Hacker News Reader

Comment by spencerchubb | Hacker News Reader

The most surprising thing I've learned from this is we're only allocating $624 million / year to this program. We really need better mechanisms for deciding how to allocate taxes.

View on HN

Its actually pretty good, since this is primarily weapons testing. The real money is being spent in the EU, where there is at least a chance of getting a sustainable fusion reaction.

It's, depending what calculation you believe, around 20 billion for ITER. Started in 2013, first plasma in 2025, first full fusion in 2035. So about a billion per year. Of course, costs are calculated differently, and I'm not sure on what time scale the 600 million are, but it's not that drastically different.

Research wise, it's a pretty big chunk of money. But yeah, more money in research would be nice. (Disclaimer: I am a scientist with grants.)

Yes, I think more research towards eventual power generation, rather than weapon testing, would be better.

ITER is built in France, but is financed by many countries outside of EU, including the USA. It's not a huge cost per-country.

> the ITER Members China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States

See https://www.iter.org/proj/Countries

Not really. IIRC the NIF needs to pretend that it's about nuclear weapons to secure DoE funding; they (like us) know that it's really about developing fusion as an energy source.

Or it needs to pretend its about fusion as an energy source, to mask its really about creating and maintaining a stockpile of h-bombs that could destroy every city on earth.

Would you rather the us takes second place in researching space and energy tech?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com