Fusion

[Joeboy]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58252784

[Stinsy]

Sorry to be miserable yet again...

I've been reading about "breakthroughs" in fusion for at least 30 years, yet still it is not here. A decade or more ago they stopped even promising "no nuclear waste" and "energy too cheap to meter". So it will deliver expensive electricity and nuclear waste if it ever does become commercial reality.

How much has been spent flogging this dead horse so far? What could we have achieved if we'd spent the money on renewables/storage instead? How much are we still spending on this? Could the money be better spent?

[Oliver90owner]

Sorry to be miserable yet again...

I've been reading about "breakthroughs" in fusion for at least 30 years, yet still it is not here. A decade or more ago they stopped even promising "no nuclear waste" and "energy too cheap to meter". So it will deliver expensive electricity and nuclear waste if it ever does become commercial reality.

How much has been spent flogging this dead horse so far? What could we have achieved if we'd spent the money on renewables/storage instead? How much are we still spending on this? Could the money be better spent?

Yes, but…

If/when they succeed and if/when the technology can be advanced to economic commercialised to the point of being the ‘ideal’ form of power generation, will you change your mind?

I was routinely using photo cells back in the 1960s. Large, expensive, low output and not in exactly regular use (almost ‘cutting edge’ for volumetric analysis, back then - but rapidly superseded by other techniques). Move on a few years and PV power generation was used - but only for space tech, by NASA, etc. It took another generation before PV was sufficiently advanced for land-based utilisation. In the last decade, or so, advances have made it the ‘go to’ technology for cheap power generation.

Inception goes back to the discovery of radioactivity and sorted out by Einstein. Conception occurred a long time ago and is now progressing at a substantially accelerated rate. I expect it is only a matter of time before controlled fusion with an excess of energy produced, over that inputted, becomes a reality. Remember, mind, that a substantial further improvement would be necessary to take into account energy conversion losses when producing electrical energy from the process.

One might expect this to be the ultimate means of power generation. When the first fusion power station is installed and operational will be long after most of us have departed this Earth, but I believe it will arrive at some point in the future.

That, alone, means the multiple attempts proceeding presently, are worthwhile IMO. Like cassette and video formats, there will eventually be a reduced number of sensible options to be progressed, thus concentrating resources on fewer operational options.

Meanwhile, collection and use of the free energy from our Sun should still be further exploited as fast as possible - but not instead of research for an optional technology. Both are important to the future of our descendants.

[Joeboy]

As have I, hope springs eternal! Gotta be in it to win it and this is a HUGE prize.

[Paul_F]

Sorry to be miserable yet again...

I've been reading about "breakthroughs" in fusion for at least 30 years, yet still it is not here. A decade or more ago they stopped even promising "no nuclear waste" and "energy too cheap to meter". So it will deliver expensive electricity and nuclear waste if it ever does become commercial reality.

How much has been spent flogging this dead horse so far? What could we have achieved if we'd spent the money on renewables/storage instead? How much are we still spending on this? Could the money be better spent?

Slightly dated graphs, but show the problem nicely enough. Loads of smoke and mirrors on funding, but we've been making decent progress on solving an incredibly different problem.