6 ms·

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-762f32a6dbfbecc4ec

by 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.
  - Melatonic 5y ago
    More money definitely is not going to hurt in developing fusion. I am surprised nooone has been able to get a more significant portion of the militaries funding going directly making fusion reactors workable - it seems like they could be a huge strategic advantage militarily. A submarine or spacecraft using a fusion reactor that also was able to output clean water for its occupants seems like a pretty damn nice win win. And certainly the military must also have tons of other needs for reliable, uninterruptible energy production.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The military is not funding fusion generation because current planned designs will never produce any viable power. (Actually all of inertial confinement is really military, but is about nuclear weapons research.) If the money poured into fusion for the past N decades had gone into solar and storage, good cheap solar panels would have come out decades earlier, and we would have already built out our clean power system. But the fossil companies did not want that. There will never be a commercially competitive Tokamak fusion power plant.
      - willis936 5y ago
        The Navy did fund electrostatic fusion designs for a few decades. Considering any plasma physicist could have told you it was a fool's errand 60 years ago I'm not sure I would trust the military's judgment on what future energy sources warrant research. Also, some tips on making convincing arguments: making baseless and unfounded speculations on alternate histories with not even a whiff of empiricism is not going to convince anyone. Additionally, saying "something won't work" without articulating why it won't work isn't helpful. I've heard the power density arguments. It's a 40 year old argument that does not hold up in a world with HTS magnets and optimized stellarators.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        HTS or stellarators don't have a damned thing to do with those power density limits of DT fusion reactors. Those limits come from power/area on the walls, and they'd still exist even with much higher magnetic fields and plasma beta.

by sgift 5y ago

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.
- Melatonic 5y ago
  More money definitely is not going to hurt in developing fusion. I am surprised nooone has been able to get a more significant portion of the militaries funding going directly making fusion reactors workable - it seems like they could be a huge strategic advantage militarily. A submarine or spacecraft using a fusion reactor that also was able to output clean water for its occupants seems like a pretty damn nice win win. And certainly the military must also have tons of other needs for reliable, uninterruptible energy production.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The military is not funding fusion generation because current planned designs will never produce any viable power. (Actually all of inertial confinement is really military, but is about nuclear weapons research.) If the money poured into fusion for the past N decades had gone into solar and storage, good cheap solar panels would have come out decades earlier, and we would have already built out our clean power system. But the fossil companies did not want that. There will never be a commercially competitive Tokamak fusion power plant.
    - willis936 5y ago
      The Navy did fund electrostatic fusion designs for a few decades. Considering any plasma physicist could have told you it was a fool's errand 60 years ago I'm not sure I would trust the military's judgment on what future energy sources warrant research. Also, some tips on making convincing arguments: making baseless and unfounded speculations on alternate histories with not even a whiff of empiricism is not going to convince anyone. Additionally, saying "something won't work" without articulating why it won't work isn't helpful. I've heard the power density arguments. It's a 40 year old argument that does not hold up in a world with HTS magnets and optimized stellarators.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        HTS or stellarators don't have a damned thing to do with those power density limits of DT fusion reactors. Those limits come from power/area on the walls, and they'd still exist even with much higher magnetic fields and plasma beta.