3 ms·

Most research advances are either: - Small, incremental, predictable improvements, due to more accurate modelling, tighter tolerances, bigger budgets, etc. -

Most research advances are either: - Small, incremental, predictable improvements, due to more accurate modelling, tighter tolerances, bigger budgets, etc. - Big breakthroughs, usually on shoestring budgets. The largest impact comes from the latter, but they're very rare and unpredictable. We might fund thousands of small projects over decades and see nothing particularly substantial. Big budget projects are riskier, since we can't fund many of them. Hence these tend to be the first type of project: where we can be quite confident on the capabilities and outcomes, so we'll see some improvement; even though it might not be as promising as the possibilities claimed by umpteen smaller projects. It's also easier for individual institutions, companies, countries, etc. to fund smaller projects themselves. There's no point wading through the politics required to pool resources into a large international collaboration, if we're just going to divide up those resources between a bunch of small projects anyway ;)

nickik 8y ago
> The largest impact comes from the latter, but they're very rare and unpredictable. We might fund thousands of small projects over decades and see nothing particularly substantial. But that is not the case in fusion. We had many advances in fusion by small companies. > here's no point wading through the politics required to pool resources into a large international collaboration, if we're just going to divide up those resources between a bunch of small projects anyway ;) I do understand the political problem. However still it could be collaboration for a contest, rather then organize this project as a multi country technical problem. And I would even be happy with just 3-5 projects that get many, many billions in the end. I mean lets be honest, if it costs $20 billion (and lets be honest it will be way more) to develop it will never be economical anyway. There are lots and lots of people who would be happy to get a couple million for some fusion projects. Others believe they could build a break even project with 10s millions. And we could reinforce projects that make rapid advancement. It would also create a large fusion industry with different companies going into 'supplier' mode and so on.
- sgift 8y ago
  > And I would even be happy with just 3-5 projects that get many, many billions in the end. I mean lets be honest, if it costs $20 billion (and lets be honest it will be way more) to develop it will never be economical anyway. It's a science project. It doesn't have to be economical. It is there to establish the path to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station > There are lots and lots of people who would be happy to get a couple million for some fusion projects. Others believe they could build a break even project with 10s millions. And we could reinforce projects that make rapid advancement. Many people believe many things. There's a reason we do ITER: It has the best chance to actually work, unlike all the "cheap" 'hey, I'm a genius, I can do it with far less money!' projects out there.
  - nickik 8y ago
    > It's a science project. It doesn't have to be economical. It is there to establish the path to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station Its a wildly expensive science project that produces far less science and far more overhead and waste. And as we have already established, for such a long project it gets overtaken by technology. And the 'powerstation' will cost billions upon billions more and it will still not even be close to economical. > Many people believe many things. There's a reason we do ITER: It has the best chance to actually work, unlike all the "cheap" 'hey, I'm a genius, I can do it with far less money!' projects out there. By what definition of 'work'? They might manage to get break even if they throw enough money at it. But if you had said, any project that shows break even can get 1 billion. That would be an effective use of money. An I'm not saying any of these projects should get 20 billion because they think they are smarter. But how about getting 2 million and if you show impressive results you get 20 million and then maybe 200 million.
- Arnt 8y ago
  We've had many advances? We don't have fusion energy or anything close to it, so if we have many advances those are very, very small. Maybe fusion won't matter anyway. If it arrives too late, power usage will have been restructured to fit the unreliability of sun/wind/minor power generation, and fusion's ability to provide steadily is something that users have learned to do without. Learned at great cost.

nickik 8y ago

> The largest impact comes from the latter, but they're very rare and unpredictable. We might fund thousands of small projects over decades and see nothing particularly substantial. But that is not the case in fusion. We had many advances in fusion by small companies. > here's no point wading through the politics required to pool resources into a large international collaboration, if we're just going to divide up those resources between a bunch of small projects anyway ;) I do understand the political problem. However still it could be collaboration for a contest, rather then organize this project as a multi country technical problem. And I would even be happy with just 3-5 projects that get many, many billions in the end. I mean lets be honest, if it costs $20 billion (and lets be honest it will be way more) to develop it will never be economical anyway. There are lots and lots of people who would be happy to get a couple million for some fusion projects. Others believe they could build a break even project with 10s millions. And we could reinforce projects that make rapid advancement. It would also create a large fusion industry with different companies going into 'supplier' mode and so on.

sgift 8y ago
> And I would even be happy with just 3-5 projects that get many, many billions in the end. I mean lets be honest, if it costs $20 billion (and lets be honest it will be way more) to develop it will never be economical anyway. It's a science project. It doesn't have to be economical. It is there to establish the path to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station > There are lots and lots of people who would be happy to get a couple million for some fusion projects. Others believe they could build a break even project with 10s millions. And we could reinforce projects that make rapid advancement. Many people believe many things. There's a reason we do ITER: It has the best chance to actually work, unlike all the "cheap" 'hey, I'm a genius, I can do it with far less money!' projects out there.
- nickik 8y ago
  > It's a science project. It doesn't have to be economical. It is there to establish the path to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Station Its a wildly expensive science project that produces far less science and far more overhead and waste. And as we have already established, for such a long project it gets overtaken by technology. And the 'powerstation' will cost billions upon billions more and it will still not even be close to economical. > Many people believe many things. There's a reason we do ITER: It has the best chance to actually work, unlike all the "cheap" 'hey, I'm a genius, I can do it with far less money!' projects out there. By what definition of 'work'? They might manage to get break even if they throw enough money at it. But if you had said, any project that shows break even can get 1 billion. That would be an effective use of money. An I'm not saying any of these projects should get 20 billion because they think they are smarter. But how about getting 2 million and if you show impressive results you get 20 million and then maybe 200 million.
Arnt 8y ago
We've had many advances? We don't have fusion energy or anything close to it, so if we have many advances those are very, very small. Maybe fusion won't matter anyway. If it arrives too late, power usage will have been restructured to fit the unreliability of sun/wind/minor power generation, and fusion's ability to provide steadily is something that users have learned to do without. Learned at great cost.