[dbruning]

http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_6.htm

Preparations ITER Site started 29 January, 2007 - They have marked trees not to be cut down, and perhaps a fence will be be started. The have to clear 75 hectares.

Broader Approach agreement between EU and Japan signed
5 February, 2007 - The agreement they initially made has been re-signed.

Progress on ITER International School 7 February, 2007 - A school is planned for their kids.

EU establishes the European Domestic Agency 27 March, 2007 -
They've formed another organization to handle the EU contributions to ITER.

And that's it for the update on what they've posted for this year so far. A fence, some trees, signing an existing agreement, and building a school.

At one point I had kind of looked at ITER as maybe a Global Effort, you know, a Manhatten Project, but on a planetary scale.

I no longer feel that is the case.

The intent may have been there, and the eventual goal is a worthy one, but I do not see the momentum nor will to kick this into high gear. And we needed high gear in 1985 when it was first suggested. 22 years later, and we haven't even cleared the land or built a fence.

Ok, I know construction isn't schedules to start until 2008, but why has this taken so damned long to get started?!?

[Jack]

Remember the superconducting supercollider?

Due to funding cuts, it only got to the point of being a hole in the ground in North Texas.

I suspect this won't even accomplish hole in the ground status.

Doom...it's what's for dinner!

[sameu]

hihi
sounds like fussion will be ready just in time to resolve our energy problems

[Madpaddy]

I'm with Jack,

I reckon they'll get more energy from burning the trees they cut down then they ever will from the reactor.

[Newsseeker]

Alas, must all things come to an end in such a way?

[mrflora]

Alas, poor Newsseeker! What do you mean "all things"?

ITER is moving slowly, it is true. The prototype could easily have been working by this time except for politics. However, the science is sound, and it appears that the economics of D-T fusion are acceptable (if not astonishingly good).

Keep in mind that the U.S. has spent only about $17 billion on controlled fusion research since the 1950's. Compare this to the Pentagon's current budget of about $500 billion for a single year. We could ramp up fusion work dramatically if we had to.

Regards,
M.R.F.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrflora', 'K')eep in mind that the U.S. has spent only about $17 billion on controlled fusion research since the 1950's. Compare this to the Pentagon's current budget of about $500 billion for a single year. We could ramp up fusion work dramatically if we had to.

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he intent may have been there, and the eventual goal is a worthy one, but I do not see the momentum nor will to kick this into high gear. And we needed high gear in 1985 when it was first suggested. 22 years later, and we haven't even cleared the land or built a fence.

[shakespear1]

Twilight

You observation about LABOR specialization and training is very astute. I suspect a very small group of people appreciates this problem as usually most just think it is about money.

The Petroleum Industry is learning about this right now. No specialists to be found due to past layoff cycles and reduced enrollments at universities in their PE Departments.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrflora', 'K')eep in mind that the U.S. has spent only about $17 billion on controlled fusion research since the 1950's. Compare this to the Pentagon's current budget of about $500 billion for a single year. We could ramp up fusion work dramatically if we had to.

[Newsseeker]

A far sighted government would increase funding in these areas and the manpower would accrue over time. Investing in long range goals is admirable and can only take place under a government that is looking towards the future and not towards short term ephemeral issues and goals.