Perfect Energy Source
Re: Perfect Energy Source
There are comments in this that, together, show a dismal logic:
"Construction will complete in 2020 with a fusion burn expected by 2030." = "After my retirement, I'm in it for the ride"
"There are other approaches to fusion -- for example the laser experiments at the National Ignition Facility in California -- but for many of us in the scientific trenches, the fusion burn on ITER is expected to be the defining moment." = "I'm just not interested in anything else, but you gotta keep up appearances and mention another approach even if you don't care about it!"
"But what about our second objective of economic viability? ITER isn't meant to achieve that goal. In addition to clearing our last remaining scientific hurdle, we need to advance a parallel engineering agenda" = "I'm not an engineer, mate, I'm just in it for the fantasy science."
"We are, it seems, not taking the threat of climate change and energy shortages seriously." = "I've gotta say that, else it sounds like I don't care, but seeing as this is all going to happen after 2030 [after my retirement, did I mention that?] and the predictions are already for an energy collapse by 2030, let alone once this stuff is turned into something economically viable, then it's someone else's problem. I'm on this train for the gravy, and I don't need to think about a practical strategy for some other project or new approach that might beat our current ITER plan to it."
"Construction will complete in 2020 with a fusion burn expected by 2030." = "After my retirement, I'm in it for the ride"
"There are other approaches to fusion -- for example the laser experiments at the National Ignition Facility in California -- but for many of us in the scientific trenches, the fusion burn on ITER is expected to be the defining moment." = "I'm just not interested in anything else, but you gotta keep up appearances and mention another approach even if you don't care about it!"
"But what about our second objective of economic viability? ITER isn't meant to achieve that goal. In addition to clearing our last remaining scientific hurdle, we need to advance a parallel engineering agenda" = "I'm not an engineer, mate, I'm just in it for the fantasy science."
"We are, it seems, not taking the threat of climate change and energy shortages seriously." = "I've gotta say that, else it sounds like I don't care, but seeing as this is all going to happen after 2030 [after my retirement, did I mention that?] and the predictions are already for an energy collapse by 2030, let alone once this stuff is turned into something economically viable, then it's someone else's problem. I'm on this train for the gravy, and I don't need to think about a practical strategy for some other project or new approach that might beat our current ITER plan to it."
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Re: Perfect Energy Source
I have to agree with chris' analysis. He's got at the core of the problem in what people want to call "ideal". It's always ideal if you have no personal responsibility for such an appraisal.
Just like windmills are "ideal" so long as you don't have to listen to the roaring thunder they create 24/7.
Just like windmills are "ideal" so long as you don't have to listen to the roaring thunder they create 24/7.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Re: Perfect Energy Source
For some people windmills are ideal: http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/03/gre ... gy-piratesGIThruster wrote:I have to agree with chris' analysis. He's got at the core of the problem in what people want to call "ideal". It's always ideal if you have no personal responsibility for such an appraisal.
Just like windmills are "ideal" so long as you don't have to listen to the roaring thunder they create 24/7.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.