The benefits of fusion will not come cheaply, but the cost is smaller than that of other projects that the USA has undertaken with success. Figure 11.1 compares the costs of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (up to 2010) with the projected cost of developing a fusion reactor. In constant 2010 US dollars, the Manhattan Project cost $22.6B, and the longer Apollo pro­gram cost $100.8B.’ Other estimates are twice as high.2 The two current wars have

cost $732B and $282B, respectively, so far.3 The cost of developing fusion is a highly conjectural estimate. The cost of ITER, originally set at €5B ($6.3B), has risen to €16B ($21B).4 Engineering research will require fusion development facilities (FDFs). These have not been costed out, but one design is 45% the linear size of ITER, and the cost rises as the size squared. With the higher projected cost of ITER, this would make an FDF cost about $4.2B. Perhaps three of them would be required for a total of $12.6B. The DEMO would cost at least twice as much as ITER or $42B. The total is $75B, less than that of the Apollo program, which did not solve any pressing problems. After DEMO has been run successfully, further development would be turned over to private industry, and federal support would no longer be needed. The fusion cost given here is a guess, but it is clear that the USA has the resources to develop fusion without outside help. It is only a matter of priorities. Jack Kennedy showed that it can be done.

Figure 11.2 gives a breakdown of the $5.1B FY 2011 budget request of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.5 Fusion Energy Sciences is the item that supports magnetic fusion research. It is the smallest item there. Basic Energy Sciences is deservedly the largest item because it supports current renewable ener­gies like wind and solar. High-energy physics traditionally has a large budget because it is the community that gave us the hydrogen bomb to win WWII. It still has a large budget for accelerators and experiments that can improve our knowledge of the structure of matter. This is the forefront of science, but mankind may or may not need to know this to survive.

Figure 11.3 compares the annual budgets in the USA for magnetic and inertial confinement fusion research with the $1.9B for the NASA space program. The magnetic fusion budget includes a paltry $80M contribution to ITER, equivalent to four hours of expenditures in the Iraq war. Exploration of the solar system (NASA) and study of the behavior of matter under extreme conditions (ICF) are exciting extensions of modern knowledge which scientists are happy to have funded because of their importance to national security. These programs, however, contribute little to the solution of environmental and energy issues. We are spending more money looking for the Higgs boson than for a solution to global warming and oil shortage. Re-examination of priorities is in order.

Figure 11.4 shows the cost of the ITER experiment, including construction but not operation. The expense is shared by seven nations. It is the first giant step toward fusion power. Compared with this is the amount spent by the USA alone to wage the war in Iraq for one month.6 The graph speaks for itself. The USA could easily have taken this step alone had it not been so dependent on Mid-Eastern oil.