The Economist describes some of the international political machinations revolving around fusion research. The report is full of pessimism about the viability of fusion power from a strictly economic standpoint; in particular the concern is that the discount rate means fusion power just isn't valuable enough in the near term (the Economist uses the delightful term uneconomic). I find this argument bizarre... theoretically fusion represents a near infinite power source, which should negate the effects of the discount rate on net present value calculations, right? That the timeframe is on the order of a lifetime might deter corporations from investing, but shouldn't governments still be interested?
Meanwhile there was this story (re the Bush admin's moonbase plans) about mining the moon for Helium-3, which turns out to be the perfect fuel for fusion reactions since there are no radioactive biproducts. But talk about investing with the distant future! This would mean a permanent moonbase, god knows how many moonbased employees, and active shipping lines to and from. It would also mean strip mining the surface of the moon, which has its own disturbing sciencefictional overtones.
Post a comment