6 points

People say that fusion will use very cheap and harmless fuel to generate energy. But practically the real fuel will be all the replacement parts that will be constantly degraded and used up to maintain it’s operation.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

That’s true if of any power plant though. It’ll still be cheaper and safer (if it ever works).

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I was under impression that for tokomak fusion the enclosure have to be so precisely manufactured that any minor damage requires replacement. If so, then maintenance will be way more expensive than regular power plants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

It’s not like building a hydroelectric dam, this is stuff on the edge of science, so of course you can’t get an accurate budget or timeline estimate. The 10 years was probably to placate governments and fundraiser members.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

https://youtu.be/dOe_6vuaR_s

Practical engineering did a great video on why this happens.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

So, thus far, the cost of ITER is less than the Manhattan project, but it has taken longer. The adage that it is easier to destroy than to create comes to mind.

It does seem like ITER could be more transparent, but the article is overly hyperbolic about one of the most important civil works going over time and budget.

America has spent 5x the ITER budget on Ukraine so far (and rightly so). I wish we lived in a world where that money could have supported research projects like this instead.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

If you look at this chart from the article the delays actually look pretty reasonable and you can see them closing in on completion. Looks like been a series of set backs in the recent past with particular components but I think a budget comparable to the Manhattan Project (as the article states) is probably pretty reasonable for a project like this. In fact I was pretty surprised it was that small.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Yeah, this really doesn’t look even remotely surprising to me.

Absolutely everyone involved should already understand that they are not building something that they know how to build.

Sure, they have plans, and they can build to exactly those plans… But even then, there is no guarantee at all that they will then achieve net positive fusion energy. Because nobody has done that in a controlled reaction.

But it’s also not like the rest of the world is sitting still. Other projects exist, and sometimes those projects are going to learn things that will impact the design of ITER.

For that matter, even if they have the plans, some of the pieces are things that nobody has ever built on that scale before, which means that nobody really knows how to build them until they try.

This is a really good example of a project that you can not accurately estimate.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.4K

    Posts

  • 78K

    Comments