[tanzbaer]

I've heard a similar sentiment from a researcher that's specialized in fusion. How do you know that money is the main hindrance? Could we say the same thing for other areas of research, like room temperature super conductors or the unification of quantum theory with gravity? In any area more money may or may not lead to a significant progress, but how do you know that's definitely the case for fusion?

[craftinator]

It's likely the case for fusion, in that fusion is an extremely high energy research area. Room temp superconductor research is several orders of magnitude lower in energy usage. Energy has a intrinsic cost, and the more energy involved, the more infrastructure required to manage it. There is no data here, but I imagine the total cost is logarithmic, with several hockey stick bends where certain materials are no longer viable in those energy levels.

An example: casting You can cast wax nearly for free, given that you salvage the mold materials and carve them by hand, sunlight can be used to melt the wax (~70C), and almost no materials are needed to control heat. Casting pewter is a bit more difficult, as a wooden mold will burn a bit, and you'll need some type of heat control tech, such as an oven or microwave or solar forge (~200C). The temperature has only tripled, but already materials no longer work and costs are significantly higher. I've worked in a titanium foundry and the cost is enormous compared to low energy areas.

[AtlasBarfed]

What's the guarantee of payoff for that level of investment? LFTR always seemed much more likely to produce such a payoff if given sufficient investment.

But I doubt either can beat what solar and wind are poised to produce. They are cheaper than installed coal now, and are targeting installed natural gas.

Battery will handle the rest of storage/load needs.