5 ms·

but 2033 is only 15 years away, not 20

by miemo 8y ago

Someone 8y ago
I think calling 2033 highly unlikely would be an understatement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER: ”Initial plasma experiments are scheduled to begin in 2025, with full deuterium–tritium fusion experiments starting in 2035.” So, according to Wikipedia, DEMO will build on ITER’s results, but will produce energy before ITER’s first real fusion experiment starts.
- martinw111 8y ago
  If global warming will be more significant then is predicted now I believe they will suddenly invest 100x more into this technology. This and nuclear plants are only reasonable way how to have available energy for some 'CO2 removal' projects...
  - proto-n 8y ago
    Is money more limiting than time though? Nine woman and a child analogy comes to mind.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Fusion is notoriously underfunded. More money means you can buy better gear, hire more workers, complete projects faster and run multiple parallel sites to complete various goals at the same time. Of course there is some point where adding more funding will not advance the speed as much anymore but I doubt were even close to that point at the moment.
      - fyfy18 8y ago
        Why is it so underfunded? The first country to build one will be taking a big step to reducing their dependence on other countries for energy. I can understand big oil exporters not wanting to push it too much (although it's unlikely to come into fruition for the current generation of politians), but for others isn't it a no brainer?
        zaarn 8y ago
        Historically, Fusion has been bad at predicting when it's going to be ready for prime time, that plus very early fusion experiments turned out to be a lot of duds. Just think of the Cold Fusion hype (on a side note; cold fusion does work, µCF replaces electrons with muons in the hydrogen atom which reduces the radius of the atomic nucleus such that fusion becomes possible at room temperature and far below but generating the necessary muons is a fools game) and the various other nuclear fusion failures. Fission on the other hand could report a lot of results and success and, at the time, seemed to be infallibly safe.
        14 8y ago
        Same reason preventative medicine is not practiced. The upfront costs are great and the out come not certain leaving many hesitant to invest in something they may never benefit from. Especially if your country has more immediate pressing matters that you could fix right now with that money.
        ryanmercer 8y ago
        >Why is it so underfunded? - Oil/coal/natural gas lobbyists and interests which hinder tax payer funded research. - The fact that there is no guarantee we will ever figure it out and no idea whatsoever as to how much it will cost to figure it out. Investors like returns, in their lifetime, leaving largely tax payer funded research as the greatest source of funds... see above. And then with government-funded research... if a government figures out fusion, what do you do with it? Do you license it to private industry? Do you make state-owned power plants? If you give it to private it industry, it's going to get to other nations. If it gets to other nations, you lose non-electrical power and create potential strategic issues, which means you are motivated NOT to share the technology. It sucks. I wish we could all just get along, fund stuff like this and space exploration, and get over petty politics before our species goes extinct.
        DennisP 8y ago
        Given climate change, giving it to other nations is exactly the right thing to do, even from a purely self-interested perspective. Nobody wins if coal plants in China tip us into runaway warming.
    - cestith 8y ago
      Nine women can't have one child faster, but on average they can have about nine times as many children in nine months as one woman. It really depends what your goal is and the bottleneck in reaching that goal whether or not that analogy holds.

but 2033 is only 15 years away, not 20

by miemo 8y ago

but 2033 is only 15 years away, not 20

I think calling 2033 highly unlikely would be an understatement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER: ”Initial plasma experiments are scheduled to begin in 2025, with full deuterium–tritium fusion experiments starting in 2035.” So, according to Wikipedia, DEMO will build on ITER’s results, but will produce energy before ITER’s first real fusion experiment starts.

martinw111 8y ago
If global warming will be more significant then is predicted now I believe they will suddenly invest 100x more into this technology. This and nuclear plants are only reasonable way how to have available energy for some 'CO2 removal' projects...
- proto-n 8y ago
  Is money more limiting than time though? Nine woman and a child analogy comes to mind.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Fusion is notoriously underfunded. More money means you can buy better gear, hire more workers, complete projects faster and run multiple parallel sites to complete various goals at the same time. Of course there is some point where adding more funding will not advance the speed as much anymore but I doubt were even close to that point at the moment.
    - fyfy18 8y ago
      Why is it so underfunded? The first country to build one will be taking a big step to reducing their dependence on other countries for energy. I can understand big oil exporters not wanting to push it too much (although it's unlikely to come into fruition for the current generation of politians), but for others isn't it a no brainer?
      - zaarn 8y ago
        Historically, Fusion has been bad at predicting when it's going to be ready for prime time, that plus very early fusion experiments turned out to be a lot of duds. Just think of the Cold Fusion hype (on a side note; cold fusion does work, µCF replaces electrons with muons in the hydrogen atom which reduces the radius of the atomic nucleus such that fusion becomes possible at room temperature and far below but generating the necessary muons is a fools game) and the various other nuclear fusion failures. Fission on the other hand could report a lot of results and success and, at the time, seemed to be infallibly safe.
      - 14 8y ago
        Same reason preventative medicine is not practiced. The upfront costs are great and the out come not certain leaving many hesitant to invest in something they may never benefit from. Especially if your country has more immediate pressing matters that you could fix right now with that money.
      - ryanmercer 8y ago
        >Why is it so underfunded? - Oil/coal/natural gas lobbyists and interests which hinder tax payer funded research. - The fact that there is no guarantee we will ever figure it out and no idea whatsoever as to how much it will cost to figure it out. Investors like returns, in their lifetime, leaving largely tax payer funded research as the greatest source of funds... see above. And then with government-funded research... if a government figures out fusion, what do you do with it? Do you license it to private industry? Do you make state-owned power plants? If you give it to private it industry, it's going to get to other nations. If it gets to other nations, you lose non-electrical power and create potential strategic issues, which means you are motivated NOT to share the technology. It sucks. I wish we could all just get along, fund stuff like this and space exploration, and get over petty politics before our species goes extinct.
        DennisP 8y ago
        Given climate change, giving it to other nations is exactly the right thing to do, even from a purely self-interested perspective. Nobody wins if coal plants in China tip us into runaway warming.
  - cestith 8y ago
    Nine women can't have one child faster, but on average they can have about nine times as many children in nine months as one woman. It really depends what your goal is and the bottleneck in reaching that goal whether or not that analogy holds.