ITER Costs Double

[jmc]

I agree with leaving most competitive things to the market. But the market is short-sighted and sometimes government must regulate externalities. Maybe carbon credits will work and push market forces towards cleaner fuels. But I think its often the case that from the point of view of a capital intensive endevour whose competitiveness in the future is uncertain, such as building a GigaWatt power station, the government is the only entity capable of undertaking and prepared to take that risk.

[IntLibber]

- It is not the cost over-runs per se. No large project I ever heard of actually sticked to its budget, everyone knows that costs are deliberately underestimated in early phases, so as to, say, facilitate the decision-making process.

I know a number of projects that have stuck to budget. Generally they are run by businessmen and engineers, not scientists and political hacks. What is more, they actually WORKED.

[IntLibber]

I agree with leaving most competitive things to the market. But the market is short-sighted and sometimes government must regulate externalities. Maybe carbon credits will work and push market forces towards cleaner fuels. But I think its often the case that from the point of view of a capital intensive endevour whose competitiveness in the future is uncertain, such as building a GigaWatt power station, the government is the only entity capable of undertaking and prepared to take that risk.

Any renewable energy installation generally requires some degree of government involvement or assistance getting low cost capital. Renewables (nukes included) are all very capital intensive. Thats the cost of getting low operating costs. Where fossil fuel plants energy prices are typically 30% up front capital and 70% operating costs (not including taxes, etc), renewables are the reverse. Without very low interest rates on the capital cost, they generally are infeasible even if they are net power producers (cause capital = energy too, and wasted capital = wasted energy = pollution).

I dont want to get into the global warming debate here, but yes, government should from the start base any taxation upon a business on the externalities it generates (risks of employee layoffs, worker injuries, local disasters, pollution, then-year waste issues, etc), but the funds raised from that taxation should go into funds to mitigate those problems, not into general expenditures. Carbon taxes in the european union are not being treated that way, less than 1% is actually going into carbon sequestration, the rest is going to funding the welfare state entitlements system that is actually perpetuating pollution. This is why carbon credits are a better idea, as you dont have to worry about trusting uncle sugar with money you know he will blow on welfare crack.

If ITER is not being strictly run as a business operation, with a focus on an ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE fusion power plant, then its just one more big science boondoggle that will damage the publics faith in the future of fusion.

Better to put the money into pebble bed thorium reactors for power production now, and polywell research for the near future.

[MSimon]

I guess many people knew long before. Why didn't markets sanction that much earlier?

Because government backed them.

[TallDave]

I guess many people knew long before. Why didn't markets sanction that much earlier?

Some people did. They shorted FNMA and other subprime holders like Lehman and consequently walked away rich.

I agree with leaving most competitive things to the market. But the market is short-sighted and sometimes government must regulate externalities.

Absolutely; few libertarians would argue that point. The problems arise when they attempt to legislate social justice via intervention, such as by encouraging lending to poor risks.