6 ms·

Let not forget the total energy input it takes to construct the ITER project . We should not be wasting finite resources on this project.

by mcwone 5y ago

m0zg 5y ago
The relatively minuscule resources "wasted" on this project could eventually solve the "climate crisis" in one fell swoop via delivering nearly inexhaustible sources of clean energy. So inexhaustible, in fact, that we could reduce CO2 by entirely engineering-driven (rather than ineffectual policy) means. And fusion would do so while also _increasing_ not _reducing_ everyone's standard of living. You could even use your gas guzzler still, by making gas from CO2 and water, and it'd be "carbon neutral" even if it belches a column of black smoke straight into the air. And this gas would be like 50 cents a gallon, too. I'd rather spend a trillion on fusion and get it done Manhattan project style than continue droning children in Afghanistan or funding $3.5T in pork barrel bullshit here at home. Just drown it in money completely until it's done. Put the very best people on it and let them have at it for real. We've done it before, several times, it worked. There's no reason why it wouldn't work this time. If there is any 21st century "Moon landing" type goal, this is it, and the United States is still best positioned to accomplish something of this magnitude. For how long that will be true I do not know, but it is true now.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  ITER has zero chance of solving the climate crisis. Anything derived from it will be far too large, expensive, and late.
  - m0zg 5y ago
    I'm not even talking about ITER here. Let them have their own nice European pork barrel boondoggle, though I'd point out that even if it fails miserably, it's still generating valuable science and technological capabilities that cannot be generated or sustained any other way, so it's not a "waste of resources". We're talking about these projects as if they'd offer marginal, rather than _radical_ improvements in our situation, which is simply not true. If this is done this will completely upend the world and make it a better place - there's no doubt in my mind on this whatsoever. This is the _only_ environmental thing I wouldn't mind paying more taxes for, but I'd argue we don't even need that - we just need to look a little bit ahead and allocate existing resources towards longer term, riskier things benefits from which we _know_ will absolutely dwarf the investment. The reason why this is not happening is because we have trillions of dollars flowing into other troughs from which everyone involved is used to feeding. Until we disrupt those arrangements somehow our only chance of solving this is private sector investment, but private sector can't sustain things of this magnitude over an extended period of time. Not unless Musk gets involved.
  - willis936 5y ago
    Any burning plasma MCF machine will be "derived from it" in that it will incorporate the physics learned from it. The machines that come later will not be as large. And "late" is better than never.
willis936 5y ago
Wasted resources? How about $6 Tn / year subsidy just to keep the lights on with an energy source that is vanishingly finite and making the planet uninhabitable? We're racking up a debt that nature is certain to collect. It is absurd to say that fusion research's current level of funding is a waste. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-f...

Let not forget the total energy input it takes to construct the ITER project . We should not be wasting finite resources on this project.

by mcwone 5y ago

Let not forget the total energy input it takes to construct the ITER project . We should not be wasting finite resources on this project.

m0zg 5y ago

The relatively minuscule resources "wasted" on this project could eventually solve the "climate crisis" in one fell swoop via delivering nearly inexhaustible sources of clean energy. So inexhaustible, in fact, that we could reduce CO2 by entirely engineering-driven (rather than ineffectual policy) means. And fusion would do so while also _increasing_ not _reducing_ everyone's standard of living. You could even use your gas guzzler still, by making gas from CO2 and water, and it'd be "carbon neutral" even if it belches a column of black smoke straight into the air. And this gas would be like 50 cents a gallon, too. I'd rather spend a trillion on fusion and get it done Manhattan project style than continue droning children in Afghanistan or funding $3.5T in pork barrel bullshit here at home. Just drown it in money completely until it's done. Put the very best people on it and let them have at it for real. We've done it before, several times, it worked. There's no reason why it wouldn't work this time. If there is any 21st century "Moon landing" type goal, this is it, and the United States is still best positioned to accomplish something of this magnitude. For how long that will be true I do not know, but it is true now.

pfdietz 5y ago
ITER has zero chance of solving the climate crisis. Anything derived from it will be far too large, expensive, and late.
- m0zg 5y ago
  I'm not even talking about ITER here. Let them have their own nice European pork barrel boondoggle, though I'd point out that even if it fails miserably, it's still generating valuable science and technological capabilities that cannot be generated or sustained any other way, so it's not a "waste of resources". We're talking about these projects as if they'd offer marginal, rather than _radical_ improvements in our situation, which is simply not true. If this is done this will completely upend the world and make it a better place - there's no doubt in my mind on this whatsoever. This is the _only_ environmental thing I wouldn't mind paying more taxes for, but I'd argue we don't even need that - we just need to look a little bit ahead and allocate existing resources towards longer term, riskier things benefits from which we _know_ will absolutely dwarf the investment. The reason why this is not happening is because we have trillions of dollars flowing into other troughs from which everyone involved is used to feeding. Until we disrupt those arrangements somehow our only chance of solving this is private sector investment, but private sector can't sustain things of this magnitude over an extended period of time. Not unless Musk gets involved.
- willis936 5y ago
  Any burning plasma MCF machine will be "derived from it" in that it will incorporate the physics learned from it. The machines that come later will not be as large. And "late" is better than never.

willis936 5y ago

Wasted resources? How about $6 Tn / year subsidy just to keep the lights on with an energy source that is vanishingly finite and making the planet uninhabitable? We're racking up a debt that nature is certain to collect. It is absurd to say that fusion research's current level of funding is a waste. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-f...