I wouldn't say the (recent) past was grim, but rather that the technology to build an _affordable_ commercial device had not yet been developed yet. We designed and built ITER at such a large size and cost (€20 billion) since high temperature superconducting magnets were not yet available.

In the meantime, all of the experimental devices (JET, AUG, EAST, DIII-D, etc.,) have been gathering evidence on how to operate ITER when it is turned on, and not necessarily focused on achieving breakeven.

> We designed and built ITER at such a large size and cost (€20 billion) since high temperature superconducting magnets were not yet available.

This is one of those numbers that only seem big without context. Medium-sized cities spend more than this on interchanges and highway development over shorter timespans than any of the various multi-decade price tags that get thrown around for ITER.

I agree.

The hefty price tag seems smaller when considering the development and design of ITER began during the cold war.

The literal size is definitely big even without context, which is why it has the nickname: gigantomak :D.

Have you heard of MITs SPARC reactor? It’s way more interesting than ITER. It is 3x smaller, with Q greater than 10 (compared to ITERs ~10). It’s also slated to be finished -before- ITER.

3x smaller major radius. 42x smaller plasma volume.

Doesn't IETR consume more power than it produces? Fusion (like solutions for aging fission plants and their waste products) always seems just around the corner -- yet never arrives.

For me, it was eye opening to inside its progression in terms of dollars, not years. It’s barely had the chance to get started.

This was an awesome overview of current state of fusion attempts!