Nature Article on Fusion - 9/22 - More ITER.

[mattman]

http://www.nature.com/news/us-plans-for ... ch-1.15993

a committee recommends all funding to ITER... big surprise.

Here is who is on the: "Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee":

http://science.energy.gov/~/media/fes/f ... P_2014.pdf

Of course you could email the admins and tell them to look at Fusors/polywells, ect....

ed.synakowski@science.doe.gov

sam.barish@science.doe.gov

shahida.afzal@science.doe.gov

mark.koepke@mail.wvu.edu

[KitemanSA]

Gee, you think that committee might be stacked for tokamaks?

[AcesHigh]

for the layman who is not aware of who the people on the comitee are... why should we be suspicious of their conclusion? Are they all biased towards tokamaks?

[AcesHigh]

btw, on a complete layman not science related forum, there was a discussion about fusion and this news of an european comission deciding to put more 850 million euros on ITER.
http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/oct/eurofusion.cfm

I answered it was pathetic to put all your eggs in a single basket like governments are doing with ITER, and somebody answered me
"maybe because it's the more promising?"



I wonder what people who know more about fusion efforts have to say about that. Why so much money goes to ITER. Politics I guess? Can you explain me?

[choff]

Or maybe they want to make sure it's always 50 years away for as long as possible.

[RERT]

Some people clearly think so:

Armory Lovins: If you ask me, it'd be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. (1977)

Paul Erlich: Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be like giving an idiot child a machine gun. (1970)

Jeremy Rifkin: The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet. (1989)

OPINION ALERT

The IPCC is a UN institution controlled by environmentalists. ITER is also a UN construct. My hopes are not high. Also, in the light of this kind of thinking, you can view the CO2 scare tactics as a route to lower energy consumption. There is no interest in rational industrial solutions to reduce CO2 emissions, like funding alternative fusion approaches, for example. Billions are being spent on climate change research, but LPP needed to put out the begging bowl for $200k, when LPP has at least the prospect of removing much of our CO2 emissions - but with the 'downside' of cheap, clean, abundant energy.

Kind of explains the environmentalist apoplexy about fracking, when gas actually reduces CO2 emissions if it replaces coal. Reducing energy use is the real goal, at least at the core of the movement, if not among the foot soldiers who have actually bought the climate change story.

END OPINION ALERT

[Betruger]

Aye.. That incongruency is truly curious.

[palladin9479]

OPINION ALERT

The IPCC is a UN institution controlled by environmentalists. ITER is also a UN construct. My hopes are not high. Also, in the light of this kind of thinking, you can view the CO2 scare tactics as a route to lower energy consumption. There is no interest in rational industrial solutions to reduce CO2 emissions, like funding alternative fusion approaches, for example. Billions are being spent on climate change research, but LPP needed to put out the begging bowl for $200k, when LPP has at least the prospect of removing much of our CO2 emissions - but with the 'downside' of cheap, clean, abundant energy.

Kind of explains the environmentalist apoplexy about fracking, when gas actually reduces CO2 emissions if it replaces coal. Reducing energy use is the real goal, at least at the core of the movement, if not among the foot soldiers who have actually bought the climate change story.

END OPINION ALERT

Your pretty much spot on, it's not even opinion but one of the stated goals of the progressive movement. The political "left" was wanting to "downsize" the human population at the end of the 19th century, this isn't anything new to them. It's one of the reasons I believe progressiveism is evil, it seeks to reduce quality of life and standard of living for everyone who isn't one of the party elites.

[Skipjack]

OPINION ALERT

The IPCC is a UN institution controlled by environmentalists. ITER is also a UN construct. My hopes are not high. Also, in the light of this kind of thinking, you can view the CO2 scare tactics as a route to lower energy consumption. There is no interest in rational industrial solutions to reduce CO2 emissions, like funding alternative fusion approaches, for example. Billions are being spent on climate change research, but LPP needed to put out the begging bowl for $200k, when LPP has at least the prospect of removing much of our CO2 emissions - but with the 'downside' of cheap, clean, abundant energy.

Kind of explains the environmentalist apoplexy about fracking, when gas actually reduces CO2 emissions if it replaces coal. Reducing energy use is the real goal, at least at the core of the movement, if not among the foot soldiers who have actually bought the climate change story.

END OPINION ALERT

Your pretty much spot on, it's not even opinion but one of the stated goals of the progressive movement. The political "left" was wanting to "downsize" the human population at the end of the 19th century, this isn't anything new to them. It's one of the reasons I believe progressiveism is evil, it seeks to reduce quality of life and standard of living for everyone who isn't one of the party elites.

Since when is ITER an UN construct?

[RERT]

According to Wikipedia, ITER is under the auspices of the IAEA, which in turn reports to the general assembly and security council of the UN. But thanks, I had to look it up: I was foaming at the mouth instinctively before you asked.

[Skipjack]

According to Wikipedia, ITER is under the auspices of the IAEA, which in turn reports to the general assembly and security council of the UN. But thanks, I had to look it up: I was foaming at the mouth instinctively before you asked.

Some designs were done under the auspices of the IAEA with which there has been a cooperation on expert level since 2008 and I believe that during the cold war the IAEA was helping overcome hurdles for the cooperation. Otherwise, there are a whole lot of different agencies that are managing ITER on the regional levels. In Europe it was EURATOM via the The European Joint Undertaking for ITER and then we have the Max Planck Institute in Germany. We have similar regional organizations in the other member regions, like the US, China and so on.

[KitemanSA]

According to Wikipedia, ITER is under the auspices of the IAEA, which in turn reports to the general assembly and security council of the UN. But thanks, I had to look it up: I was foaming at the mouth instinctively before you asked.

Some designs were done under the auspices of the IAEA with which there has been a cooperation on expert level since 2008 and I believe that during the cold war the IAEA was helping overcome hurdles for the cooperation. Otherwise, there are a whole lot of different agencies that are managing ITER on the regional levels. In Europe it was EURATOM via the The European Joint Undertaking for ITER and then we have the Max Planck Institute in Germany. We have similar regional organizations in the other member regions, like the US, China and so on.

Saying that ITER is a UN project because it is under the IAEA is like saying the AP1000 reactor is a US Government reactor because it was under the NRC. JMHO.

[RERT]

No, the UN are not constructing ITER bolt by bolt. But it is a massive international (?inter-governmental?) project. If I'd wanted to delay fusion, divert fusion funds to a centralised and controllable place, and work towards a 'common knowledge' that fusion was uneconomic, I could hardly have done a better job.

As you will gather I am deeply sceptical of the motivations of any large supra-national organisation, such as the IPCC. I think that's what underlays my earlier statements, rather than its relationship with the UN.

If it helps, I can accept that ITER is not a UN function, and that therefore my logic above was wrong.

I remain pessimistic on ITER. It will take a long time, be declared a 'success', and be too expensive to lead to commercial implementation.

[AcesHigh]

You are blaming UN for ITER? Since when does the UN decides ITER funding?