ITER is focused on demonstrating Deuterium-Tritium fusion, which produces significant radioactive waste products because D-T reactions give off a high energy neutron that can only be stopped by massive containment walls. The walls become radioactive as result of being constantly bombarded by these neutrons. Over time the bombardment also weakens them. This all generates radioactive watste which will need to be disposed of.

Deuterium-Helium 3 reactions are much less radiocative because they don’t produce that high energy neutron, which is a very good thing. Unfortunately, they require a higher ignition temperature that D-T reactions.

If/when ITER succeeds, which Anonymous suggests will take 50 years, we then need to invest in developing an even bigger and more efficient D-HE3 reactor design. So you need to add some number of additional years on top of the 50 years for ITER to generate an estimate for when HE3 on the Moon might become a valuable resource.

For a good summary of this issue, read pages 84-88 of “Entering Space” by Robert Zubrin.

– Al

I didn’t say it would be US federal government investment.

Yes, a lot of the research papers in this area have companion classified version, but I obviously have no insight into those black budgets (and couldn’t talk about them if I did). My 2-bit guess is that unless there’s another, large facility like NIF in the black world, then the black budget is a fraction of the white budget. The references above were obviously from the unclassified DOE nuclear weapon stockpile stewardship program. There’s actually quite a bit out there on those activites (add http://www):

.nnsa.doe.gov/ –> covers all DOE nuclear security programs, including stockpile stewardship and naval reactors

.nnsa.doe.gov/defense.htm –> covers stockpile stewardship specifically

FWIW…

I only wish that were true. Unfortunately, I suspect it has far more to do with the current Administration’s hostility toward non-fossil sources of energy.

Anonymous: Thank’s for the budget figures. Is none of the inertial confinement work in the black world? Given the application, I would be surprised if that were so.

My friends work(ed) on the NIF.

— Donald

Funding for DOE’s Office of Fusion Research has bounced around an approximate annual funding range of $250-500 million in recent years. The funding variously goes towards ITER (the new international test reactor) development, other lab facilities, university research, and overhead. See (add http://www):

.science.doe.gov/obp/FY_08_Budget/FES.pdf

“I happen to know that the United States spends rather a lot on fusion research, broadly defined. Exactly how much is, of course, a secret, but it is undoubely a lot.”

I don’t know what your definition of “a lot” is for fusion research, but inertial confinement activities to support nuke weapons stewardship maintenance is also conducted by DOE (not DOD) and has bounced around in the same approximate annual funding range of about $250-500 million in recent years. Most goes towards develpment of the new NIF (National Ignition Facility). See (add http://):

goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1561594_ITM

So the annual U.S. total for federal fusion research is in the $500 million to $1 billion range, but only about half of that goes towards power, not weapons, applications.

I’m not arguing whether it’s too much or too little. Those are just the amounts.

“It’s ridiculous to talk about Helium-3 without even a basic understanding of the current funding level and the estimates of how much it will take to achieve even “break-even.”

Agreed. In a thumbnail sketch, the timeline on the ITER website assumes that working fusion is still 50 years into the future. See (add http://www):

.iter.org/a/index_nav_2.htm

Assuming a U.S. federal funding level of $500 million per year, that implies that we have $25 billion (and many technical breakthroughs) to go before we have a useful, prototype fusion power source. Undoubtedly, this is an underestimate, probably by a factor of several, as it ignores international cost-sharing and the likelihood that actual prototype development will be considerably more expensive than the research facilities built and planned to date. A good estimate probably can’t be known until we’re much farther down the fusion development path.

FWIW…

Actually, I do have an idea. The amount spent on magnetic fusion research is not terribly large, less each year than the average annual cost of a single shuttle launch (even before the post-Columbia reduction in flight rate). In constant dollars MFE spending is far below its peak back during the first energy crisis. Inertial fusion is more, but that is more properly accounted for under preservation of the nuclear weapon technology skill base.

The relatively paultry amount spent on magnetic fusion reflects, IMO, the relative promise of this energy technology vs. alternatives. If it were such a slamdunk for lower energy costs then you’d be seeing more investment there.

— Donald

For nuclear weapons research?

So you don’t know.