jtr1962
Flashaholic
When I was in grade school back in the late 1960s/early 1970s there were predictions that thermonuclear fusion would be online by the year 2000. By the 1980s the predictions were for 2020. The latest predictions put the timeline at anywhere from 50 to 200 years from now. Putting aside the long-standing tag line "thermonuclear fusion is the power of the future, and always will be", what on earth happened? Fundamentally we know exactly what to do to make it work. Practically there are undoubtedly issues doing this in the real world. My question is would putting a lot more money into fusion research make it a reality within a decade, is there some other fundamental issue I'm not aware of, or are those in the field simply holding back to keep the research grants coming?
Fusion is a techology which will basically obsolete every other form of power generation should it be commercialized. It is safe enough to use on ships and planes and spacecraft. It can probably be scaled down enough to put on locomotives. It should be capable of producing very inexpensive electricity. In short, it is an enabling technology which could raise the world's standard of living more in ten years than occurred in the last 5000. With all this going for it, I would think the governments of the world would be all be in a race to be the first to commercialize it, and then sell it to the rest of the world.
So any ideas, either factual or speculation, as to what happened? Sure, there will be so big losers in world powered by fusion, but this has always been the case when new technology came out. The light bulb put most of the candlemakers out of business. The personal computer put typewriter manufacturers out of business. We can't just hold back new technology because some people will lose their jobs, but sadly that has sometimes happened when those people were influential. However, in all cases they only delayed the inevitable. Is this what is happening here? Or is the problem simply one of unanticipated complexity? Whatever the reasons, now couldn't be a better time to start a Manhattan-project style program whose goal is to commercialize fusion as quickly as possible, followed by rapid conversion of existing power plants as part of a huge public works project. I personally think our long-term survival as a species depends upon it.
Fusion is a techology which will basically obsolete every other form of power generation should it be commercialized. It is safe enough to use on ships and planes and spacecraft. It can probably be scaled down enough to put on locomotives. It should be capable of producing very inexpensive electricity. In short, it is an enabling technology which could raise the world's standard of living more in ten years than occurred in the last 5000. With all this going for it, I would think the governments of the world would be all be in a race to be the first to commercialize it, and then sell it to the rest of the world.
So any ideas, either factual or speculation, as to what happened? Sure, there will be so big losers in world powered by fusion, but this has always been the case when new technology came out. The light bulb put most of the candlemakers out of business. The personal computer put typewriter manufacturers out of business. We can't just hold back new technology because some people will lose their jobs, but sadly that has sometimes happened when those people were influential. However, in all cases they only delayed the inevitable. Is this what is happening here? Or is the problem simply one of unanticipated complexity? Whatever the reasons, now couldn't be a better time to start a Manhattan-project style program whose goal is to commercialize fusion as quickly as possible, followed by rapid conversion of existing power plants as part of a huge public works project. I personally think our long-term survival as a species depends upon it.