7 ms·

How about getting the fission program into 2021 first?

willis936 5y ago
Public 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 ago
  Both numbers are too big already.
  - krisoft 5y ago
    How do you calculate or reason about that?
    - knownjorbist 5y ago
      They didn't.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        It 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 ago
        the 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        The 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 ago
      Fission 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 ago
        You'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 ago
        Burden 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 ago
        Except 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 ago
        Each 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 ago
    I strongly disagree. I think, in the long run, investing in sustainable energy production is the most effective way to spend money.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Money wasted on wills-o'-the-wisp is just wasted, whichever account it came out of.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      So, you think the likelihood of success is irrelevant to whether something should be funded? Are you also supporting research into LENR, perpetual motion machines and pyramid power?

Public 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 ago
Both numbers are too big already.
- krisoft 5y ago
  How do you calculate or reason about that?
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    They didn't.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      It 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 ago
        the 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        The 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 ago
    Fission 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 ago
      You'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 ago
        Burden 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 ago
        Except 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 ago
        Each 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 ago
  I strongly disagree. I think, in the long run, investing in sustainable energy production is the most effective way to spend money.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Money wasted on wills-o'-the-wisp is just wasted, whichever account it came out of.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    So, you think the likelihood of success is irrelevant to whether something should be funded? Are you also supporting research into LENR, perpetual motion machines and pyramid power?