jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on This post was submitted on
3,291 points (87% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

askscienceAskScience

unsubscribesubscribe10,585,171 readers
(6,579 here) users here now

Please read our guidelines and FAQ before posting

Features

Filter by Field

Title Description
Physics Theoretical Physics, Experimental Physics, High-energy Physics, Solid-State Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Relativity, Quantum Physics, Plasma Physics
Mathematics Mathematics, Statistics, Number Theory, Calculus, Algebra
Astronomy Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Planetary Formation
Computing Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Computability
Earth and Planetary Sciences Earth Science, Atmospheric Science, Oceanography, Geology
Engineering Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Structural Engineering, Computer Engineering, Aerospace Engineering
Chemistry Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Polymers, Biochemistry
Social Sciences Social Science, Political Science, Economics, Archaeology, Anthropology, Linguistics
Biology Biology, Evolution, Morphology, Ecology, Synthetic Biology, Microbiology, Cellular Biology, Molecular Biology, Paleontology
Psychology Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Abnormal, Social Psychology
Medicine Medicine, Oncology, Dentistry, Physiology, Epidemiology, Infectious Disease, Pharmacy, Human Body
Neuroscience Neuroscience, Neurology, Neurochemistry, Cognitive Neuroscience

Calendar

Date Description
19 Oct Ask Anything Wednesday - Engineering, Mathematics, Computer science
23 Oct Mole Day

Related subreddits

Are you a science expert?

  1. For more open-ended questions, try /r/AskScienceDiscussion | Sign up to be a panelist!
We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. -Carl Sagan, Cosmos
a community for
message the moderators

MODERATORS

you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]RannashaComputational Plasma Physics 3314 points3315 points3316 points  (30 children)
Yes, we can do nuclear fusion just fine. There are numerous research experiments already doing it. Heck, there's even a small, but dedicated amateur community setting up experiments. A while ago there was some highschool kid who made the news by creating a small fusion device in his living room.
The problem, however, is that maintaining a fusion reaction requires a lot of energy, because the fusion plasma has to be kept at very high temperature in order for the reaction to take place. In current experiments, the amount of energy required to maintain the reaction is considerably higher than the amount of energy produced by the reaction.
But, as it turns out, the amount of energy produced by the reaction scales up more rapidly with size than the amount of energy required. So by simply making the reactor bigger, we can increase the efficiency (the so-called Q factor). But simply making the reactor bigger also makes the reaction harder to control, so scaling up the process is not a quick and easy job.
Scientists and engineers are currently working on the first reactor to have a Q factor larger than 1. That is, a reactor that produces more energy than it uses. This is the ITER project currently being constructed in France.
[–]hodyoaten 594 points595 points596 points  (29 children)
What's the confidence level in the scientific community that we'll have viable commercial fusion in our lifetimes? Or is this one of those things that keeps getting more and more complicated the more we work at it?
[–]RolexGMTMaster 73 points74 points75 points  (28 children)
Cost of ITER is about US$14billion so far. (Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) "ITER building costs are now over US$14 billion as of June 2015"
So, my maths says that with 1 week and 2 days of US military spending would buy you a shiny new ITER fusion reactor!
[–]DeadeyeDuncan 32 points33 points34 points  (27 children)
Considering that a lot of US military expenditure is about accessing and protecting fossil fuel resources, it really puts it into perspective...
[–]Saelthyn 12 points13 points14 points  (26 children)
Considering thst about 46-49% of that is paying people via paychecks and benefits? Mmmno. Add in another 25% of the budget for fixing crap and maitenance in peacetime, that' 3/4ths of the budget to just pay nerds and make sure their toys work.
So, no. Its not on perspective at all. Nevermind the fact that 'Murica allows fir things like ITER cuz other countries can afford not to have large military budgets.
[–]GreyGhostPhoto 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
Nevermind the fact that 'Murica allows fir things like ITER cuz other countries can afford not to have large military budgets.
I really wish this line of thinking would die. No one is asking America to do this, fyi.
[–]Saelthyn -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
So what's the NATO treaty then?
[–]PM-ME-NUDES-NOW 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
A poor excuse of a plan should the Warsaw Pact actually attack Western Europe. Firstly the WP doesn't exist anymore, secondly it didn't foresee any reasonably successful protection for Western Europe as we know it today, even at peak preparation of European forces.
[–]LtLabcoat 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
So, no. Its not on perspective at all. Nevermind the fact that 'Murica allows fir things like ITER cuz other countries can afford not to have large military budgets.
I really, really wish people would stop using that as an excuse. Other countries do not at all like a singular foreign nation having more military power than the entire rest of the world! That does not match any of their definitions of 'safe'! Particularly when that country has a recent history of severely screwing up it's military campaigns!
[–]Vortiya 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Yeah, but would you rather it was China or Russia?
[–]LtLabcoat 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
With the size of their militaries? Yes, I would much rather they were the big threats instead of America.
Also, China's military record is pretty golden compared to the other two.
[–]PM-ME-NUDES-NOW 0 points1 point2 points  (8 children)
You think the US military is protecting France? Against whom? The Soviet Union?
[–]lnTheRearWithTheGear 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
Is the Soviet Union invading France? Didn't think so... you're welcome.
[–]b95csf 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
France has an independent nuclear deterrent. Unless they manage to collapse their government from the inside (again) nobody's invading.
[–]PM-ME-NUDES-NOW 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Does that explain the US defense spending since the collapse of the Union though? What is to be gained for its successor, Russia, to invade trade partners in Europe?
I think it's a cheap shot to say that all the spending is supposed to protect US allies. At the end of the day, US tax payers have to foot it..in return for what?
[–]power_of_friendship 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Shit like Darfur, or China controlling all the shipping lanes into Asia are why we have our military set up in the way it is. We're as much a deterrent for war crimes as we are a navy that keeps trade stable and relatively free.
The US benefits hugely from the rest of the world expecting our intervention should something bad happen somewhere (like Sadam killing his own people or trying to control 40% of the middle east oil reserves). Businesses and consumers like stability, and we try to provide that when possible.
The middle east is obviously complicated and the cold war didn't help things--would we be better off if Sadam had free reign to do as he pleaded? It's hard to say.
[–]locallyunscene 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Just FYI, your percentages are wrong because you're comparing apples to oranges there. Notice all the footnotes for that chart; a lot of this money comes from other programs not counted in defense spending from above.
[–]skatastic57 -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
The military isn't going to segment out their budget into categories that align nicely with "protecting fossil fuel resources" and "everything else". As it stands, it requires people to protect the fossil fuel resources which means that part of the 46-49% of the budget that goes to paying people via paychecks and benefits goes to paying the people that are doing the protecting.
[–]DeadeyeDuncan -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
Yeah, and some of those people could be getting their paychecks for working on fusion instead of in the military.
[–]Saelthyn 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
So DARPA's budget?
[–]mrdpsc -4 points-3 points-2 points  (4 children)
heh, I didn't know that actively trying to save the planet by developing one of the few sustainable sources of energy was considered nerds playing with their toys. Let's just hope you don't get into politics.
[–]Saelthyn 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
I couldn't possibly do worse than Trump.
You also missed the part where the 'nerds' are the US armed forces, and toys refers to their equipment. So YMMV.

More from r/askscience

  Hide
3695
3696
3697
submitted by onemany
loading...
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 7785 on app-07 at 2016-10-18 16:18:47.543789+00:00 running 088fd84 country code: NL.
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%