriers that need to be solved to get there? How is this funding broken down, what constitutes "Fusion Funding" in the first place? In my comment I mentioned Magnets being a current barrier, in that case funding in Materials Science or EE would be more relevant and the 500M Fusion Funding number is irrelevant.
- willis936 5y ago
  Check out my cousin comment. The PPPL FIRE 1976 report starting around page 30 addresses these questions. Also the PPPL FIRE site (also linked) has many resources that highlight areas of research. Plasma physics is a large task in fusion energy science, but it is not the only task. FES being the motivator of those materials research ventures means money in FES goes into those areas.