Your comment is very condescending, not sure if you meant it that way or not. I wouldn't begin to claim that I understand all the intricacies of the theoretical

Your comment is very condescending, not sure if you meant it that way or not. I wouldn't begin to claim that I understand all the intricacies of the theoretical physics behind fission research, but I do understand plenty to hold an opinion. I'm well aware of the argument hat they must go full scale to do the research, I simply disagree with that approach and don't consider it worth the cost and tradeoffs. They are asking society to write a blank check to fund research that they claim is well understood and provide estimates of cost and time that they believe to be accurate. Neither have panned out, and that's okay. At the end of the day we don't know if a fission reactor is even viable. What we do know is that the project has run well over budget and over time with little to show for it but more questions and unknowns. It seems reasonable to expect that pattern to continue, and to have concerns that those who provided such poor estimates in the past are still providing poor estimates today. Arguing that scale is necessary to do the work at all is all well and good, but that's a huge ask and a big risk. When it doesn't pan out we have to be able to pull the plug without and endless treadmill of promises bolstered by threats that the work can only be done at full scale.