
United States should prepare to build a prototype fusion power plant, panel says - pseudolus
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/united-states-should-prepare-build-prototype-fusion-power-plant-panel-says
======
matt4077
Dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18683230](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18683230)

~~~
scottlocklin
Headline should be: "fusion researchers hire PR firm."

------
matt2000
I strongly object to the language that's commonly used around fusion research.
Much of it unfairly frames the discussion around what would be a world-
changing technology if realized.

For example, in this article: "the controversial ITER project, a hugely
expensive fusion reactor..." There is no doubt this is an expensive project,
estimated at ~$20B total cost
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Funding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Funding))
However, in terms of possible upsides or even compared to other projects it's
_cheap_. Boston's "Big Dig" was $24B for example:
[https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2012/...](https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2012/07/10/true-
cost-of-big-dig-exceeds-24-billion-with-interest-officials-determine) Which
would you rather have? A 1.5m tunnel, or an energy source that would change
the future of human civilization?

I am being somewhat unfair here since the Big Dig was a case study of
mismanagement and cost overruns, but as a society we should be willing to
spend significant resources on world changing research instead of say $22.5B
on three new boats: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-
class_destroyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer)

All that being said, the way forward is probably to figure out ways to make
fusion related projects smaller in scale and cost. Then multiple attempts can
proceed in parallel without all the organizational and governmental overhead.
More on that here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4)

~~~
beginningguava
>Which would you rather have? A 1.5m tunnel, or an energy source that would
change the future of human civilization?

oh come on we have more important stuff to spend money on like the 1 trillion
annual spent making sure Boomers are comfortable on social security, or 90
billion on food stamps.

/s

It's depressing how we live hand to mouth rather than investing in the future.
We could solve the majority of the problems facing humanity permanently by
investing a fraction of our budget into these areas.

Health care is a supply and demand problem that can be solved with AI- Berkley
already has AI surgical bots that can suture intestines better than a human.
Imagine being able to do most routine surgeries with bots that share, learn,
and improve from every surgery done on the planet?

Global warming and energy production in general could be solved by fusion

~~~
godelski
> Global warming and energy production in general could be solved by fusion

Yes and no. I think you know the yes. The no is because the damage we've done
has delayed effects. To _solve_ it you need to do a ton of sequestration. But
I also HIGHLY encourage funding of fusion and I think it is a necessary step
forward that we can't ignore.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Having lots of cheap energy from fusion would definitely help scale up
sequestration efforts.

The last couple decades have clearly shown that the limit on humanity's
capabilities is the amount of electricity we can command.

------
tim333
Maybe rather than spending on government projects they could lend to promising
startups in the space eg the MIT SPARC one
[https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/280265-mit-plans-new-
fus...](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/280265-mit-plans-new-fusion-
reactor-that-could-actually-generate-power)

~~~
aqme28
It's not clear that the technology is far enough along to the point where
startups could be profitable. Sometimes it takes a big government funded
project to lay the groundwork (e.g. the space race).

------
jeletonskelly
Didn't Lockheed say they had a working fusion reactor design a couple of years
ago? What ever came of that?

~~~
mtgx
I think they were supposed to show a prototype by now, but obviously that
hasn't happened yet.

~~~
bufferoverflow
Strange the SEC didn't get involved. Promise of a working fusion reactor is
HUGE. Yet they harassed Musk over some tweets.

~~~
godelski
Lockheed didn't promise an exact stock value and directly manipulate a market.
The difference is fine, but it is distinct.

