Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#191

Post by bandy » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 4:21 PM UTC

tanzam75 wrote: post #184

bandy wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they have had problems in the recent past: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ignition-failed ~~ They've since had ignition: http://www.independentnews.com/news/article_792110c0-2c5b-11... ~~ [I'm positive that the ICF's predecessors also achieved ~~ignition~~ fusion on smaller scales.] The real trick is that [0] you need to get out more than you put in (exceed break-even) [1] you need to be able to harness th…

> They've since had ignition No. Notice how it is worded. > "More importantly, Moses said, the mechanism that generated the powerful energy burst appeared to be the self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion process that defines ignition." In other words, they did not achieve ignition. They achieved something that is necessary to get ignition. Specifically, alpha heating. This is another important step on the road to ignit…

And this seems to hand out a wealth of information as to why they haven't gotten there yet: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1nxtyb/nuclear_f...

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#192

Post by chris_mahan » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 4:42 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #100

chris_mahan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hundred billion dollars is not a whole lot of money. We spent many, many times that on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the results there are passable at best.

(your comparison is nonsensical for many reasons) A hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. The annual budget of NIH is ~$30B and it funds a high fraction of the most advanced biological research worldwide. The DOE also has a budget $30B and funds (along with this project) many other projects including alternative energies, advanced computing and the Human Genome Project. NSF is (only!) another $7B, leaving around…

see http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-annive... and note that over the next 40 years, the war in Iraq will cost the US 6 trillion dollars. That is sixty times 100 billion dollars. See also http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-28/world/38097452...

Now, don't you think it would have been better, instead, to spend that much money on hot fusion research?

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#193

Post by chris_mahan » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #100

chris_mahan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hundred billion dollars is not a whole lot of money. We spent many, many times that on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the results there are passable at best.

(your comparison is nonsensical for many reasons) A hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. The annual budget of NIH is ~$30B and it funds a high fraction of the most advanced biological research worldwide. The DOE also has a budget $30B and funds (along with this project) many other projects including alternative energies, advanced computing and the Human Genome Project. NSF is (only!) another $7B, leaving around…

Also, see http://xkcd.com/980/ for the scale of money, where you realize a trillion is not a lot of money either.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#194

Post by drjesusphd » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 5:06 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #190

drjesusphd wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I am saying, is that relative to other potential investments, fusion does not seem to be a worthwhile investment, as the risk/payoff ratio is worse. I disagree. There exists MILLIONS of years worth of fuel on earth, compared to a few decades of oil and gas, and a few hundred years worth old coal or fissionable uranium. That's quite a huge payoff for relatively little risk (compare fusion research funding with…

Well, I think you're underestimating oil and gas, but that's another argument. Nobody's denying fusion is a great energy source. But your claim that there is a payoff for low risk is unsupported by reality: we have only ever invested money in fusion (risk) and have never received any useful power for it (payoff). At this time, the risk/payoff ratio is infinite.

> we have only ever invested money in fusion (risk) and have never received any useful power for it (payoff)

Now you're just being silly. You can say this about ANY research project. Better scrap the Manhattan Project before it finishes, we haven't seen any results. You're saying it's impossible to build a fusion power plant because we don't have one now?

Nevermind the fact that magnetic fusion research has been grossly underfunded for over 30 years.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#195

Post by XorNot » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 5:10 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #173

XorNot wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, high-level research projects push the state-of-the-art in the private sector. When CERN order up a new type of magnet, that contract goes to a company who does magnet winding who in turn usually revamp their entire process as part of the collaboration to achieve the desired field strength, homogeneity and size. Suddenly, there's now a company which can do that - and is eager to sell the service on since they no…

I'm not arguing against investment in big science and R&D, I'm arguing against it as a form of stimulus spending.

...in the context of fusion power...which is big science and R&D. So you're making an implied judgement there.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#196

Post by XorNot » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 5:12 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #179

XorNot wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that governments have this type of money. In spades. Pretending we're not properly prioritizing one type of research or another is a farce - if you can convince anyone to invest in nuclear fission reactors, whether they do that won't really be affected by how much fusion research is happening. That's not why we don't have nuclear fission right now, but shutting down nuclear fusion might just ensure we ne…

You think governments have this type of money in spades? The US does not. We're in a major debt crises and have issues funding our fundamental operations; beyond the immediate government funding, we have severe problems with spending (IE, we can't pay the interest on our spending with our tax revenues).

You're not in a debt crisis, US interest payments on existing debt is about 4% - at most - of the national budget, and your government is shutdown because of a procedural issue.

I strongly suggest you actually lookup the budget figures.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#197

Post by dekhn » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 5:55 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #196

dekhn wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think governments have this type of money in spades? The US does not. We're in a major debt crises and have issues funding our fundamental operations; beyond the immediate government funding, we have severe problems with spending (IE, we can't pay the interest on our spending with our tax revenues).

You're not in a debt crisis, US interest payments on existing debt is about 4% - at most - of the national budget, and your government is shutdown because of a procedural issue. I strongly suggest you actually lookup the budget figures.

I'm familiar with our economy. We're in a debt crises. I didn't mention the government shutdown at all.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#198

Post by dekhn » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 5:56 PM UTC

chris_mahan wrote: post #192

dekhn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(your comparison is nonsensical for many reasons) A hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. The annual budget of NIH is ~$30B and it funds a high fraction of the most advanced biological research worldwide. The DOE also has a budget $30B and funds (along with this project) many other projects including alternative energies, advanced computing and the Human Genome Project. NSF is (only!) another $7B, leaving around…

see http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-annive... and note that over the next 40 years, the war in Iraq will cost the US 6 trillion dollars. That is sixty times 100 billion dollars. See also http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-28/world/38097452... Now, don't you think it would have been better, instead, to spend that much money on hot fusion research?

No, health research is a better investment.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#199

Post by dekhn » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 5:57 PM UTC

chris_mahan wrote: post #193

dekhn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(your comparison is nonsensical for many reasons) A hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. The annual budget of NIH is ~$30B and it funds a high fraction of the most advanced biological research worldwide. The DOE also has a budget $30B and funds (along with this project) many other projects including alternative energies, advanced computing and the Human Genome Project. NSF is (only!) another $7B, leaving around…

Also, see http://xkcd.com/980/ for the scale of money, where you realize a trillion is not a lot of money either.

A trillion is a lot of money.

No single corporation controls that much capital; even the largest are just half-way there. Very few organizations can organize and control that amount of money.

I agree that compared to the total circulation of virtual money, $1T is small compared to the total.

Re: Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

#200

Post by dekhn » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 6:10 PM UTC

drjesusphd wrote: post #194

dekhn wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think you're underestimating oil and gas, but that's another argument. Nobody's denying fusion is a great energy source. But your claim that there is a payoff for low risk is unsupported by reality: we have only ever invested money in fusion (risk) and have never received any useful power for it (payoff). At this time, the risk/payoff ratio is infinite.

> we have only ever invested money in fusion (risk) and have never received any useful power for it (payoff) Now you're just being silly. You can say this about ANY research project. Better scrap the Manhattan Project before it finishes, we haven't seen any results. You're saying it's impossible to build a fusion power plant because we don't have one now? Nevermind the fact that magnetic fusion research has been gros…

By the time the Manhattan Project started, we had already made signficant progress. Such as Fermi's pile. We knew how to seperate uranium. The math was all there; it was mostly a matter of decision-making and execution.

I never said anything was impossible. But fusion is still solidly an unknown unknown: we have no credible path at this time to even plan a workable test reactor. I'm saying, for the amount invested, the results achieved, and the potential payoff, our money is best spent elsewhere are more boring and conventional things.