4 ms·

Relevant graph: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._histori

by eggoa 14y ago

Relevant graph: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusio...

Flenser 14y ago
Here's the paper the graph refers to. The original graph is on page 12: http://fire.pppl.gov/us_fusion_plan_1976.pdf http://fire.pppl.gov/us_fusion_plan_1976.pdf
simba-hiiipower 14y ago
wow, that’s pretty sad. the 'moderate' path would have required an average expenditure of ~$2.5 billion a year, and projected the completion of a reactor by 2005. a pretty small investment when you consider the size of the federal budget [1] and where most of the funding goes. even more sad, when considering the likelihood that many graphs relating to other potentially transformative technologies probably look much the same.. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_Stat...
- jerf 14y ago
  Uh... I would not take that graph as some sort of gospel. The truth is that even now we do not have an effective known path to economically viable fusion power generation, and if nothing else our computer simulations are indescribably better than anything they had in the late 70s. Had we blown billions more in the 80s, we probably would simply have blown billions more in the 80s and still have no fusion today.
  - simba-hiiipower 14y ago
    that may be true, but getting it (or any new technology for that matter) to the point where it’d be economically viable requires an investment at some point.. and ‘blowing’ those billions in the 80s may very-well not have paid-off with economically viable fusion power today, but i highly doubt it would have left us with nothing to show for it.
    - jerf 14y ago
      We don't really have a hell of a lot to show for what we have spent. Non-zero, sure, but a lot of the lessons we learned could certainly have been learned for a lot more cheaply if we hadn't tried to leap to the end of the process with grandiose projects built more on hope than science.
- throwit1979 14y ago
  $2.5B is roughly on par with the combined 2012 salaries of all NFL teams( $90MM - $118MM per team, at the cap ). Which is as it should be, since football is far more important to humanity than something as silly as cheap, safe, and clean energy.
danielweber 14y ago
One thing I take from this graph is that doubling fusion funding would still leave us at "fusion never", so we shouldn't bother doubling it. :(

by eggoa 14y ago

Relevant graph: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusio...

Flenser 14y ago

Here's the paper the graph refers to. The original graph is on page 12: http://fire.pppl.gov/us_fusion_plan_1976.pdf http://fire.pppl.gov/us_fusion_plan_1976.pdf

simba-hiiipower 14y ago

wow, that’s pretty sad. the 'moderate' path would have required an average expenditure of ~$2.5 billion a year, and projected the completion of a reactor by 2005. a pretty small investment when you consider the size of the federal budget [1] and where most of the funding goes. even more sad, when considering the likelihood that many graphs relating to other potentially transformative technologies probably look much the same.. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_Stat...

jerf 14y ago
Uh... I would not take that graph as some sort of gospel. The truth is that even now we do not have an effective known path to economically viable fusion power generation, and if nothing else our computer simulations are indescribably better than anything they had in the late 70s. Had we blown billions more in the 80s, we probably would simply have blown billions more in the 80s and still have no fusion today.
- simba-hiiipower 14y ago
  that may be true, but getting it (or any new technology for that matter) to the point where it’d be economically viable requires an investment at some point.. and ‘blowing’ those billions in the 80s may very-well not have paid-off with economically viable fusion power today, but i highly doubt it would have left us with nothing to show for it.
  - jerf 14y ago
    We don't really have a hell of a lot to show for what we have spent. Non-zero, sure, but a lot of the lessons we learned could certainly have been learned for a lot more cheaply if we hadn't tried to leap to the end of the process with grandiose projects built more on hope than science.
throwit1979 14y ago
$2.5B is roughly on par with the combined 2012 salaries of all NFL teams( $90MM - $118MM per team, at the cap ). Which is as it should be, since football is far more important to humanity than something as silly as cheap, safe, and clean energy.

danielweber 14y ago

One thing I take from this graph is that doubling fusion funding would still leave us at "fusion never", so we shouldn't bother doubling it. :(