DOE has decided to scrap plans for FIRE, which was originally intended to serve as an alternative to the International Thermonuclear Energy Experiment (ITER, later changed to 'Iter'). This is a bad thing for reasons too numerous to list. For one thing, it puts all the fusion eggs in one basket. For another, that basket is internationalized, so that every election, every economic shift, every change of national priorities, in every one of the major participating nations will threaten the experiment.

The original recommendation from the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee was that if there had not been a decision to proceed with Iter by the end of July 2004, then work should move ahead on FIRE. Unfortunately the Bush administration decided that Iter was a good idea, for reasons which are still not clear to me - I suspect the desire to do a little international fence-mending had something to do with it. Anyway, with Iter rejoined (the US had dropped out in 1998), FIRE is superfluous, at least if you assume Iter is going to meet its program goals, which I seriously doubt (at least, assuming that staying under budget is one of them). FIRE has been criticized for relying on pedestrian technologies like copper magnets instead of superconductors, but that's a feature, not a bug. FIRE is a much smaller and less ambitious experiment than Iter, and it's firmly in the hands of the US. Both things increase the prospects of success - the lower ambition makes the technical aspects more likely to succeed, and the single government funding source makes the political aspects less likely to force major redesigns partway through.

Given my druthers I wouldn't fund either Iter or FIRE, preferring to put money into a basket of alternative confinement concepts, and try novel things like prizes. Kerry has made energy independence a major platform plank, so if he wins there may be additional funding for fusion, but Iter is going to suck up a lot of that, and any project which runs alongside Iter will almost certainly get killed as soon as there is a funding crunch. I like the energy independence platform plank: it seems obvious to me that reducing our dependence on oil from the mideast increases the range of options for dealing with militant Islam. In particular, getting to the point where the Saudis no longer have any ability to affect the US economy seems quite desirable, since their official national religion is extremist Islam - how anyone could possibly consider them to be our allies is beyond me, but that's a post for another day.

The upshot of this latest development is that commercially viable fusion energy has receded still further into the future. Under a Kerry administration it would most likely get a little closer, but not by much, and not cheaply.

Show me that we are close and we will do the research ourselves...

I imagine that is roughly how the discussion will go with politicians when you want funding for fusion research. Am I far off? I've been watching the subject on and off for 20 years and seen the funding bounce around too. ARE we close enough to justify spending all our own money to own the technology?

Good Question. We're not there yet, but we could be in about ten years, with a focussed research program. The big issues are the first wall (the plasma facing surface gets torched), neutronics (a catch all for issues related to neutron activation), and low cost magnets (for at least some concepts). These will be addressed by Iter, but not necessarily in a way that is applicable to non-tokamak machines.

I should probably put together a long post on this. It'd be good for me to really work through the details.

I'd read a long post on the subject. I need a good catch up article. The last time I seriously thought about fusion was in the 80's as a student on a tour at Livermore. It was a big machine and all the faces in the room were long and depressed. The laser hardware we saw later that day seemed like a good way to explode small flaws in the focusing lenses. 8)

I'd love to see that article. (Remember, don't suggest things unless you really plan on doing them!)

The U.S. growth rate just dropped by a third in large part due to oil prices. Our interest in the Middle East isn't just for oil, but that is certainly a major factor. A Federal budget of $20 billion or so a year for new energy production, management and conservation methods would be small compared to the costs of being dependent on foreign supplies of dirty fossil fuel.

"In particular, getting to the point where the Saudis no longer have any ability to affect the US economy seems quite desirable, since their official national religion is extremist Islam - how anyone could possibly consider them to be our allies is beyond me, but that's a post for another day."

Um. Because both the Saudis and the Americans benefit from the relationship.

The Saudis can't raise the price of oil unreasonably, because then America invades them (it was *seriously* considered during the price hike in the 70s). Actually petroleum is cheaper than mineral water or coca cola, and has remained so over many decades.

You'll note that the recent price rises aren't due to the Saudis raising the price per se- it's mainly China suddenly raising their usage of oil and creating a price rise.

America really doesn't want to invade because it would cause a massive war in the middle east that would make the Iraq skirmishes look like a tea party.

Meanwhile Saudi is selling the oil to the west and making good money; they've used the money to educate, feed and clothe their very poor country.

The idea that they are a Moslem state and so therefore enemies is soooo simplistic and bigotted I'm not even going to comment; oops I did that already.

Trade is such a stabilising influence. I like that about trade.

The idea that they are a Moslem state and so therefore enemies is soooo simplistic and bigotted I'm not even going to comment

The problem is not that Saudi Arabia is a muslim country, it's that the particular form of Islam which is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism. This sect preaches active conquest, including conquest of non-wahhabi muslims. It's among the most intolerant forms of Islam anywhere, and the Saudi government has been actively spreading it to other nations. Islam has many forms, and most of them are completely unobjectionable. Wahhabism is to Islam what the Inquisition was to Catholicism. It is on Wahhabism that the Saudi laws forbidding women to drive are based, along with such lovely things as cutting off the hands of convicted thieves.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that Saudi Islam is just another religion: It's vicious, violent, expansionist, and brutal towards anyone who isn't a male believer. The fact that trade is stabilizing is a negative, not a positive. The sooner Wahhabism is displaced from power in Saudi Arabia, the better, not just for Saudis (particularly women), but also for all the countries where the Saudis have been promoting their brand of extremism.

Before you sling accusations of bigotry, I'd suggest you take basic steps to see if they are warranted. Wahhabism is what is driving Osama Bin Laden. It is the absolute core of the problem, and Saudi Arabia is the source. Bush's moral cowardice in failing to confront the Saudis is just one reason to vote him out.

Actually, ITER is being delayed because of a tug of war between Europe and Japan. Both want to host the site. Europe, Russia and China support the European site, Japan, Korea and the USA support the Japanese site. The Canadians, not wanting to go against the European or USA vote, have exited the decision process. So much for international fence-mending.

Regarding energy, we could always do like the Nazis in WW2. Generate oil from coal and hydrogen. You can get hydrogen from water easily. All it takes is real cheap electricity (funny how nearly any idea works with cheap electricity!). You could get electricity from nuclear, coal, gas, wind, solar, etc. The USA has loads of coal. Eventually you would want
to save the coal and gas exclusively for oil.

By the time coal runs out, we should have figured out some other, hopefully cheap, way to make hydrocarbons. I suspect this will require genetic engineering and/or nanotechnology.

IMHO governments right now should be pushing for anything that can provide cheap electricity using secure sources, i.e. not in some 3rd world country ran by a mad dictator.
They should also fund synthetic hydrocarbon fuel research, plus research on ways to make hydrocarbon powered vehicles more energy efficient and less polluting, like SOFC fuel cells.

Keep using oil while it is cheap, and when it gets expensive, ramp up production of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels.

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $34010. Isn't that crazy!