I think you're wrong because you don't have an order-of-magnitude estimate of how much has actually been spent, how much we can reasonably expect, how much nuclear power is worth, and therefore how much spending
would be a bargain.
(I hope you don't mind me copying this previous comment when the New Yorker article was on HN....)
When I read this article on ITER
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/03/a-star-in-a-bot...
I was blown away by this passage:
> Typically, outsiders cannot comprehend how the massive expenditures never manage to yield energy. Typically, insiders cannot comprehend how little is being invested in a project that presents such immense technical obstacles and also such potential. A graph commonly passed around among the insiders—an enduring scrap of twentieth-century budgetary ephemera—depicts the 1976 federal plan to build a working thermonuclear reactor. The graph tracks various scenarios for attaining fusion energy. The “maximum” effort, the most expensive up front, with initial spending as high as nine billion dollars a year, was projected to yield a reactor by 1990. The “moderate” effort, with spending never exceeding four billion dollars in a year, would take fifteen more years. The fusion community might be easy to criticize for its many unmet milestones, but for decades the United States has never come close to even the moderate effort. In 1977, when the American fusion budget was at its peak, government investment in the research, adjusted for inflation, was seven hundred million dollars; by 1991, this had fallen by more than half. It is now half a billion, not appreciably more than the Korean budget.
The chart was produced by Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), which was later subsumed into the Department of Energy and presumably represented the expert wisdom at the time. (Please correct me if you have info that most experts were in fact more optimistic.) It can be found, in 1976 dollars, as figure 1 here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Winter_2...
I am having a hard time getting over the importance of this. For all the discussion of global warming, energy prices, population crunches, etc., etc., fusion is always ignored as a solution for the simple reason that people think it's unfeasibly costly. And they think that only because they think it's had a history of being grossly more expensive than promised. But if we've really known how much it would cost to get commercial fusion power since 1976, then this reasoning is completely faulty. So then if we just haven't spent the modest amount of money on it...isn't this insane? Someone please tell me what I'm missing.