FYI:
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/budge ... 13_FES.pdf
Fusion Energy Sciences; US FY2013 Budget.
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Fusion Energy Sciences; US FY2013 Budget.
Only 0.4 billion!..............or..........0.0004 Trillion...A mere pitance. This is "holding pattern" or "active stasis" money!
Trying to do fusion on th' cheap are we? Sounds like us here at fusor.net.
Richard Hull
Trying to do fusion on th' cheap are we? Sounds like us here at fusor.net.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Fusion Energy Sciences; US FY2013 Budget.
I looked these facts up when I read an article that said "...Obama submitted a 2013 budget request to Congress that would slash the nation's already beleaguered domestic fusion program while boosting the U.S. contribution to ITER..."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6071/901.short
A million or two 'hair-cut' here-and-there on those US project that have already been peddling the gravy train for 20 years or more with little to show, but I didn't quite recognise any 'slashing' going on that justified the statement in sciencemag.
Like you say, Richard, it is a pitance. Consider - a GW power station costs several billion to build, not even counting running costs. They could add a barely noticeable 10% 'tax' on the construction value of fossil fuel power stations, and just one power station build per year would then fund this current fusion programme in its entirety!
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6071/901.short
A million or two 'hair-cut' here-and-there on those US project that have already been peddling the gravy train for 20 years or more with little to show, but I didn't quite recognise any 'slashing' going on that justified the statement in sciencemag.
Like you say, Richard, it is a pitance. Consider - a GW power station costs several billion to build, not even counting running costs. They could add a barely noticeable 10% 'tax' on the construction value of fossil fuel power stations, and just one power station build per year would then fund this current fusion programme in its entirety!