3 ms·

Depends on the field in question but generally, any timeframe greater than 2-3 years generally means "we have absolutely no idea because there are multiple majo

Depends on the field in question but generally, any timeframe greater than 2-3 years generally means "we have absolutely no idea because there are multiple major things to solve and a nonzero number of unknown unknowns." 10-15 years is preposterous. If they had a reliable, sustainable, net-energy-positive, commercialization-ready process today, I think 10-15 years would be an optimistic timeline for the safety and regulatory stuff alone.

freeqaz 4y ago
I'd like to be a bit more optimistic that we could move quickly on something that would greatly help us curb greenhouse gas emmisions!
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  I want your optimism. Democracy is probably the least-bad system of government but this is where it really falls down. It forces politicians to think in short-sighted, tiny blocks of time. They're just trying to make it through the next ~4 years. And if they don't get re-elected their replacement won't necessarily care about the projects they've inherited. But an effort like getting fusion to market is something that will take decades. It needs more sustained attention than an ADHD-addled government can produce. And even then, it's unclear if an Apollo-style national push would get us there much sooner. It could maybe cut through the red tape portions, but much like throwing more engineers at a software problem doesn't necessarily help, it's unclear that throwing even more money at fusion would clear the science and engineering hurdles more quickly.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
As a comparison: In the UK we've being building a single trainline, 230km of track, the project is 10 years old has tripled in cost to £90B and new estimates are that it will take 10 more years. If you can ensure that your government ministers aren't using the project as a means to funnel taxes away to private corporations that they're associated with then, I speculate, you can probably avoid this sort of thing. Maybe international projects work better in that sense?

freeqaz 4y ago

I'd like to be a bit more optimistic that we could move quickly on something that would greatly help us curb greenhouse gas emmisions!

JohnBooty 4y ago
I want your optimism. Democracy is probably the least-bad system of government but this is where it really falls down. It forces politicians to think in short-sighted, tiny blocks of time. They're just trying to make it through the next ~4 years. And if they don't get re-elected their replacement won't necessarily care about the projects they've inherited. But an effort like getting fusion to market is something that will take decades. It needs more sustained attention than an ADHD-addled government can produce. And even then, it's unclear if an Apollo-style national push would get us there much sooner. It could maybe cut through the red tape portions, but much like throwing more engineers at a software problem doesn't necessarily help, it's unclear that throwing even more money at fusion would clear the science and engineering hurdles more quickly.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

As a comparison: In the UK we've being building a single trainline, 230km of track, the project is 10 years old has tripled in cost to £90B and new estimates are that it will take 10 more years. If you can ensure that your government ministers aren't using the project as a means to funnel taxes away to private corporations that they're associated with then, I speculate, you can probably avoid this sort of thing. Maybe international projects work better in that sense?