3 ms·

Each dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent where it can have any useful effect before 2050. That was as true 30 years ago. A Tokamak fusion plant would

• Apocryphon 4y ago
  There's no reason why 2050 has to be the target year other than the numerical roundness lends itself to sci-fi futurism. This isn't Sim City 2000. It could have been earlier had there been more effort put into it in the past. Just look at that chart- even if the projections were wildly optimistic, it still seems like there was no political will to even try.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Because there was no point. It was already known it would be radically more costly than fission. So, money spent on fusion is welfare for the military contractors who build the test articles, and for hot-neutron physicists who might be needed for weapons work. It is good that a few plasma fluid dynamics physicists and their grad students get the odd bone or two, because it is a too-neglected field. It would be better to give them the whole budget.
    • Apocryphon 4y ago
      So you say. It was and is a speculative technology, but what is the harm in reallocating funding from say, fossil fuel subsidies, into fusion R&D? Even as a purely scientific endeavor, who knows what kinds of useful knowledge and applicable by-products might be found along the way. If fusion is such a dead end, why have there actually been new discoveries made over the past several years, even if they might be hyped? Do you believe MIT/CFS, TAE, JET, or ASIPP are just burning money or something? Who are you to claim that a technology is impossible? Skepticism in fission does not have to convert to the dismissal of fusion.
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        It is not impossible. It just would cost way more than fission, which already costs way more than renewables, and the gap widens daily. I also do not back orbital, beamed solar power. That, too, could work. But it, also, would cost more. Things that cost more displace less CO2 emission, per dollar spent. We have a need to maximize displacing CO2 emission.
• carapace 4y ago
  Have you heard of the Polywell design for fusion reactors? If so, what do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell Dr. Robert Bussard (RIP): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU He claimed that it would only take about $200M of engineering development to become viable.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Most people who have looked at it say x-ray emission losses would prevent achieving breakeven. I am not equipped to evaluate the assertion, but private investors have favored other designs. There is a split between thermal-equilibrium designs, like Tokamak, and those relying on non-linear plasma fluid effects to achieve much greater compression in selected places and/or times where fusion should happen. Plasma fluid dynamics is tricky. Plasma fluid radiology is harder.
    • carapace 4y ago
      Cheers! I'm not equipped to evaluate it either, just hopeful. :)