4 ms·

I think a lot of people who are really into fusion research know that the military isn't going to be doing the same kind of fusion research as the groups lookin

I think a lot of people who are really into fusion research know that the military isn't going to be doing the same kind of fusion research as the groups looking into fusion as an energy source. Is what they did interesting sure, but alot of people who actually follow fusion development know that this was a PR meme that some news stretched. Fusion has always been 20 years away its a literal meme....and yet we are making good advancements in the field but I think anyone with a basic understanding or those who realized this was so short lived results time wise realised it was an overhyped thing by media from this group. Fusion is important to the government because they can theoretically squeeze more power out of nuclear weapons, but due to the difference in timescale zit just dosnt translate across domains of military to public energy that well

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
The US military is very much interested in fusion, as an energy source. The Desert Storm conflict cost something like $1T (yes a Trillion dollars) just for gasoline. There was on this site a description of a military effort to create a low-yield fusion generator that would fit on a military truck. It only had to fuel a mobile camp, not a city. If I recall, it was something like the Lockheed plan, to create a vortex (not a torus) to stuff the fuel through a constriction and get some kind of fusion yield. Wasteful, but not as wasteful as $1T
- LegionMammal978 3y ago
  That seems wildly high? The figure widely quoted for the total cost of the Gulf War is $60B in 1991 dollars, or $137B today, so clearly the gasoline costs alone can't exceed that number. It's only the extremely prolonged conflicts like the War in Afghanistan that get into the trillions of dollars total.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    $1T would be too high for Iraq War where the costs run $1T to $3T. The higher numbers are total long-term costs, not just the war fighting. There are lots of costs to war instead of just fuel; the people cost more.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Yeah way too high. Here's an estimate of the costs of air conditioning tents in the mideast conflicts: https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-...
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Setting aside the wildly suspect 1T claim, I’m not convinced by the argument. Fusion power plants are fixed large-scale facilities. In a war zone you need mobile power sources. I could see a fusion reactor powering a ship and maybe powering temporarily shore-based facilities. AFAIK the military is looking at solar for mobile power in forward deployments though which makes sense. Unless the argument is that fusion is used to generate transportable fuel (hydrogen, efuels etc). But then that argument is weird because the military would be doing that with fission today which actually exists and it has to expensive field experience with and supply chains supporting.
  - indymike 3y ago
    > Fusion power plants are fixed large-scale facilities. Large scale facilities really are not all that interesting. They concentrate cost, danger and impose lots of logistical limitations.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Consider the Lockheed Skunk Works project - it's supposed to be portable.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I've read that the US military has looked into small fission generators. They expect logistics to be very difficult near the front if there is a war with a 'near-peer' (China or maybe Russia) and hope to reduce fuel logistics. I've never heard of them looking into similar fusion reactors. Why would they? Nobody expects to build any kind of production fusion reactor for decades, much less one that could be operated by infantry soldiers and in very difficult conditions - e.g., explosions and people shooting at the reactor.
  - hbossy 3y ago
    American military would love to squeeze nuclear reactor on every single ship. The conventional escort ships are much slower than aircraft carriers and need constant refueling, to the point they sometimes leave them behind and sail meet another fleet in destination port. It's not really feasible with fission but fusion would make it a lot safer.
    - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
      So they should be researching LFTR like they did for the nuclear bomber.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  > a low-yield fusion generator that would fit on a military truck. another word for that is "drone target."
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Everything in war is a target
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      True, but a small target that disables all the electronics on the base would have to be considered "high value."
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Like, say, the generator they use now.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        No, not like that. Generators are cheap and replaceable, and they can keep spares in the depot. A fusion reactor sounds like big bucks to me.
wolverine876 3y ago
> a lot of people who are really into fusion research Do you mean researchers and other experts, or people who follow it? And does that include you? Are you a researcher?
- tonetegeatinst 3y ago
  I think it would be more of people who follow the research in general but also have a good understand of the principals of modern nuclear weapons using both fusion and fission to increase yield % I'm just a guy that like to follow the research in hopes of clean cheap energy...the cheaper the better

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

The US military is very much interested in fusion, as an energy source. The Desert Storm conflict cost something like $1T (yes a Trillion dollars) just for gasoline. There was on this site a description of a military effort to create a low-yield fusion generator that would fit on a military truck. It only had to fuel a mobile camp, not a city. If I recall, it was something like the Lockheed plan, to create a vortex (not a torus) to stuff the fuel through a constriction and get some kind of fusion yield. Wasteful, but not as wasteful as $1T

LegionMammal978 3y ago
That seems wildly high? The figure widely quoted for the total cost of the Gulf War is $60B in 1991 dollars, or $137B today, so clearly the gasoline costs alone can't exceed that number. It's only the extremely prolonged conflicts like the War in Afghanistan that get into the trillions of dollars total.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  $1T would be too high for Iraq War where the costs run $1T to $3T. The higher numbers are total long-term costs, not just the war fighting. There are lots of costs to war instead of just fuel; the people cost more.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Yeah way too high. Here's an estimate of the costs of air conditioning tents in the mideast conflicts: https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-...
vlovich123 3y ago
Setting aside the wildly suspect 1T claim, I’m not convinced by the argument. Fusion power plants are fixed large-scale facilities. In a war zone you need mobile power sources. I could see a fusion reactor powering a ship and maybe powering temporarily shore-based facilities. AFAIK the military is looking at solar for mobile power in forward deployments though which makes sense. Unless the argument is that fusion is used to generate transportable fuel (hydrogen, efuels etc). But then that argument is weird because the military would be doing that with fission today which actually exists and it has to expensive field experience with and supply chains supporting.
- indymike 3y ago
  > Fusion power plants are fixed large-scale facilities. Large scale facilities really are not all that interesting. They concentrate cost, danger and impose lots of logistical limitations.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Consider the Lockheed Skunk Works project - it's supposed to be portable.
wolverine876 3y ago
I've read that the US military has looked into small fission generators. They expect logistics to be very difficult near the front if there is a war with a 'near-peer' (China or maybe Russia) and hope to reduce fuel logistics. I've never heard of them looking into similar fusion reactors. Why would they? Nobody expects to build any kind of production fusion reactor for decades, much less one that could be operated by infantry soldiers and in very difficult conditions - e.g., explosions and people shooting at the reactor.
- hbossy 3y ago
  American military would love to squeeze nuclear reactor on every single ship. The conventional escort ships are much slower than aircraft carriers and need constant refueling, to the point they sometimes leave them behind and sail meet another fleet in destination port. It's not really feasible with fission but fusion would make it a lot safer.
  - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
    So they should be researching LFTR like they did for the nuclear bomber.
AlbertCory 3y ago
> a low-yield fusion generator that would fit on a military truck. another word for that is "drone target."
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Everything in war is a target
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    True, but a small target that disables all the electronics on the base would have to be considered "high value."
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Like, say, the generator they use now.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        No, not like that. Generators are cheap and replaceable, and they can keep spares in the depot. A fusion reactor sounds like big bucks to me.

wolverine876 3y ago

> a lot of people who are really into fusion research Do you mean researchers and other experts, or people who follow it? And does that include you? Are you a researcher?

tonetegeatinst 3y ago
I think it would be more of people who follow the research in general but also have a good understand of the principals of modern nuclear weapons using both fusion and fission to increase yield % I'm just a guy that like to follow the research in hopes of clean cheap energy...the cheaper the better