I’ve been known on occasion to mock fusion for being eternally 25 years in the future, and this article on the latest potential advances doesn’t really help me assess how credible the people and approaches that star in it actually are. But there is some eyebrow-raising information in the background that gives some context to the long wait for the fusion dawn.
In particular, a report from the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration in 1976 projected that if $9 billion per year was spent on research, practical fusion energy could be achieved by 1990. Reduce that to $1 billion per year, and the projection was “Fusion Never.” And guess what?
“[$1 billion]’s about what’s been spent…Pretty close to the maximum amount you could spend in order to never get there.”
The current annual spending of US government on fusion research: $670 million. In contrast, the estimated annual cost of US fossil fuel subsidies is $650 billion.
There is, of course, no proof that $9 billion/year would have actually moved working fusion’s perpetually 25 years away horizon any closer. But opting for ‘definitely not enough money to work’ whilst demonstrating the ability to throw an order of magnitude more money elsewhere in the energy sector is, at best, poor strategic foresight. At worst, it looks a lot like what you’d do if you wanted to make it look like you were pushing for an energy breakthrough without materially threatening the status quo.
With the incidental bonus of turning that potential breakthrough into a punchline. My scoffing suddenly feels a little hollow.
[This post was collated from this Twitter thread]
Nice plan for content warnings on Mastodon and the Fediverse. Now you need a Mastodon/Fediverse button on this blog.