Single-structure research facilities need to be unique to justify budget increases and delays. With the private industry looming, how exceptional is ITER today?
This has one of the best opening paragraphs I have read in a while. Great work..
My impression is that ITER, being international and “political” is always going to languish private efforts that can be nimbler. At the same time, however, it's hard to discount its importance.
Certainly, if it now offers no benefit, it should be cancelled and funding redirected. Generally, however, I am “okay'“ with government supporting breakthrough endeavors like this…even when they “fail.”
The free market tends to “undersupply” new ideas, government should step in an subsidize the creation of ideas to keep progress going. Even in “failure” lessons are learned and disseminated. I have discussed many such examples at Risk & Progress: https://www.lianeon.org/p/invention-vs-innovation
I don't consider ITER a failure; the research produced is immensely important. The entire project just takes so long that before it can finish there are other options. Evaluating the options and going for several promising ones rather than going all in on the biggest is, in my opinion, the better strategy. If ITER is still part of the portfolio and how much to spend on fusion research as a whole is a different topic.
The US follows the most promising avenue of public research. It funds several research facilities based on different technologies (Tokamaks at MIT + ITER, Stellarators at Princeton, Inertial Fusion at NIF & Rochester), and involves the startups early through milestone-based cost-sharing programs and research hubs (IFE-STAR, for example). Regarding technology, the magnet-based approaches have the larger body of knowledge, and laser-driven has the faster developments.
But after all, the race is not to the highest gain or sexiest approach but to the commercially most viable power plant. In inertial fusion energy, the lasers and the targets are largely decoupled and profit from developments outside of just fusion research. It seems to me to be still complex but easier to standardize.
Full disclosure: I'm neither a physicist nor an engineer and work for a fusion company following a laser-based approach.
That's a big project but probably worthwhile. There are two major approaches, magnet and inertial, and within these, there are as many technologies as ice-cream flavors. But giving an introduction to the major technologies sure seems helpful.
This has one of the best opening paragraphs I have read in a while. Great work..
My impression is that ITER, being international and “political” is always going to languish private efforts that can be nimbler. At the same time, however, it's hard to discount its importance.
Certainly, if it now offers no benefit, it should be cancelled and funding redirected. Generally, however, I am “okay'“ with government supporting breakthrough endeavors like this…even when they “fail.”
The free market tends to “undersupply” new ideas, government should step in an subsidize the creation of ideas to keep progress going. Even in “failure” lessons are learned and disseminated. I have discussed many such examples at Risk & Progress: https://www.lianeon.org/p/invention-vs-innovation
Thanks!
I don't consider ITER a failure; the research produced is immensely important. The entire project just takes so long that before it can finish there are other options. Evaluating the options and going for several promising ones rather than going all in on the biggest is, in my opinion, the better strategy. If ITER is still part of the portfolio and how much to spend on fusion research as a whole is a different topic.
What, in your opinion, is the most promising avenue fusion?
The US follows the most promising avenue of public research. It funds several research facilities based on different technologies (Tokamaks at MIT + ITER, Stellarators at Princeton, Inertial Fusion at NIF & Rochester), and involves the startups early through milestone-based cost-sharing programs and research hubs (IFE-STAR, for example). Regarding technology, the magnet-based approaches have the larger body of knowledge, and laser-driven has the faster developments.
But after all, the race is not to the highest gain or sexiest approach but to the commercially most viable power plant. In inertial fusion energy, the lasers and the targets are largely decoupled and profit from developments outside of just fusion research. It seems to me to be still complex but easier to standardize.
Full disclosure: I'm neither a physicist nor an engineer and work for a fusion company following a laser-based approach.
There is much I need to learn about this. Would be great if you wrote up a rundown of different approaches!
That's a big project but probably worthwhile. There are two major approaches, magnet and inertial, and within these, there are as many technologies as ice-cream flavors. But giving an introduction to the major technologies sure seems helpful.
Yes. Even a brief overview of the flavors would be worth reading.
The future is fusion!
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewharris/p/fusion?r=298d1j&utm_medium=ios