4 ms·

> "ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. ITER will be the first fusion device to maintain fusion for long periods of time. And ITER will b

> "ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. ITER will be the first fusion device to maintain fusion for long periods of time. And ITER will be the first fusion device to test the integrated technologies, materials, and physics regimes necessary for the commercial production of fusion-based electricity." Lord, let us pray that is not true, as ITER is notorious for pushing their time tables back. Right now they are pushing 2027.

eudox 11y ago
>ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. ITER will be the first fusion device to maintain fusion for long periods of time. Why is it legal for government projects to lie so brazenly? Or, at the very least, make these kinds of promises.
- gawa 11y ago
  It's because scientists need money to do their work. And their work is to find things we don't know yet, or to check for things we are not sure of : it's a risky and costly business. Because scientists need money to get started, they have to appeal to the interests of those who are paying - i.e the tax payers. That's why the promise always precedes science work. After enough actual work, you'll have a better view of what's ahead. You'll be able to revise the roadmap and to measure the costs, or abandon it ... To sum it up : > ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. You'll never get any funds (nor a high moral among the workers teams) if you frame your research project as "yet another (probably doomed) attempt at nuclear fusion energy".
venomsnake 11y ago
> "ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. Is that proven or just hopeful?
- Someone 11y ago
  AFAIK, proven in the sense that extrapolating known results shows that a device this size should be net positive, and that material scientists state that the necessary parts can be made, size- and tolerance-wise. Hopeful in the sense that the pudding hasn't been eaten and in that it may take only one of these material scientists to be wrong or too optimistic to turn a 'can' into a 'cannot' (In many cases, we have never built parts at the necessary scale and tolerances, so scientists assessing whether we can build them have to extrapolate, too) And of course, it helps for many of the scientists involved to be on the optimistic side. That possibly is a good thing, as we will never know whether we can build this if we do not try doing it. Finally, there always is a chance that we overlook some important problem, or (less likely) that new science rears its head.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    So it is expected. Because it was stated as "settled and done" in the article. Which was a surprise to me, since my opinion on the matter is close to yours.

eudox 11y ago

>ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. ITER will be the first fusion device to maintain fusion for long periods of time. Why is it legal for government projects to lie so brazenly? Or, at the very least, make these kinds of promises.

gawa 11y ago
It's because scientists need money to do their work. And their work is to find things we don't know yet, or to check for things we are not sure of : it's a risky and costly business. Because scientists need money to get started, they have to appeal to the interests of those who are paying - i.e the tax payers. That's why the promise always precedes science work. After enough actual work, you'll have a better view of what's ahead. You'll be able to revise the roadmap and to measure the costs, or abandon it ... To sum it up : > ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. You'll never get any funds (nor a high moral among the workers teams) if you frame your research project as "yet another (probably doomed) attempt at nuclear fusion energy".

venomsnake 11y ago

> "ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. Is that proven or just hopeful?

Someone 11y ago
AFAIK, proven in the sense that extrapolating known results shows that a device this size should be net positive, and that material scientists state that the necessary parts can be made, size- and tolerance-wise. Hopeful in the sense that the pudding hasn't been eaten and in that it may take only one of these material scientists to be wrong or too optimistic to turn a 'can' into a 'cannot' (In many cases, we have never built parts at the necessary scale and tolerances, so scientists assessing whether we can build them have to extrapolate, too) And of course, it helps for many of the scientists involved to be on the optimistic side. That possibly is a good thing, as we will never know whether we can build this if we do not try doing it. Finally, there always is a chance that we overlook some important problem, or (less likely) that new science rears its head.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  So it is expected. Because it was stated as "settled and done" in the article. Which was a surprise to me, since my opinion on the matter is close to yours.