undefined | Better HN

0 pointsadamsmith1434y ago0 comments

Is this really accurate though? Afaik there are fundamental engineering and physics barriers that need to be solved to get there? How is this funding broken down, what constitutes "Fusion Funding" in the first place?

In my comment I mentioned Magnets being a current barrier, in that case funding in Materials Science or EE would be more relevant and the 500M Fusion Funding number is irrelevant.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

willis9364y ago· 3 in thread

Check out my cousin comment. The PPPL FIRE 1976 report starting around page 30 addresses these questions. Also the PPPL FIRE site (also linked) has many resources that highlight areas of research.

Plasma physics is a large task in fusion energy science, but it is not the only task. FES being the motivator of those materials research ventures means money in FES goes into those areas.

adamsmith143OP4y ago

Well reading Government reports is not a great interest of mine, particularly ones that are nearly 50 years old, I'm just skeptical that they could accurately plot the development of the technology when here we are 50 years later with fundamental Plasma Physics and Materials Science problems that need to be solved for the tech to work. I doubt that just blanket more funding would have allowed them to be solved 30 years faster.

It would be akin to AI researchers saying that if only they had more funding they could create an AGI this decade despite fundamental unknowns about how to build something like that in the first place.

willis9364y ago

I'm so confused here. You asked for a breakdown of what technologies needed to be developed (invested in) and I gave you the exact breakdown.

You doubt that investment wouldn't accelerate the development of those areas? So HTS discoveries and mass production fall out of the sky? No, they take money. Given money they, demonstrably, are developed.

HTS is the sexy success story because it has been critical path, but other areas of engineering research have been known and the critical path for development has not changed in 50 years.

Also, PPPL's 1976 report is a report to the government and public. It was not written by bureaucrats.

Melatonic4y ago

More money definitely is not going to hurt in developing fusion. I am surprised nooone has been able to get a more significant portion of the militaries funding going directly making fusion reactors workable - it seems like they could be a huge strategic advantage militarily. A submarine or spacecraft using a fusion reactor that also was able to output clean water for its occupants seems like a pretty damn nice win win. And certainly the military must also have tons of other needs for reliable, uninterruptible energy production.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse