If you listen to the omega-tau episodes on fusion and ITER the 20 years thing is discussed quite a bit, it’s a question of money, not time. The technology is known to be possible but the experiments that need to be made to confirm how to do the engineering to build a working and reliable plant are big and very expensive so the constraint is getting governments to spend £100bn (or whatever) that it will cost to do this work. E.g ITER could be finished already and they could be starting on a prototype plant for energy generation if they didn’t have to struggle to justify funding for every little thing to all the various governments funding the project.
For ITER money has little to do with it. The problem is mostly politics.
For example, take the Vacuum vessel. Currently there is only one section on-site. The other sections are in various stages of completion in different countries around the world when they are due to be on-site already. Instead of one contractor manufacturing each of the nearly identical sections they are each being made in separate member countries for political reasons.
The governments involved don't have a problem with spending the money, but they want a return on that investment so they look for that return in jobs and contracts for their engineering firms.
The international collaboration isn't working. If ITER was only an EU project, it could probably be complete already.
The reasons you give look quite OK to me. As a international, huge project I can understand government who want to participate and make sure they get to understand the knowledge in the project by having firsthand experience.
I'd say it's more a question on how we evaluate the fact an international organization is working or not. Is it "delivering the project's goal" or "making sure all participants get the most out of the project".
That's an interesting take on it. I expect if you posed that question to the DG he would tell you the answer is "both". He is simultaneously a scientist/engineer and a politician.
