Slashdot Mirror
Computing a Winner, Fusion a Loser In US Science Budget
sciencehabit writes "President Barack Obama has released a $3.901 trillion budget request to Congress, including proposals for a host of federal research agencies. Science Magazine has the breakdown, including a big win for advanced computing, a big cut for fusion, and status quo for astronomy. 'In the proposed budget, advanced computing would see its funding soar 13.2% to $541 million. BES, the biggest DOE program, would get a boost of 5.5% to $1.807 billion. BER would get a 3% bump to $628 million, and nuclear physics would enjoy a 4.3% increase to $594 million. In contrast, the fusion program would take a 17.6% cut to $416 million—$88 million less than it's getting this year. Although far from final, the numbers suggest another big dip for a program that has enjoyed a roller coaster ride in recent years. In its proposed 2013 budget, DOE called for slashing spending on domestic fusion research to help pay for the increasing U.S. contribution to the international fusion experiment, ITER, in Cadarache, France.'"
The Association of American Universities has issued a letter disapproving of the amount of research funding. The Planetary Society has broken down the proposed NASA budget.
Lets see how this comes out of the congressional sausage factory before we get too excited. Much of the spending is going to be contested. Budgets are also common places to stick unpopular riders, so there will probably be a few nasty surprises snuck in.
I saw Obama's name in the article so I'm going to comment that the dems suck donkey dick! Don't you just love first posts? ;)
DOWNVOTING BEGIN!
Fusion... we dont want that to get in the way of OIL
I think it is rational to reduce fusion research. Solar, wind and breeder fission reactors are likely to be cheaper than fusion power.
For a guy who pissed away billions on failed solar companies, you'd think he could cough up some decent coin for fusion power research. But nooOOOOOoooo...
Now we won't have any because all money goes to advanced computing = NSA's decryption center. :(
I wonder how much the explosion in computing budget, something not precedented by any actual increase in opportunity in the market or the technology ecosystem, is driven by a desire to enable NSA data-collection, something that our "freedom loving" president aggressively supports.
The only recent "big" thing is big data, like Hadoop/Couch/non-RDBMS.
What is the DOE going to do with all that budget? They are going to buy big computers, and do thing with them.
Is in investment in big data going to have a higher chance of payoffs for those folks who are spying on grandma? I don't see why not.
Are they spying on grandma? Of course they are. Of course they are. They can't not spy on grandma. When they say "they have protections" and "rule of law" they might, possibly, be talking about yesterday or today - but they have the data for tomorrow. They have no right and no substance when they talk about what might not be done to the data tomorrow. Like all weapons too horrible to use - it is only too horrible to use until it isn't.
The IRS would never target political parties, or religious groups, right? the NSA arguments come from the same source and report to the same powers.
and give the money to our own domestic fusion researchers. If ITER ultimately leads the way to a marketable fusion reactor I am sure we can either licenses the tech or let foreigners build the plants - far cheaper for the tax payer while supporting our own alternative research.
While most will hear politics I see a good move.
On big projects we move away from a cowboy Fusion project to the fundamentals of the same physics, In layman's terms, we stop putting a lot money into attempting to build our own project when we already fund and work on the same joint effort with other countries. Any money in Physics with emphasis on nuclear physics is a win for all the fields. So we don't have a home grown mega donut in the near future. What we do is make a wiser investment into tech that will get us there with more knowledge of the project when we do fund it. Let the private sector pump money into it, that is were the same folks doing the Obama-bashing wanted to do business in the first place. I say that not so much for the politics as science is more important then the halls of congress. It's the big companies like GE, Exxon, BP, Boeing etc that have the potential to gain from it in the future they need to pay forward this time.
We need science and tech multiple arenas now because we changed the world. Other countries have move to computing and non-fusion physics to grow where the US has been for decades. Many countries have pushed hard to gain computing advances to get ahead of what we had going for so long now. Just look at the number of computer trojen and viral intrusions we are seeing from international sources than before we released Stuxnet. Now we are forced to move forward on something that I only hope will take us places in physics that we are not getting to now. If we can get physics and computing down in 10 years then return with federal dollars to boost what the private sector has been working on then we might have a small sun burning in Sandia labs or on Boeing campus producing gigawatts of competitive energy.
The world is controlled by two things: Those who create, broker and distribute energy. And those who create, broken and distribute capital (debt instruments known as modern currency).
The last thing the people in charge of the world would like is cheap or free, limitless energy.
Dont kid yourself, the scientists do little jack russel terrier flips and jumps for money, and if the money brokers of the world dont want cheap and free energy, guess who is not getting funding.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
It makes sense to cut in traditional fusion research. Indeed, by now it is clear that the best and cheapest practical fusion energy reactor for the foreseeable future has been found in the form the gravity stabilized fusion reactor called Sun. With declining costs solar panels already compete with conventional nuclear reactors. If the trend continue to ~2020 even coal and oil might be seen then as too expensive in regards of solar energy.
Seriously? Computing can handle itself. Just don't piss off the community which is willing to output most research for free. The US government should be looking at curtailing copyright laws so that people can study and learn from older technologies, in order to produce better, more stable technology for the future. These increases in budget are modest at best anyway. If the USA were serious, they'd cut the defense budget, quit threatening countries they don't belong in and start contributing to the ivory tower in a more meaningful way by reallocating those funds to real research.
We know it works - the tricky bits are scaling it down and keeping it under control.
Oh yeah and let's not forget that it was OBAMA that cut NASA's budget and cancelled the shuttle program. You're worthless as a human being.
Not quite true-- in fact, it was Bush (the George W. one) who cancelled the shuttle program. Obama actually added one more shuttle flight (STS 135) after the proposed cancellation last flight. By the time Obama got into office, they had already shut down the program-- it was a matter of just flying the stocks remaining. (the last flight that Obama added was, basically, using up the last of the tanks.)
The reason Bush put forth to cancel the shuttle program was to use the savings to fund a new vehicle development program named "Constellation," but the funding for Constellation kept getting cut-- it never was enough to fund the program that they had proposed.
The DOE (yes, not the DOD) is currently refurbishing as many as 2,000 submarine-based W76 warheads at a cost of roughly $2 million each.
Make of that what you will.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
All this talk of millions, billions and trillions as if they were drops in a bucket, and yet I still know very few people who earn enough to support themselves let alone families or school. I imagine all these people thinking "Retirement savings? HA! First need to eat today!" This is all as their wages are going down compared to the price of rent and food, while their taxes are going up.. Most are just glad they have parents who's retirement they can leach off of.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Commissioned PV is under $1.25 a watt. If you don't understand what that means, then you should go look it up.
A "watt", for solar, means one watt of electrical production at noon on a cloud free day.
Since peak power usage (in the US) tends to be in the afternoon, that's excellent up to about 10% market penetration Above that, you need energy storage, which is currently not cost effective, although there are several systems that are coming along in the future and look good. However, storage adds to the cost-- it's no longer a dollar a watt if you have to operate and pay for a storage system.
Solar is also less effective in winter (shorter days) and in locations with significant overcast.
Solar is great-- for some utility applications. The true answer is, there is room for multiple approaches to technology development.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Breeder reactors may very well work out well. We'll see.
Wind power is a very nice supplement to use when it's windy, so it works well in addition to base power in certain geographical areas. Wind is NOT base power simply because it's not windy all the time. When it happens to be windy, you can dial back your natural gas or nuclear generation (base) for an hour.
Solar electric is great for locations where you can't easily run a power line, like a vacation cabin in the wilderness. However, it costs over ten times as much as natural gas or hyroelectric. Your monthly electric bill is probably around $150 right now. If you switched to solar, it would cost $1,500 / month. That just doesn't work. Direct solar preheating, on the other hand, works well in many locations. (Let the sun warm your water before it goes to the water heater.)
For electricity and vehicles, there are two / three choices for base load - fossil fuels or nuclear. Fossil fuels can be divided into traditional (coal, heavy oil) and cleaner (natural gas).
Maybe they should get their shit together, build something realistic for the long term, and start selling the electricity then. If I invented a magic device that created gold, I'd probably be selling the gold. Just saying.
Their budget is 100's of millions of dollars and yet they want more $ to continue doing the mediocre work they're doing with laser and tokamak research.
Instead take 100 million and give it out to 10 different types of Fusion projects at 10 million a piece, including the Dense Plasma Focus and Polywell. Because the conventional approach hasn't worked in 50+ years. And at this point they should be ashamed of their continued failure.
Solar electric costs ten times as much as hydro or natural gas. So if everyone was using solar power, instead of paying $150 / month for your electric bill, it would be $1,500 / month. If paying $1,500 / month for electricity is your definition of "did work" you must be that filthy 0.0001%, mega wealthy.
Yes, I'm aware that if you're the only one using solar, politicians will force al of your neighbors to pay the bill. Subsidies "work" when 1,000 people are all subsidizing one guy. We can't all subsidize ourselves $1,500 / month though.
If you enjoy solar, talk about the solar that DOES work - direct solar (pre)heating, for example. Let the sun warm your water before it heads to the water heater. THAT works. Solar electric, not so much, though it is a good way to power a low end calculator.
Since you brought up the actual numbers, I figured I'd add those in. So we have:
Nuclear 7 cents
Natural Gas 3.5 cents
--------
Solar 35 cents (10AM - 4 PM only)
Wind 5 cents (when wind is between 30-40 MPH)
The two groups are separate because the top two are base power - reliable sources available all the time.
The bottom two are supplementary power - they are available SOMETIMES, and when they are available you can reduce the generation from the base power plants.
$100 million is nothing compared to the scope of the problem. The Manhattan project was around $25 billion over about 4 years. The Apollo program cost $170 billion over about 15 years. The reason why fusion hasn't worked yet is simply because it hasn't been funded to those levels yet.
How can they do this now when fusion is only 30 years away?!?!
And the conversation goes something like this:
"We must make sure those little shits have no private communication and Exxon dominates energy production. If those dirty unwashed masses where every to gain political control and self sufficiency it would be the end for all of us."
You don't need any energy storage as long as your base power can supply all your needs. Period. If nuclear, hydro, natural gas, and coal can provide all of power, you don't need to store ie solar. Which is good, becuase there is no feasible means of storage. How much wind or solar you have has ZERO effect on that. Sometimes wind will make no power, either because it's not windy enough, or it's too windy. So you need the reliable sources to provide 100% during those times.
I see you've "rebutted" the DOE price survey by pointing to a blogger as your source. LOL. Garfield, the cartoon cat, says your're mistaken.
$50 million of the budget is for a non-standard tokamak, non-laser project, the NSTX. Another $30 million goes to plasma and other design research. They already have a couple projects on the scale you suggest, including RFP and stellerator work, plus separate money for diagnostic development and international collaboration that also goes into such machines as much as tokamaks. The problem with funding 10 projects at the $10 million level, is that there are several already claiming they are ready for the $100 million level. The result is that while they fund dozens of projects across different budget scales, they have limited choice in who can become bigger to keep going, and have to dump those they chose not to become bigger. You can't keep funding smaller projects at $10 million each, as then there will be diminishing returns and they won't actually go toward a workable reactor.
The only two citations I see in that article are a) the solar energy association and b) the head of a solar company. If their claim is in any way hinted at by any DOE report , it's too bad they didn't cite that report. I have a guess as to why they didn't cite anything. I wouldn't be surprised if DOE had run a projection on the scenario that taxpayers might subsidize solar more, so one person using solar would pay less because his neighbors are effectively paying the outrageous cost. They could have also done a "what if" analysis of what would happen IF solar electric magically became feasible.(Starting with 24 / 365 sunshine).
DOE says the national average is 35 cents. .?
I don't know where you got 11 cents. Is that the marginal cost at 1PM on a sunny day in Southern California? Is that the panel manufacturing cost, ignoring installation, trackers, distribution, etc
You keep posting that, a blogger who starts his post with "change all the numbers, because solar is way more effective than the manufacturers rate their systems to be". That blogger WISHES solar was only twice as expensive. The DOE price survey says solar customers actually pay ten times as much.
Could be that controlled fusion is imposable and a $trillion a year in research would not produce it. Or the oil companies are spending tens of billions a year to stop it. Either way, fusion ain't happening.
> I see you've "rebutted" the DOE price survey by pointing to a blogger as your source.
Yes, I quoted me. A professional in the PV field.
The DOE report in question is based on numbers that are approximately five years old. That's how long it takes them to put reports together. In the last five years, the price of PV has fallen seven times. When you divide by seven, you get my number.
But what's really telling is that the post in question shows you how to do this calculation yourself using up-to-date numbers. But clearly you didn't bother to use the two minutes it takes. Are you really that lazy, or just don't want to admit you might be wrong?
> You don't need any energy storage as long as your base power can supply all your needs. Period
Incorrect, trivially so. If your base load power cannot throttle, when you can't use it all you need to dump it. There are a limited number of places you can do this, and when they run out you have to shut down the plants.
Nuclear is a good example. Most reactors can throttle about 15 to 25% within a 24 hour period, and somewhat less than that on a day-to-day basis. Yet daily power use varies at least 50% practically everywhere. So if you had a 100% nuclear base load supply, you'd have to find somewhere to dump about 30% of it every day.
And that really is like dumping 30% of your money into the turbines, which is precisely why fission represents a fairly small percentage of most supplies, including here in Ontario which has one of the highest penetrations at a little over 50%. If we go any higher, we have to start dumping power. France has pushed this to 75% through a fascinating system of rotating fuelling, but even then they've had to shut down parts of the network during heat waves.
Natural gas is a wonderful dispatchable source, as is hydro and to somewhat less extent, coal. A grid consisting of as much PV, wind and hydro you can make, with NG filling the rest, appears to be the future in North America at least. Such a system is sustainable, low cost, and much lower carbon than the one we had five years ago. And it's not just "nice to have", it's the fact on the ground: coal and nuclear plants are being turned off as I write this, while NG, PV and wind compete for title of "fastest installed".
We are constantly faced with cuts in our domestic programs/R&D.. If you ask me we are just cutting our own throats.
Wouldn't it be easier, and more beneficial to the USA, to cut all the BS foreign aid to everyone else?
Advances in computing can lead to advances in fusion research. This may be a short-term loss for fusion, but net gain in the long-term.
An addendum, proving the point:
The DOE is currently estimating installation prices in 2018, you can see their numbers here:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
If you look at the number for PV, you'll see they predict $130.4/MWh at 25% CF. So that's $32.6/Mw, essentially. From that they estimate a total all-in cost of 144.3. Systems are going in at half that all over the place. First Solar just signed a PPA at 5.6 cents/kWh for 20 years in Nevada, which implies an installed cost of 85 cents/W.
If you compare that number to others on the same chart, even the DOE is saying things are pretty good. For instance, they say "Advanced Nuclear" is 108.4. So basically they're saying PV is expected to cost just a little more than nuclear in 2018. They predict wind will be significantly less expensive.
Yes, I'm aware that older DOE reports have much higher numbers for PV and wind, etc. Which simply shows how quickly things are changing in this field. It is also VERY telling when you take their predictions over the last 10 years and graph them.
Why don't they just crowdfund fusion research?
If Star Citizen can get 40 million, I suspect Fusion research could get a LOT more.
-
Computing research can help advance and perfect the Panopticon; Fusion would only damage Big Oil's profits and power.
Pretty clear choice for 99% of politicians.
> Since peak power usage (in the US) tends to be in the afternoon, that's excellent up
> to about 10% market penetration Above that, you need energy storage
40%
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/variable-renewable-power-can-reach-40-percent-capacity-very-cheaply/
40% is a rather selective reading of that article. The article you link states:
"Now, the International Energy Agency has weighed in with a report on integrating renewables. It finds that, as long as intermittent power sources are under 10 percent of the total energy use, they can essentially be added for free."
That's pretty close to what I just said. (The article is talking about wind plus solar, while I was discussing solar alone). It goes on to talk about higher penetration:
"The report lumps wind and solar into a category it terms "variable renewable energy" and then it says "Things start to change as the fraction of power generated by VREs approaches 20 percent, and there are definitely new challenges as it reaches 30 to 40 percent."
So: I said solar is excellent at market penetration up to 10%, and this article says for solar plus wind together the cost changes at power fraction up to 20%, with "new challenges" as it reaches 30 to 40%.
I'd say we're saying the same thing.
As for the 40% you quote, the article says "that would require substantial reshaping of the rest of the grid--something that's much easier to do outside of mature economies."
The U.S is a mature economy, so that part isn't talking about us.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Your link says that's the predicted cost to the utility to build a solar plant. That is, not including distribution costs, etc.
The actual retail price is 35 cents, compared to 3.5 for natural gas.
Even your link says "solar electricity doesn’t really compete" with other sources.
Again, Obama proves he is trying to destroy America.
Get rid of the space shuttle before we have a replacement, and make us depend on Russia to go to and from the ISS.
Reduce our military at the same time he is trying to get us into several wars.
Try to force higher expenses (Obamacare) on everybody.
Anger the general population by trying to take away our 2nd amendment right. (will result in civil war).
Obama is a traitor, many times over; when are you going to get it?
> This is the DOE *prediction* is for 2018
Finally you said something honest! All this time you've been saying 11 cents, comparing it to the 3.5 cent actual retail price of natural gas. I'm glad you're now being a little more transparent - some people PREDICT that one day the cost to build new solar plant may come down. Other people predict Bitcoin will make them rich. I'm not betting on either.
Nanosolar scammed / lost half a billion of our money, Mt Gox did the same. Similarly for Solyndra and all the other bitcoin scams / losses. The one difference between Bitcoin and solar is that Bitcoin is available 24 hours a day.
but from the opposite perspective what sort of man slaughters people without even giving them a chance to fight back?
Uh, anyone who wants to win a war?
"If you switched to solar, it would cost $1,500 / month. "
Please do some research before spouting off with this nonsense. Since there is abundant info on the net showing how pitifully misinformed you are, I'm not going to even bother citing from the enormous body of info to the contrary.
For DIY real world system prices, try Sunelectronics. http://sunelec.com/ I have no affiliation with this outfit. They have panel prices in the 75c/watt area. They used to have system quotes for grid tie residential that were some of the best around.
I'm in the Mojave desert. There is solar going in all over the place. LOTS of it. EVERYWHERE. It works.
I get called by scammers all the time, trying to sell me overpriced systems, capture the tax credits, and line their own pockets. Do your research. You can zero a meter for several thousand gross for a SFR. Despite the scams, politics, corruption and fear mongering, PV works, and will only get better over time.
My 2p.
Or on Apollo fucking one in the mid 1960s onwards.
I really hate the sort of argument style where someone deliberately pretends to be stupid to set up a bait and switch. It's not some sort of high school mass debate here. It's a discussion and nobody needs to win.
R&D into Fusion is -not- "too big [in $$$ spent] to fail"
I don't get WHY we've embraced high-cost Fusion
for as long as we have, ie, while continuing to ignore
-proven- Energy from Thorium's cost-effectiveness,
energy-efficiency & very low waste production advan-
tages over sloppy current (ie, "Nuclear 1.0") nuclear
technologies, especially after Fukushima's proof of
its relatively unsafe nature.
CURRENT "best" nuclear reactor designs give only:
a. excessively high construction (& financing) costs
b. low levels of safety, even w/best human operator
c. high costs for (solid) fuel-rods (zero $ in LFTRs)
d. 1% of fuel-rods' energy used, when pulled out
e. costly reactor down-times to change fuel-rods
f. much more costly spent-fuel waste by volume & $$
g. higher proliferation risk, due to plutonium in waste
h. high cooling-water usage (also restricts location)
i. low temp. output means inefficient electricity gen'n
j. costly security req'ts dictate fixed-location plants
k. reputation for poor decision-making, at each step
EfT's Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors offer us:
a. lower construction costs (low operating pressure)
b. intrinsic safety (they're"walk-away safe")
c. no needs for any fuel-rods at all
d. about 99% fuel utilization: & can eat "spent-fuel"
e. shorter shutdowns possible, but unnecessary
f. much less waste produced; reduces "old" waste
g. reduced proliferation risk; no weapons grade Pu
h. needs NO scarce water (locate "anywhere")
i. high temp. output means efficient electricity gen'n
j. cost-effective factory-made & modular options
k. genuine pride in design excellence & efficiency
Community-driven push for new LFTR-enabling
regulations & gov't support for R&D funding for
Energy from Thorium (LFTRs), more modular
LFTRs (meaning less need for costly grid infra-
structure & transmission costs & energy losses).
In short, an opportunity of a Lifetime for cheap,
reliable, safe, & "peace-conducive" energy, that
would get us back on-track towards "increased
quality of Life for the next generation."
So, "Nuclear 2.0" Energy from Thorium (LFTRs) :-)
seems good to me.
I am just surprised the president decided to follow the law this time and actually submit a budget - ok it is legally late but what can you do when a president refuses to follow this and many other laws?
Storage, renewable energy, base power etc. Have nothing to do with each other at all.
Adding 'period' to your sentences only makes sense if you are able to make a profound statement, which you did not.
Sometimes wind will make no power, either because it's not windy enough, or it's too windy. So you need the reliable sources to provide 100% during those times.
That is just nonsense.
Read something about weather or climate.
Oh, sorry. My fault. My appologizes. You live in Gibraltar, Monaco, Andorra? Your country has only one single 1km x 1km big wind farm? Sure, now you are fucked, that punny wind farm won't work if you have a 50km diameter wind still eye above your punny 5km x 5km diameter country. On the other hand your nuclear plant is not affected by this wind still area. Oh? Andorra, Monacco, Gibraltar (insert any other european dwarf nation) has no single nuclear 'base load' plant at all ... ... oh? Period, that was not your period erm point, or?
Running black outs and brown outs and burn outs are your doom.
Well, Orwell and Huxley where right, the newspeak and gedankenkontrolle is so hard that we never hear about this stuff. Luckily the casinos and banks in those countries are immune to power failures
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
With all your questions and 'numbered' points, I suggest you go back to school.
That will answer most of your points.
Regarding fission: waste storage, reprocessing and decommissioning comes immediatly to mind.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A watt of solar power is a watt of solar power.
No.
Solar panels are rated for capacity in "peak watts". That means: the solar panel will produce one watt under an illumination of 1 kW/m2. 1 kW per square meter is, roughly, the intensity at noon on a cloud free day.
If the illumination is not 1 kW/m2: it will not produce one watt.
It means nothing in regard to day time or cloudness.
If it is cloudy, a 1-kW solar panel will not produce 1 kW of electrical output. If it is after sunset, a 1-kW solar panel will not produce 1 kW. Time of day and cloudiness determine the power output.
E.g. no one prevents you to build your 1kw plant to point to 15 O'Clock and have the right angle to produce '100%' of its rated yield in September and April.
That is correct. You can chose which way to tilt your panel, which will set what time you produce peak power. It's not always best to tilt at the angle to maximize integrated power.
Noon is only relevant if you are so stupid to point your plant right now to due south at 12:00 in July. (And the energy difference of a proper angled plant for 15:00 in September or 12:00 in June is less than a percent)
For a tracking collector, that's probably about right. For a fixed-tilt collector, the loss is a bit more than that. The output goes as cosine of the angle, times the air mass factor (which to first order we can neglect). Since the sun moves 15 per hour, going from noon to 15:00 you lose by cosine of 45, 0.707 (about 30%).
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You're blabbering nonsense words in week old threads. Take your meds so you can put together a sentence.