3 ms·

> They've been continually defunded and in spite of that still make progress. In previous discussions here several times I’ve seen comments that not enough is

by simonh 5y ago

> They've been continually defunded and in spite of that still make progress. In previous discussions here several times I’ve seen comments that not enough is spent of fusion research, and what we need is a fusion power Manhattan project. Manhattan cost about $22bn in 2021 dollars, but ITER by itself will cost around $18bn to $22bn, although some third party estimates come to more than double that. The project was supposed to cost $6bn, so this is hardly a case of defunding. Vast sums of money have been and still are being spent on fusion. I read plenty of SF with cheap powerful fusion reactors back on the day. I shared the dream, but the fact is there’s no guarantee fusion power will ever be practical. Let’s finish ITER, see where the alternate projects take us and see how it goes.

Robotbeat 5y ago
I support ITER with the caveat that whoever decided it should take decades to complete should be fired. There's no rationale for taking decades to build a fairly straightforward design Taking longer to build it actually dramatically increases the project cost while dramatically reducing the payback (i.e. solving fusion quick enough to be relevant to addressing climate change). They won't even do full fusion (i.e. payback) until 2035, and the actual power generation prototype plant isn't planned for operation until 2051, and I don't understand why people in charge have no sense of urgency here. I'm skeptical of alt-fusion projects, but... MIT's Commonwealth Fusion SPARC reactor uses a similar Tokamak design but with much higher magnetic field superconductors to be much more compact and thus is planning on a much earlier first full fusion date of 2025, i.e. a full decade earlier and actually potentially relevant to addressing climate change: https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/cfs-commercial-fusion-power-with-hts-magnet https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/cfs-commercial-fusion-powe...
- ncmncm 5y ago
  If it were not scheduled to take decades to build, there would be no purpose in the project at all. Like other big public-works projects, the true purpose is the gravy train of money delivered with no required result. The will'o'th'wisp "fusion" is just a distraction. Taking less time would mean cutting off the gravy early. Nobody involved wants that. All of this would be garden-variety corruption, wholly legal under modern norms, except that a rapidly unfolding existential disaster looms: global climate disruption, and the project steals money from work that could actually help.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    I don't believe that. Researchers and managers working on ITER fusion are not moustache-twirling evil villains. The fusion they're attempting to do is not will o the wisp, it's real, and they're likely to succeed at it. They'd get much more funding and prestige if they succeeded earlier. The reason is likely just incompetence and management failure, not conspiracy to swindle money.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The managers and researchers at ITER are not swindlers. But they are obliged to do as they are told. The corruption is at the government level, where the patronage and kickbacks are arranged. The same process occurs anywhere billions of public dollars/euros are involved, and it is not easy to track what they are supposed to buy, or how quickly results should be expected. Since commercially competitive fusion power is already known not to be possible, no actually-useful result need ever be achieved. The longer it takes to get to the ultimate failure, the better it is for everybody actually involved. Taxpayers excepted, of course.
      - Robotbeat 5y ago
        > Since commercially competitive fusion power is already known not to be possible I missed that law of physics which says commercial fusion power is impossible.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        You also somehow missed the word "competitive". Massively subsidized commercial (I should qualify, here, hot-neutron) fusion power seems technically possible, and could even happen, given enough corruption. But total cost to the public will necessarily be overwhelmingly more than long mature (by then) alternatives. It starts out many tens of $billions in the hole, before the first watt-hour comes out. And taxpayers are already paying for that, today.
        5y ago
- willis936 5y ago
  Then we should fire Nixon for taking the wind out of the sail of every non-military public works project. The delays are due to the US backing out of what it originally agreed to. First plasma was nominally 20 years ago. The schedule was rewritten constantly for over a decade while the world wondered if it would ever be funded.

by simonh 5y ago

Robotbeat 5y ago

I support ITER with the caveat that whoever decided it should take decades to complete should be fired. There's no rationale for taking decades to build a fairly straightforward design Taking longer to build it actually dramatically increases the project cost while dramatically reducing the payback (i.e. solving fusion quick enough to be relevant to addressing climate change). They won't even do full fusion (i.e. payback) until 2035, and the actual power generation prototype plant isn't planned for operation until 2051, and I don't understand why people in charge have no sense of urgency here. I'm skeptical of alt-fusion projects, but... MIT's Commonwealth Fusion SPARC reactor uses a similar Tokamak design but with much higher magnetic field superconductors to be much more compact and thus is planning on a much earlier first full fusion date of 2025, i.e. a full decade earlier and actually potentially relevant to addressing climate change: https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/cfs-commercial-fusion-power-with-hts-magnet https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/cfs-commercial-fusion-powe...

ncmncm 5y ago
If it were not scheduled to take decades to build, there would be no purpose in the project at all. Like other big public-works projects, the true purpose is the gravy train of money delivered with no required result. The will'o'th'wisp "fusion" is just a distraction. Taking less time would mean cutting off the gravy early. Nobody involved wants that. All of this would be garden-variety corruption, wholly legal under modern norms, except that a rapidly unfolding existential disaster looms: global climate disruption, and the project steals money from work that could actually help.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  I don't believe that. Researchers and managers working on ITER fusion are not moustache-twirling evil villains. The fusion they're attempting to do is not will o the wisp, it's real, and they're likely to succeed at it. They'd get much more funding and prestige if they succeeded earlier. The reason is likely just incompetence and management failure, not conspiracy to swindle money.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The managers and researchers at ITER are not swindlers. But they are obliged to do as they are told. The corruption is at the government level, where the patronage and kickbacks are arranged. The same process occurs anywhere billions of public dollars/euros are involved, and it is not easy to track what they are supposed to buy, or how quickly results should be expected. Since commercially competitive fusion power is already known not to be possible, no actually-useful result need ever be achieved. The longer it takes to get to the ultimate failure, the better it is for everybody actually involved. Taxpayers excepted, of course.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      > Since commercially competitive fusion power is already known not to be possible I missed that law of physics which says commercial fusion power is impossible.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        You also somehow missed the word "competitive". Massively subsidized commercial (I should qualify, here, hot-neutron) fusion power seems technically possible, and could even happen, given enough corruption. But total cost to the public will necessarily be overwhelmingly more than long mature (by then) alternatives. It starts out many tens of $billions in the hole, before the first watt-hour comes out. And taxpayers are already paying for that, today.
        5y ago
willis936 5y ago
Then we should fire Nixon for taking the wind out of the sail of every non-military public works project. The delays are due to the US backing out of what it originally agreed to. First plasma was nominally 20 years ago. The schedule was rewritten constantly for over a decade while the world wondered if it would ever be funded.