4 ms·

Obligatory 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 "fu

Obligatory 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 ago
That'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 ago
I 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 ago
  No, 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.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    Citation needed.
  - api 5y ago
    This is quite outdated unless you're maybe looking at only NIF or ITER. Significant progress has been made on the ability to generate magnetic fields with higher temperature more practical superconductors, which is one of the key design constraints.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      NIF never had any intention of producing sustainable fission; it was a re-branded weapons program. ITER and its spinoffs share the failing that, even if 100% successful in all their aims, power produced would be much more expensive than from fission. But fission is already uncompetitive, and gets moreso every day. So, the longer they take to get to their projected endpoint, the farther they get from usefulness. And they are today far from useful. QED.
      - api 5y ago
        > power produced would be much more expensive than from fission. This is always true at first. People laughed at the idea of getting truly significant power from solar and wind only a decade or two ago. First you make something work, then you scale it. We are reasonably close to this moment with fusion: https://www.alamy.com/the-first-light-bulbs-ever-lit-by-electricity-generated-by-nuclear-power-at-ebr-1-at-argonne-national-laboratory-west-december-20-1951-image229149990.html https://www.alamy.com/the-first-light-bulbs-ever-lit-by-elec...
        ncmncm 5y ago
        Some things are only true at first. Other things are true forever. The bigger your fusion plant gets, the more uncompetitive it becomes. Your "scaled-up" fusion plant would never deliver so much as one erg of commercially-competitive energy. But it could absorb an unlimited amount of money, in the meantime. There have been lots of nuke plant projects that successfully absorbed billions of dollars before finally being cancelled. Every cent found a ready pocket. Producing power was not necessary for that. None of the money has ever been given back.

pfdietz 5y ago

That'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 ago

I 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 ago
No, 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.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Citation needed.
- api 5y ago
  This is quite outdated unless you're maybe looking at only NIF or ITER. Significant progress has been made on the ability to generate magnetic fields with higher temperature more practical superconductors, which is one of the key design constraints.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    NIF never had any intention of producing sustainable fission; it was a re-branded weapons program. ITER and its spinoffs share the failing that, even if 100% successful in all their aims, power produced would be much more expensive than from fission. But fission is already uncompetitive, and gets moreso every day. So, the longer they take to get to their projected endpoint, the farther they get from usefulness. And they are today far from useful. QED.
    - api 5y ago
      > power produced would be much more expensive than from fission. This is always true at first. People laughed at the idea of getting truly significant power from solar and wind only a decade or two ago. First you make something work, then you scale it. We are reasonably close to this moment with fusion: https://www.alamy.com/the-first-light-bulbs-ever-lit-by-electricity-generated-by-nuclear-power-at-ebr-1-at-argonne-national-laboratory-west-december-20-1951-image229149990.html https://www.alamy.com/the-first-light-bulbs-ever-lit-by-elec...
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Some things are only true at first. Other things are true forever. The bigger your fusion plant gets, the more uncompetitive it becomes. Your "scaled-up" fusion plant would never deliver so much as one erg of commercially-competitive energy. But it could absorb an unlimited amount of money, in the meantime. There have been lots of nuke plant projects that successfully absorbed billions of dollars before finally being cancelled. Every cent found a ready pocket. Producing power was not necessary for that. None of the money has ever been given back.