Rezwan wrote: ITER’s website keeps getting better.
ITER is a large-scale scientific experiment that aims to demonstrate that it is possible to produce commercial energy from fusion.
The Q in the formula on the right symbolizes the ratio of fusion power to input power. Q ≥ 10 represents the scientific goal of the ITER project: to deliver ten times the power it consumes. From 50 MW of input power, the ITER machine is designed to produce 500 MW of fusion power – the first of all fusion experiments to produce net energy.
During its operational lifetime, ITER will test key technologies necessary for the next step: the demonstration fusion power plant that will prove that it is possible to capture fusion energy for commercial use.
What are the odds?
“the ITER machine is designed to produce 500 MW of fusion power – the first of all fusion experiments to produce net energy.” >:-( We’d be dismissed as quacks if we made a statement like that for a number of reasons.
“During its operational lifetime, ITER will test key technologies necessary for the next step: the demonstration fusion power plant that will prove that it is possible to capture fusion energy for commercial use.” How long is the design life? Is this the full scale proof-of-concept machine? in charitable terms, I may interpret this as the assumptive (sales) close. Your entire quote seems to preclude any meaningful challenges to their theory. This is called also called Framing, which can be a very subtly effective sales gambit.
I’d say the odds of them getting continued government support is very good, given the inherent SEO support that government-funded science receives by default, coupled with the lack of precision in goals, budgets, and deadlines. Someday never comes.
.
.