3 ms·
You said "a lot of money (on a scale similar to Manhattan", so I've been arguing that specific point. Money on the scale of Manhattan is in fact being spent. I
by DennisP 4y ago
You said "a lot of money (on a scale similar to Manhattan", so I've been arguing that specific point. Money on the scale of Manhattan is in fact being spent.
I don't think there's any way to quantify whether the "best" physicists are working on fusion so I'm not going to argue that one.
- borissk 4y agoAs I tried to explain, what I meant was the Manhattan project cost 0.8% of 1945 US GDP. To spend the same percentage today would be 184 billion. Obviously nothing like that is being spent. If you read physics journals, you'll know there is very little research being done and published on fusion today.
- spurgu 4y agoIt's perceived to be more profitable to spend that money on wars rather than innovation to attain energy.