10 ms·
White House: Developing a Bold Decadal Vision for Commercial Fusion Energy
- rep_movsd 5y agoHow about getting the fission program into 2021 first?
- willis936 5y agoPublic nuclear (fission) energy R&D gets 1.85 Bn USD in annual funding. Public annual fusion energy sciences gets 675 Mn USD in annual funding. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/doe-fy2022-budget-in-brief-v4.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/doe-fy202...
- ncmncm 5y agoBoth numbers are too big already.
- krisoft 5y agoHow do you calculate or reason about that?
- knownjorbist 5y agoThey didn't.
- pfdietz 5y agoIt comes from believing that the chance of fusion reaching something that's useful is very small. If it's sufficiently small, then the expected payoff < the cost of the program, and hence the program is not worth pursuing. Where you and he differ is in your judgment of how likely fusion programs are to succeed. I personally don't think ITER is worth pursuing. I'm skeptical about other tokamak efforts as well. Small efforts that might yield more attractive reactors (Zap, Helion) may be worth pursuing, not least because such efforts would be cheaper.
- jatone 5y agothe idea that ignores the fact that tackling hard technological problems actually generates a ton of economic activity and generates solutions to other domains. magnetic confinement, lasers, material sciences have all advanced because of these projects and had impacts in other markets. even if the money invested never ends up with an ITER reactor. we've still come out ahead economically.
- pfdietz 5y agoI have no respect for spinoff arguments. They're used when one doesn't have a real argument. If any development effort produces spinoffs, why not focus on an effort that also has a chance at a real direct payoff?
- jatone 5y agoI have no respect for people that ignore them. its been shown empirically again and again to occur. without the original research, the spinoffs may never occur because the initial capital outlay isn't warranted for the various individual uses. the fact of the matter is fusion reactors are such a game changer ignoring them because of the chance they might not work is insane. meanwhile all the research into getting them to work generates a ton of economic activity because other smaller markets can take advantage of the technological progress that was made in the attempt.
- ncmncm 5y agoThe fact of the matter is that fusion, if ever achieved, will be entirely irrelevant to any concern of the time. It is discounted not because it might not work, but because it would not be useful even if it did work. There are people who willingly pay 10x for luxury goods, but fusion power would be a commodity competing on price with other commodities, and losing. Whatever "economic activity" happens around fusion would be overwhelmingly better devoted to building out solar, wind, and storage, to slow the fast developing climate disruption catastrophe.
- ncmncm 5y agoFission is today commercially uncompetitive: fission-generated power costs substantially more than solar + wind + storage. Every day, fission becomes more uncompetitive. Fission will never be commercially competitive. D-D and D-T fusion would cost even more than fission, for the same power output. Fission is today uncompetitive. Fusion would thus be more uncompetitive. The longer it takes to get fusion power working, the more uncompetitive it becomes. Tokamak fusion will thus, also, never be commercially competitive. But it will be able to absorb an unlimited amount of money.
- willis936 5y agoYou're making a lot of speculation with no basis. Not a single model or citation across half a dozen comments. Just baseless nonsense of the same quality I can find on the street corner.
- ncmncm 5y agoBurden of proof is on whoever insists it is possible. I have not seen anything persuasive. If you have, it is up to you to provide it. Nobody has ever come forward with any such thing, to my knowledge.
- willis936 5y agoExcept for the dozens of machines made on time and on budget that have established empirical scaling laws of triple product performance. Suddenly those scaling laws are invalid because someone on the internet who has no idea how to make an MCF machine implicitly thinks they are incorrect. You'll pardon my skepticism.
- ncmncm 5y agoEach one of those dozens was expected to work. Instead, each one turned out to be ... educational. All the best people don't know how to make an MCF machine. It is an honor to be placed among them. I will welcome any skepticism you can muster.
- nisegami 5y agoI strongly disagree. I think, in the long run, investing in sustainable energy production is the most effective way to spend money.
- belter 5y agoThe declaration says: "...Fusion – the same reaction that powers the sun – has the potential to be a game-changing technology to help us achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, increase energy security, and enhance U.S. technology leadership...'" ITER [1] one of the leading scientific experiments, not a prototype, not a first commercial reactor, but just a scientific experiment, is currently already delayed. The original plan was to start in 2035. They will have a first test phase of the soundness of the Tokamak then stop for 3 to 5 years and the experiment starts in 2035. After maybe 10 years there would be procurement and contruction ( 20 years ?) of the next step. So would be maybe 2070 or 2080, when we can see the first commercial prototype. DEMO [2] The comes the question if they are economically viable. Sounds like the Whitehouse needs to get another team advising them on Fusion.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant
- willis936 5y ago"Decades of public investment, billions of dollars of new private investment, and major recent scientific advances suggest that now is the time to move boldly to accelerate development of commercial fusion energy." They are referring to HTS magnets and startups such as CFS and Tokamak Energy. Previous tracks that were railroaded financially have too slow and inefficient of a track for public appeal. CFS' demonstration 20T coil changes the game. That's why this briefing happened.
- belter 5y agoFair enough. But do any of those tracks realistically provide a road-map that make this timetable look like something more than wishful thinking?
- willis936 5y ago"Fusion – the same reaction that powers the sun – has the potential to be a game-changing technology to help us achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, increase energy security, and enhance U.S. technology leadership." I agree with everything in this statement except the idea that anything other than inducing a depression will have the US reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It simply will not happen. Fusion has the potential to be an aid in hitting that by 2100.
- PaulHoule 5y agoHow about an inertial confinement program that might really work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_ion_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_ion_fusion as opposed to laser-based ICF?
- danaris 5y agoObligatory reminder that at least part of the reason fusion is proverbially "always 30 years away" is because we are still funding fusion research below the "fusion never" level, as we have been since the mid-1980s (before, we were funding it at the "fusion never" level) [0]. Based on the estimates given in 1976 on the linked graph, if we were to dedicate roughly $10B/yr to funding fusion—a tiny fraction of, say, the US military budget—it is likely we would have something at least close to a practical application within no more than about 20 years. [0] https://imgur.com/sjH5r https://imgur.com/sjH5r
- pfdietz 5y agoThat's not a valid conclusion. Those 1976 graphs were based on some assumptions, assumptions that turned out to be wrong. In particular, they assumed tokamaks work better than they do (under those assumptions, TFTR would have reached breakeven). They also ignore very serious generic engineering/economic issues that were pointed out not long after that (they were publicized in the early 1980s by Lidsky and also Pfirsch and Schmitter.) It's more plausible, I suggest, to reverse the causality here: fusion funding has been restricted because the technology was problematic, not the other way around.
- api 5y agoI hate to flirt with conspiracy on this, but the funding is so pathetic I really wonder if the fossil fuel lobby has something to do with it. Commercial fusion would be the end for fossil fuels (at least within 50 years). If we do get fusion expect a monster disinformation campaign similar to the one running now against EVs or the ridiculous 5G FUD campaign.
- ncmncm 5y agoNo, Tokamak fusion just has no path to practical commercial energy production. The program is just a way to throw money to, mostly, military contractors, and to a handful of physicists, including some plasma fluid dynamics physicists. The last might be able to come up with actually useful ideas, eventually.
- willis936 5y agoPermalinks for posterity since the event link is dynamic. Fact sheet https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/03/15/fact-sheet-developing-a-bold-vision-for-commercial-fusion-energy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/03/15/fact... Agenda https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/031522-Fusion-Summit-Event-Agenda.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/031522... Event stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUknjLH4HEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUknjLH4HEo
- willis936 5y agoAnd the event page. https://web.archive.org/web/20220317014710/https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/events-webinars/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220317014710/https://www.white...
- willis936 5y agoI finished watching the event yesterday. Here is a list of my takes, in no particular order: I'm offended that half of the speakers beat the drum of recruitment for a field that has produced more jaded ex-researchers than actual positions many times over. Filling seats is not an issue. I don't like how they're combining energy security with progressive politics. I'm progressive, but the president isn't and neither are most democrat career politicians. Tying the fate of fusion to something volatile such as public opinion of progressivism provides no benefit to fusion research programs but adds risk. It's done so the administration can simplify their progressive efforts. "Look we gave all you people a summit and 50 million dollars, now fuck off and get us some margin votes". When they're voted out fusion progress may go with it and start being treated as a football. Not needed. Not wanted. It's annoying that every politician was like "silly physicists don't know how to communicate" as if communication isn't nearly half of a scientist's job. It's like the politicians have never talked to a scientist. I'm sure they have but making jokes about scientists being science automatons with autism makes the politicians seem relatable to a wide range of voter demographics. Smile for the camera. The DEI advocates viewed fusion under a scrutunous eye without appreciating that it has the potential to be an equalizer. It fucks people over the least in terms of land usage and fuel/waste issues. Not mentioned once. The people equipped to make these points were not asked about them and yet they label it a conversation. A conversation with themselves.
- elevation 5y agoSupporting institutional fusion research (ITER, MIT tokamak, et al) feels like discretely calculating the sum of the harmonic series: you can keep going for decades, but you'll never get much more than 57.7% (of a viable reactor.) I'll be excited about the possibilities of usable fusion in my lifetime when SpaceX starts iterating toward a production design. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics)
- babelfish 5y agoYou think SpaceX is more likely to achieve commercially viable fusion than MIT and ITER?
- ncmncm 5y agoIs zero greater than or equal to zero? Yes!
- whimsicalism 5y agoWhat an obviously unreasonable position
- ncmncm 5y agoReality is uncooperative. Banish it.
- fallingknife 5y agoThan ITER, yes. MIT, no.
- nisegami 5y agoNot the person you're replying to, but I read that as "SpaceX pursuing production Fusion reactor designs would be a strong indication of Fusion being viable".
- 5y ago
- atomicbeanie 5y agoSubsidize oil while pumping investment into fusion.... sigh.... Talk about using the nation's dwindling resources to pursue news.