4 ms·
Its actually pretty good, since this is primarily weapons testing. The real money is being spent in the EU, where there is at least a chance of getting a sustai
by jboy55 4y ago
Its actually pretty good, since this is primarily weapons testing. The real money is being spent in the EU, where there is at least a chance of getting a sustainable fusion reaction.
- davrosthedalek 4y agoIt's, depending what calculation you believe, around 20 billion for ITER. Started in 2013, first plasma in 2025, first full fusion in 2035. So about a billion per year. Of course, costs are calculated differently, and I'm not sure on what time scale the 600 million are, but it's not that drastically different. Research wise, it's a pretty big chunk of money. But yeah, more money in research would be nice. (Disclaimer: I am a scientist with grants.)
- jboy55 4y agoYes, I think more research towards eventual power generation, rather than weapon testing, would be better.
- ZeKK14 4y agoITER is built in France, but is financed by many countries outside of EU, including the USA. It's not a huge cost per-country. > the ITER Members China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States See https://www.iter.org/proj/Countries https://www.iter.org/proj/Countries
- jasonhansel 4y agoNot really. IIRC the NIF needs to pretend that it's about nuclear weapons to secure DoE funding; they (like us) know that it's really about developing fusion as an energy source.
- jboy55 4y agoOr it needs to pretend its about fusion as an energy source, to mask its really about creating and maintaining a stockpile of h-bombs that could destroy every city on earth.