3 ms·

> 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 part

by 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
  We have absolutely not learned how to do without, that's a waste over estimation. Many places already have problems with the variety and those are still a tiny part of overall generation. And the advances in theory are actually incredibly important if you want to build an actual plant. But then again, for stable power fission does basically everything fusion does for you. The difference between fission and fusion are tiny compared to chemical energy.
  - Arnt 8y ago
    (I assume you mean "vast overestimation".) What I wrote was that power uses may well have learned to do without by the time fusion energy becomes available. AFAICT that might happen sometime after 2050, maybe closer to 2100.
    - Arnt 8y ago
      I ought to argue the point. I will do so by RAA. Assume that energy users do not learn to cope with just renewables. In that case CO₂ emissions go as at present, ie. the CO₂ content in the atmosphere increases by about 2.25ppm/year. In 2050 that works out to about 500ppm and in 2100 to 600ppm (these are conservativish numbers, since they assume that the 2.25ppm/year stays flat while in reality it has been increasing steadily). ITER is not thought to lead all the way to fusion power; at least one more round of experiments is required afterwards. The Wikipedia page mentions 2035, so assuming that the next round also takes 20 years and only one more round is necessary, the first actual fusion reactors could start construction around 2055, and large amounts of fusion power could perhaps be available around 2075 or 2095, when CO₂ content is 550-600ppm. This is absurdly high, therefore the assumption is untenable. Learn or die.

by nickik 8y ago

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
We have absolutely not learned how to do without, that's a waste over estimation. Many places already have problems with the variety and those are still a tiny part of overall generation. And the advances in theory are actually incredibly important if you want to build an actual plant. But then again, for stable power fission does basically everything fusion does for you. The difference between fission and fusion are tiny compared to chemical energy.
- Arnt 8y ago
  (I assume you mean "vast overestimation".) What I wrote was that power uses may well have learned to do without by the time fusion energy becomes available. AFAICT that might happen sometime after 2050, maybe closer to 2100.
  - Arnt 8y ago
    I ought to argue the point. I will do so by RAA. Assume that energy users do not learn to cope with just renewables. In that case CO₂ emissions go as at present, ie. the CO₂ content in the atmosphere increases by about 2.25ppm/year. In 2050 that works out to about 500ppm and in 2100 to 600ppm (these are conservativish numbers, since they assume that the 2.25ppm/year stays flat while in reality it has been increasing steadily). ITER is not thought to lead all the way to fusion power; at least one more round of experiments is required afterwards. The Wikipedia page mentions 2035, so assuming that the next round also takes 20 years and only one more round is necessary, the first actual fusion reactors could start construction around 2055, and large amounts of fusion power could perhaps be available around 2075 or 2095, when CO₂ content is 550-600ppm. This is absurdly high, therefore the assumption is untenable. Learn or die.