
Despite tepid support and funding peril, fusion energy researchers make progress - suprgeek
http://gizmodo.com/the-real-problem-with-fusion-energy-1777994830
======
iaw
> “The challenge with fusion is finding a technical path that makes it
> economically attractive and that’s something we can do soon,“

This is the most important line in the entire article. As strong a proponent
for fusion energy as I am, knowing a bit of energy economics makes me doubt
that fusion will be a viable investment in the next 20 years.

The problem is that fossil fuels are abundant and cheap, the negative
externalities caused by burning them for energy aren't included in their
pricing. Until oil becomes absurdly expensive (I think $400 per barrel would
do it) we wont see serious interest in fusion research again. Unfortunately,
because of the lead time, it may be too late by then.

------
Aelinsaar
There are some big challenges that still need to be met, such as how to breed
tritium in the blanket, how to make the reactor realistically serviceable,
materials resistant to sputtering, etc. Nearer-term are solutions to problems
of how the diverter effects plasma flow, but even that is a long way out.

------
wapapaloobop
There's now at least a dozen feasible and diverse fusion projects out there.
So planners who assume there _won 't_ be fusion soon are obliged to explain
why they must _all_ fail.

~~~
ori_b
As much as I support funding this research, "because decades have passed with
little evidence of success" sounds like a good reason for a skepticism to me.

~~~
Sir_Substance
You should look at this:

[https://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg)

It's a (normalised for 2012 dollars) chart from a study comissioned by the US
government in 1976 to determine how much money would need to be invested per
annum in order to achieve viable fusion power by specific dates. You can read
the whole thing here (including the unmodified chart):

[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1021815909065](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1021815909065)

The chart I have linked you includes an extra line of data not found in the
original report, namely how much has actually been invested.

Ongoing funding of fusion research dropped quickly to a half and then about a
sixth of what the US government _knew_ was needed to achieve their goal. It is
in no way the fault of the fusion research community that we do not yet have a
working reactor, they've been viscously strangled by bean-counters for 40
years.

Frankly, I think it's a testament to the great work of some badly under-
appreciated people that we're as far along the road as we are, and if you want
to support funding _you totally should_ because we've known for 40 years that
increased funding is all that's holding this back.

~~~
DennisP
And despite that, the fusion triple product, which has to get above a certain
threshold to achieve net power, advanced exponentially from 1970 to 2000, and
in 1999 a reactor in Japan got results with deuterium fuel that would have
exceeded breakeven had they been using D-T.

Then governments decided to put most of the fusion money in a three-decade
construction project in France, cancelled a bunch of projects, and progress
slowed.

At least private investors are starting to pitch in; Tri Alpha just got $500
million, General Fusion has a fair amount, and YCombinator invested a little
in Helion.

