IIRC, when ITER was conceived, it wasn't a waste of money. They just chose a conservative development path that was expensive but very likely achievable. Techno

IIRC, when ITER was conceived, it wasn't a waste of money. They just chose a conservative development path that was expensive but very likely achievable. Technology and theories have since advanced that might leapfrog it, but the project has still contributed a great deal to our understanding of fusion and the engineering required to produce it. Relevant talk by one of the MIT professors working with Commonwealth Fusion Systems: Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion? - Prof. Dennis Whyte (2016) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 Timeline (in case you want to skip over some parts): 00:01:00 - introducing Dennis Whyte, MIT department head for nuclear science 00:04:24 - presentation starts 00:06:00 - identifies breakthrough with REBCO magnets 00:07:25 - explains deuterium-tritium fusion 00:12:30 - basic metrics for reactor performance 00:17:15 - energy output of other previous fusion experiments 00:19:00 - examines ITER and the problems of its approach 00:22:00 - problems solved by high energy magnetic fields 00:28:15 - full scale reactor concept, teardown of REBCO magnets 00:37:00 - design limits and margins 00:39:00 - fixes plasma instabilities found in weaker magnetic chambers 00:40:00 - maintainability, lifespan, component replacement 00:45:00 - solution to neutron damage and energy capture 00:50:30 - cost and profitability 00:54:00 - full graph of field strength vs reactor scale (and thus funding requirements) 01:01:50 - Q&A 01:30:00 - question about the biggest risks A more recent (2019) talk with more numbers and even more confidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM