Fusion energy was actually making rapid progress in the latter half of the twentieth century, going from almost no power output in the fifties and sixties to a power output equal to 67% of input power with the JET reactor in 1997. By the eighties there was plenty of experimental evidence to describe the relationships between tokamak parameters and power output. Particularly that the gain is proportional to the radius to the power of 1.3 and the magnetic field cubed. The main caveat to this relationship was that we only had magnets that would go up to 5.5 Tesla, which implied we needed a tokamak radius of 6 meters or so in order to produce net energy.
Well that 6 meter tokamak was designed in the eighties and is currently under construction. ITER, being so large, costs tens of billions of dollars and requires international collaboration; the size of the project has led to huge budget overruns and long delays. Recently however, there have been significant advances in high-temperature super conductors that can produce magnetic fields large enough that we (theoretically) only need a tokamak with a major radius of about 1.5 meters to produce net gain. This is where SPARC (the tokamak being built by the company in the article) comes in. The general idea is that since we have stronger magnets now, we can make a smaller, and therefore cheaper tokamak quickly.
Small tokamaks do have downsides, namely that the heat flux through the walls of the device is so large that it will damage the tokamak. There have been breakthroughs with various divertor designs that can mitigate this, but to the best of my knowledge I'm not sure that CFS has specified their divertor configuration.
This was just a short summary of the presentation by Dennis Whyte given here [0]. I do not work in the fusion community.
-Fusion has made consistent improvement, roughly in line with expectations for the level of investment (20 years away predictions were considering if we invested massively, which we did not).
- Fusion is in theory something that could give us true energy abundance. Want to just desalinate water like crazy? Want to extract gigatons of carbon? Working fusion enables these to happen woth existing technologies.
I like to think of solar, batteries, fission, and wind as compelling ways to go mostly carbon free and lower energy costs about 2x over the next 20 years or so.
Fusion is what reduces energy cost potentially another 10x, which really changes the game for lots of things. Exciting stuff. Kudos to this team.
Well, at least for a few hundred years but then:
> if you plot the U.S. energy consumption in all forms from 1650 until now, you see a phenomenally faithful exponential at about 3% per year over that whole span. The situation for the whole world is similar. […] the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate [in energy consumption] (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. […] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we don’t have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase.
Source: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
The biggest problem is the 'in theory' part. With current plausible designs, the vast majority of the fusion reaction's energy is carried away by high-powered neutrons, which are entirely waste products.
I mean if we 10x the waste heat that could be produced by asics solely for the purpose of mining coins, it could be enough to create a mini climate.
> Fusion is what reduces energy cost potentially another 10x, which really changes the game for lots of things. Exciting stuff. Kudos to this team.
Citation needed... If the fusion reactors end up needing tape of room temperature superconductors to keep their confinement going, and they degrade rapidly due to neutron radiation, I could easily see solar being cheaper in the long run. I'm not saying this is exactly what will happen, but I have never seen compelling proof that fusion will really be so cheap in terms of capex or opex per Watt.
What does fusion give us that existing nuclear power plant tech doesn't?
I have a couple of physics degrees, hot fusion is the energy of the future and it always will be. This is not a physics problem, this is an engineering problem and we are just not willing to invest enough money to solve the engineering.
It just doesn't strike me as obvious that reducing the major radius by a few meters would have such a huge impact on cost/timelines.
[0] https://library.psfc.mit.edu/catalog/online_pubs/iap/iap2016...
This quote from the presentation summarizes it well:
“The more money that's involved, the less risk people want to take. The less risk people want to take, the more they put into their designs, to make sure their subsystem is super-reliable. The more things they put in, the more expensive the project gets. The more expensive it gets, the more instruments the scientists want to add, because the cost is getting so high that they're afraid there won't be another opportunity later on- they figure this is the last train out of town. So little by little, the spacecraft becomes gilded. And you have these bad dreams about a spacecraft so bulky and so heavy it won't get off the ground- never mind the overblown cost.”
“That boils down to the higher the cost, the more you want to protect your investment, so the more money you put into lowering your risk. It becomes a vicious cycle.” - Rob Manning, Chief spacecraft engineer, JPL
It's all completely bespoke scientific equipment hand made for this project only. The cryostat will be the largest stainless steel vacuum vessel ever made-- all welded by hand.
After welding, a substantial number of in-vessel components have to be installed by threading them through access ports, which is also quite a task: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt70mO2nQac
>It just doesn't strike me as obvious that reducing the major radius by a few meters would have such a huge impact on cost/timelines.
It would, easily. Past a certain size, production costs rise exponentially and require one-off tech.
1. As budget constraints tighten, the number of man-hours spent wrestling with bean counters (and/or waiting around with nothing to do until the bean counter wrestling completes) increases exponentially.
2. "Cheap solutions" often end up being unfit for purpose, and have to be reworked later at great expense.
3. Budget overruns lead to time overruns which lead to more budget overruns, ad infinitum.
We see it lately in the numerous military procurements (particularly the F-35 program), in NASA's SLS rocket, in California's bullet train to nowhere, and urban tunnels such as New York's 2nd Avenue subway extension. It is why nuke plants are invariably so expensive and late.
In a word, corruption.
Lately, this corruption has been arranged to be wholly legal, so there is no possibility of prosecution. The majority of the money spent is funneled into myriad private pockets without moving the project toward completion. Nobody involved, at the monetary level, has any desire for it ever to be completed, because that is when the gravy train stops.
Fusion projects represent the worst case of this phenomenon. Nobody knows what it should cost, and nobody in control of spending wants it over with, ever.
The chance that anything of any practical use could come out at the end was openly foreclosed before it ever started: it was never promised to produce any electrical power, and no turbines, or space for any, appear in any site plan.
Any sort of practically useful Tokamak plant would need to be overwhelmingly bigger and more expensive than ITER, and could never come anywhere near producing commercially competitive power, so the project is a known dead end, to be milked until it is finally cancelled in shame.
What is tragic is that each euro diverted to this boondoggle brings climate disaster terrifyingly closer.
Akin's law of spacecraft #29 "To get an accurate estimate of final program requirements, multiply the initial time estimates by pi, and slide the decimal point on the cost estimates one place to the right."
A 6m device occupies 666 (say) --216 m^3
a 10m device occupies 10 10 6 (say) -- 600 m^3
The scale of volume means that you have to build a much bigger facility to put it in (in order for the electronics to be kept dry and for people to be able to get around it to keep birds off it and things.
But worse - the weight. Concrete is 2400kg m ^3 so the small device might weigh 518 tonnes, but the bigger device is 1440 tonnes, so moving parts of it round becomes 3 * harder, the floors have to be 3* stronger, the supply chain has to be 3* better.
And then time - 3* scale, 3* engineering challenge -> many times more time to deliver, many more $$$ -> risk -> planning -> admin... the less capital at risk the less it's worth spending on avoiding the risk.. the less the overhead of the project is.
FWIW ITER is a science experiment - it's designed to find out more about fusion and that data will be very valuable for future reactor designs.
It's not that simple. The big problem with magnetic confinement fusion is that you need to control turbulence in the plasma so that you can contain the reactions for a reasonable amount of time to extract useful energy. However, turbulence increases with stronger magnetic field gradients, which is exactly what you get when making a smaller reactor chamber with stronger magnets. This wouldn't be the first project claiming to be able to build a small reactor, only to discover that it's virtually impossible without a major theoretical breakthrough. This is usually left out in the venture capital advertisements for these fusion startups. There's a reason why so much money and effort is spent on ITER - it is the only more or less guaranteed path to fusion with the tech and knowledge we have today.
Mmm, this isn't right. The stronger magnetic field reduces turbulence, it's the gradient of the pressure that generates turbulence. As best as anyone can tell, SPARC should be able to get Q~10 without any miracles involved -- the engineering rules of thumb and the advanced simulations all say the same.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-plasma-ph...
Maybe your equations and power laws are right, and a "big enough" tokamak would be a competitive source of power. But then there are the details, like "big enough will cost $25 Trillion". Followed by delays, cost overruns, etc.
I'm thinking that a rational, non-expert taxpayer would say, "This fusion thing is a hundred times worse than NASA's Senate Launch System. Stop wasting my money on it NOW, and let gullible investors waste theirs instead."
VIPER: an industrially scalable high-current high-temperature superconductor cable
Most notably, the extreme temperatures, hydrogen pumping, and high-energy neutron bombardment mean that, even with liquid metal blankets, the reactors will very quickly become brittle, probably not lasting more than a year or two. Since neutron bombardment also turns any material radioactive, not only do you need to tear down your fusion plant (or at least the expensive reactor part of it) every few years, but you have to do it with radiation-resistant robots, as human workers can't get close to the reactor after it's been operating for a while.
This talk by the MIT Nuclear Science department head explains the whole rationale behind ARC/SPARC, and this timestamp is where he starts talking about maintenance and the neutron blanket (5 minutes later): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=2400s
I bought a new screen cover yesterday for my phone. It came with a full mounting kit that I discarded after the ten minutes that took me to place the cover. The same kit could have been used to mount at least a hundred covers. The small slice of civilization I'm part of is extremely wasteful!
But, let's analyze that waste. First, energy went into collecting and transporting those materials, plus collateral environmental degradation. Now, energy will be spent collecting and processing my waste, and if it can't be recycled, it will end up also provoking collateral damage.
But, if we had infinite cheap energy, recycling all of it would be a no-brainier. Even recycling materials contaminated by radiation would be easy; after all, we already do that to refine fission fuel.
Economic incentives? Those are trivial to legislate, absent the environmental cost and with a promise of green-house gases neutrality. Heck, had we infinity cheap energy, we can pack, move out of planet an leave all of Earth as a bio-reserve.
In other words, nuclear fusion holds the promise of being such a civilization game-changer, that the question of "is it better than solar in the next ten to thirty years?" is moot. With that said, the next ten to thirty years will be vital to attenuate climate change, so nuclear fusion should not be used as a deterrent for other climate investments we can do today.
The only useful outcome of any of this work is a generation of plasma-fluid physicists with practical experience. Pray we can find them something useful to do when the whole enterprise finally collapses.
A whole generation heard about it in school decades ago. Multiple generations by now, even. Its right up there with battery/energy-storage technologies. Headline after headline, enrapturing a newer and newer idealist set of people to quickly become disillusioned. People just get tired of it.
But I’m glad to understand whats going on behind the scenes now. I’ll pay attention. Looks like a real sleeper.
So, why is this particular announcement exciting? There are 3 factors:
1. This is a high temperature superconductor. I can't find any references, but as far as I remember the substrate they are using needs to be cooled to (WRONG, it was cooled to 20degK, see reply by MauranKilom) 60-70 degK to achieve super conductivity. Compare to magnets used in ITER which need to be cooled to 4degK. This is the difference between using relatively cheap liquid nitrogen vs liquid helium.
2. Field strength of 20 Tesla is significantly higher than 13 Tesla used in ITER. Given that magnetic confinement fusion scales significantly better with field strength vs reactor size, this will enable much smaller reactor to be power positive. See following links for more details on ITERs magnets: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2280763-worlds-most-pow... https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2700
3. Finally, the magnet was assembled from 16 identical subassemblies, each of which used mass manufactured magnetic tape. This is significantly cheaper and more scalable than custom magnet design/manufacturing used by ITER.
The kicker is how 3 of the factors above interact with the cost of the project. Stronger magnets allow smaller viable reactors. High temperature superconductors + smaller reactors allow for a much simpler and smaller cooling system. Smaller reactors + scalable magnet design further drives down the cost. Finally, cost of state of art mega projects scales somewhere between 3rd and 4th power with the size of the device. Combining all of the above factors, SPARC should be here significantly sooner than ITER and cost a tiny fraction (I would guesstimate that fraction to be between 1/100 and 1/10,000).
edit: typos + looked at the cost of ITER and refined my cost fraction guesstimate + corrected some stuff based on the reply by MauranKilom.
> This is because energy gain and power density scale exponentially with magnetic field strength but only linearly with reactor size
Nit: It scales polynomially, not exponentially. Specifically (according to those formulas) energy gain scales with the cube of field strength and power density with the fourth power. Still massive scaling indeed, but exponentially would be something else.
> as far as I remember the substrate they are using needs to be cooled to 60-70 degK to achieve super conductivity
The video in the article shows 20 K. Could of course be that higher temperature is feasible and they just played it safe (or the video is wrong).
But they don't need to, do they? If their claim is sound, they could as well just optimize the magnets and wait for ITER to complete to offer an ITERation (pun very much intended) on the design. The fact that they focus on this weird race against an international research project makes me wonder if SPARC is mostly a vehicle to attract investors.
ITERs plasma density will be comparatively low, and that is where SPARC with stronger magnets comes in. SPARC will produce data on lower volume and limited burn time, but significantly higher plasma density.
The new superconductors that allow these larger magnets are also very recent, not in discovery but in actual mass production. So they don't have as much experience with using these as with the classical superconductors. So I hope there is still quite some quick improvement there on the table.
If I remember right from one of the videos from the SPARC reactor folks, they were experimenting with not bothering with insulation between the magnet windings. The ReBCO film is bonded to a layer of stainless steel, and they figured the conductivity of the film is so much better than stainless steel that they wouldn't actually get much loss from current leaking through. That seems kind of crazy, but I guess there's a lot of things about superconducting materials that don't behave intuitively.
Maybe manufacturers can make film that's bonded to a thinner layer of stainless steel or whatever, and thus allow for more windings in the same space?
This is D-T fusion. Which means you have to have T. Which currently comes from fission reactor and has a half life of 15 years.
So the plan is to use a molten salt blanket with Be to breed T. But Be isn’t scalable for consumption, so maybe lead eventually. That’s probably do-able, it just slows down the rate new reactors can come online since Pb is not as good a neutron multiplier.
Once they breed extra T, they have to capture and refine it. Hydrogen is very corrosive and hard to work with… and T is radioactive hydrogen. Again, probably doable. But guess what? Refining spent nuclear waste in fission reactors is also do-able. It’s also super expensive.
And they still need a containment vessel that will withstand the wear and tear from sitting next to a mini hydrogen bomb all day.
These challenges are likely all surmountable. But are they surmountable AND cheaper than existing nuclear or other energy sources? Meh?
Though most of the reactors do not harvest the tritium, a small number do.
CANDU operators have long been ready to make the capital investments in tritium harvesting, once demand materializes. ITER has long been seen as a potential major source of tritium demand.
DT fusion solves the two biggest arguments that are always raised by nuclear energy opponents: storage of nuclear waste (it doesn't produce high-level waste) and safety (it's not perfect but it can't explode). I wouldn't call it a "meh", even if it comes off as much more expensive than fission.
"T is radioactive hydrogen": True, it emits low energy beta radiation, which is an electron, and is stopped by a sheet of paper. I used to have a wrist watch with a tritium dial; I haven't died of cancer yet.
For the other uninitiated, (or far enough out of secondary school and didn't take it further!) this seems to refer to Deuterium-Tritium fusion, D & T being the isotopes of hydrogen with an atomic mass of 2 (1 neutron, 'heavy' but stable) and 3 (2 neutrons, radioactive) respectively.
Very little is invested into fusion power as a project, overall. So advancements seem to come when outside influences cause breakthroughs.
I wonder how different the world would have been if it had for whatever reason been easier to produce fusion power than a fusion bomb. Military investment into the bomb would have probably pushed things forward a lot quicker. As is, the US military built thermonuclear bombs very quickly and then the appetite for advancement just dried up.
I really wish that press release would put the link to the paper at the top -- I found it very hard to work out what was actually new!
https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/research_news/tech/201912/t2...
Googling "30T magnetic field" shows some papers that have apparently "pulsed" 30T.
Q (the ratio of energy out to energy in) has improved by about four orders of magnitude since controlled fusion was first achieved, and it's been a slow, at least reasonably steady march since the middle of the 20th century to achieve that progress. The current record-holding Q for magnetic confinement is around 0.67, so we need well under one more order of magnitude to get to the point of "theoretical break-even" (Q>1) -- we're most of the way there. A plant just barely better than break-even probably wouldn't be commercially viable, though, and while estimates vary, that point is probably somewhere in the 10-30 range, so we have maybe another order of magnitude to go after break-even. I don't think there's anything to suggest that after decades of progress we'll suddenly stop being able to make more.
It's true that things have slowed down somewhat in the last 10-15 years, but most of the blame there goes to the need, in order to continue moving forward, to build bigger and bigger reactors, and the need to divert resources to that goal (mostly ITER). To the extent that promises of going faster have turned out to be hot air, it seems like they've mostly been in the form of novel approaches that do fusion in some fundamental new way that avoids the need to build an ITER-like thing. These approaches seem to often involve lots of unknowns, and end up getting bogged down in practical issues once they're actually tried (surprise plasma instabilities and so on).
Recent advances in materials science (mostly REBCO magnets) and computing, though, offer a path to progress on the regular, bog-standard flavor of magnetic confinement fusion (tokamaks) on a smaller scale -- that's what this is. The nice thing about that is that the plasma physics here are very well understood, and have been heavily researched using conventional/not-super-conducting magnets that won't ever achieve break-even, but create identical plasma conditions inside the reactor (MIT Alcator C-Mod is effectively the conventional-magnet predecessor to this project). Up until now, the only real question was whether or not they could build strong-enough REBCO magnets, and now they have, so this is all good news and reason for optimism.
Of course, commercial viability is a whole other question involving lots of questions besides physics. But the physics here seem to not be in serious doubt, unlike some of the proposals from other startups that are more exotic.
What sort of computing advances? Modeling? Real time controls? I'm guessing modeling, but would like to know more details.
There are a bunch of issues still to be resolved. Higher magnet strength is/was just one of many.
That it would cost overwhelmingly more than solar+storage is what will ultimately kill it. Someday. Many more $B will be spent first.
I feel that fusion is one of humanity's best shots at actively reversing climate change, and it is disheartening to see such widespread pessimism about it. Yeah it's hard. There are huge hurdles in making it economicly viable, but if we can go from first powered flight to the moon in 70 years, and put billions of transistors on a chip in 50, then maybe we can get fusion going. It's clearly possible.
Couldn't the same thing be said about current fission reactors?
I get that fusion doesn't have the downsides of fission... but I'm also worried that people will be "scared" of fusion in the same way they're against GMO vegetables and irradiated fruits, totally irrationally...
Environmentally clean energy source is not enough, it needs to be ideologically pure as well.
I wouldn't call it that, even if there would be a energy gain.
I call it beginning of "fusion age", when we solved fusion ad can build them reliable and reproducible - and if we still need them by that time, for main energy production.
Since any fusion plant would necessarily cost more than 10x fission, and fission is not competitive, that is well out of reach.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02641-7
Just as a note, the max B field here is 600T
https://nationalmaglab.org/news-events/news/lbc-project-worl...
Fusion power density scales like B^4. So if CFS can get 2x the magnetic field, then they can make the plasma volume 16x smaller, which might equate to big savings in cost and construction time. (It doesn't make sense to go much smaller than their ARC reactor design though -- the plasma already takes up only a fraction of the volume of the core at that scale, so compressing the plasma further doesn't improve the power density. If you can increase the field even more, which REBCO seems to allow, then you would rather just pack more power into a device about the size of ARC. So don't expect to put one of these on your DeLorean.)
There are definitely other challenges/limitations. For one, this approach increases the heat flux that the inner wall of the reactor will have to survive. The localized heat flux of the exhaust stream is expected to rival the heat flux of re-entry from orbit (20 MW/m^2) and could be as high as the power flux from the surface of the sun (~60MW/m^2). 20MW/m^2 is on the hairy edge of what's possible with today's technology, and that's without all the complications of neutron damage, plasma bombardment, etc. The current thinking is to spike the outer layer of the plasma with neon or nitrogen, to radiate most of the power as photons, but there are limitations & risks to that idea as well. Commonwealth's plan for SPARC (last I heard) was to oscillate the exhaust stream back & forth across the absorber plate to reduce the average heat flux.
The nuclear engineering side of fusion has been underfunded for a long time, so there's much that needs to be done on that front, in terms of demonstrating that the breeding of tritium from lithium can be done efficiently & without too much losses. Also, we should be developing better structural materials that can withstand neutron damage & not become (as) radioactive.
It's still very much an open question as to whether fusion could be made economical, even though it seems like it should be technically possible.
It doesn't look like they are targeting that here. Does anyone know if that is ARC (not SPARC) specific, or if that has been abandoned?
CFS will be building a lot more magnets, not only for SPARC but for other customers, physics experiments and medical equipment, so I expect they will be working on many additional features including demountable joints for ARC.
One of the early tests they did of the VIPER cable at the SULTAN test facility in Switzerland involved a joint formed by clamping the ends of two cables to a copper bar. It does show that resistive joints are possible with HTS cables, unlike LTS cables, but the actual configuration of a joint for a large magnet is obviously a different matter. Luckily they will have a few years to work on it.
So, sounds like it's for SPARC.
No commercial reactor will ever be built, so this is just for showing off.
The only real good to come from these efforts is employment of plasma fluid physicists. I just hope non-military work can be found for them when this stuff fizzles. Solar Physics is fascinating and important, but has limited budget.
Here's the truth: there's no such thing as free energy. Even if the fuel is so abundant it's actually or effectively free (eg deuterium), the energy isn't. Say it takes $50B to build a plant that produces 1GW of power, which I'll estimate at about 7TWh/year based on [1]. Let's also say it has a lifespan of 40 years and an annual maintenance cost of $1B going to up to $2B in the last 10 years.
So that's 40 years for 280TWh at a cost of $100B, which equates to $0.35/kWh if my math is correct.
I realize ITER isn't a commercial power generation project. My point is that people need to stop getting hung up on the fuel being "free". The lifetime cost of the plant can still make it completely economically unviable.
Second, the big weakness of any fusion design is neutrons. The problem people tend to focus on is that neutrons destroy your (very expensive) containment vessel with (one of my favourite terms) "neutron embrittlement".
As an aside, hydrogen fusion also produces high speed helium nuclei, some of which tend to escape and this is a problem too because Helium nuclei are really small so can get in almost any material, which is a whole separate problem.
But here's another factor with neutrons: energy loss. High speed neutrons represent energy lost by the system.
To combat these problems we've looked for alternatives to hydrogen-hydrogen fusion, the holy grail of which is aneutronic fusion. The best candidate for that thus far seems to be Helium-3 fusion but He-3 is exceedingly rare on Earth.
I really think we get caught up on the fact that this is how stars work but stars have a bunch of properties that power plants don't, namely they're really big and they burn their fuel really slowly (as a factor of their size), which is why they can last billions or even trillions of years. Loose neutrons aren't really an issue in a star and sheer size means gravity keeps the whole system contained in a way that magnets just can't (because neutrons ignore magnetic fields).
So I hope they crack fusion but I remain skeptical. Personally I think the most likely future power source is space-based solar power generation.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations
Space-based solar power generation (itself "fusion power" in the loosest sense) would be great in the inner planets.
Though to open up the outer planets, Kuiper belt, Oort Cloud, and any other stars, we'll need non-solar* power: hopefully fusion, at least fission.
*Unless we want to go the stellaser route, but I'd bet we'll crack fusion before getting near K2.
H-3 is not nearly so scarce as cletus suggests. It is uncommon, but you don't need much.
However, those maintenance costs (your estimates) would be the first thing to drop. Any company producing/operating these will be competing with wind and solar, and thus highly incentivized to improve. There should be plenty of low hanging fruit, since it hasn't happened once yet.
I think the hope is that with economies of scale, we could build really huge fusion plants one day, and drive down the cost of energy to less than a cent per KWh, and of course completely eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels. If energy becomes that cheap, we could use electricity to produce hydrocarbons from CO2 and water to power airplanes and such. Currently, we can imagine short-distance flights being electrically powered, but transatlantic flights are going to be difficult to achieve with batteries.
Space based power generation to me is incredibly dumb. It would be far easier to build solar on earth and transport it around with high efficiency DC lines.
And if you are really looking into the cheapest possible energy a thorium breeder reactor could run for ever with no fuel cost and could be built with 70s technology. These reactor be produced in a factory at a manufacturing line and then dropped into a containment facility.
How this should be more expensive then space based solar makes no sense to me.
This is what I remember from memory, I would need to fact check that.
My method uses much lower magnetic fields that could be provided by permanent magnets, but should allow containment times on the order of weeks for small quantities of D-D fuel.
I have more information at http://www.DDproFusion.com
In case others are wondering, looks like this is for SPARC.
FTA: This "MIT-CFS collaboration...on track to build the world’s first fusion device that can create and confine a plasma that produces more energy than it consumes. That demonstration device, called SPARC, is targeted for completion in 2025."
CFS: https://cfs.energy/technology
(edit: clarification)
ITER was designed to use weaker electromagnets and therefore needs a massive building and tons of cranes and a massive budget.
Unfortunately, the ARC design also had 40x worse power density than a PWR primary reactor vessel.
Smaller. Smarter. Sooner. 2018
Currently 2021 where is my fusion energy? But this time must be different, after this advance we are only a few years away from fusion energy?
They are now claiming to have done the latter. Are you skeptical of the new design? Or do you think it does not represent as significant a departure from earlier designs as they claim?
I really want this to work. I am a bit concerned, with how “the old guard” will react, once we have successful, productive, fusion.
I foresee an astroturf NIMBY campaign against construction of fusion plants.
They forgot to say that it is not the H2O that comes out of your tap. The earth is especially not full of tritium.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5gi9yh/fusion_i...
Nuclear ruined it's own reputation for generations though hopeful not as long as they'll have to care for the waste we already have.
The only real open question is how long the gravy train will run before the plug is pulled. F-35 and SLS have demonstrated that with careful management, that can be longer than anyone could have believed.
The goal is to get fusion power om the grid in the 2030's and scale up in the 2040's. Stop moving the goalposts.
The video thouches upon magnetic fields and its relevance at this time mark ; https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk?t=2880
Fission has a absurdly high energy density, the step from oil to fission is far more relevant then the step from fission to fusion.
Fusion would mean basically no fuel cost, but thorium is already a waste product and even uranium fuel is a tiny part of any fission plant.
Some people seem to believe the fusion is inherently prove against weapons, but this is equally not really true. If you had a working fission plant there would be ways to use it to get what you want to make a weapon.
There are some places you might want fusion, mainly in space travel but even there we are not anywhere even close to where we could get to with fission. Open gas nuclear thermal rockets anybody?
In sum, I'm not against this reseach but its not a way to solve our problems anytime soon. Fission you could get to run with 60s tech and amazing reactors could be designed within decades and often with comparatively small teams in the 60-80s and somehow we haven't managed to make it competitive.
Fusion looks to be far more complex to build in every possible way. How this will be cheaper is questionable to me.
Haven't Tokamak Energy in the UK done better than this already back in 2019 with their 24T magnet based on similar HTS tape technology?
https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/tokamak-energy-exceeds-targe...
In comparison, 20T does not look much, but again it is, I wonder with the Japanese technique what is the highest continuous magnetic field.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compre...
And I hope the marketers pretending they'll have a commercial plant by 2025 are ashamed.
For instance, can I build a railgun to shoot things into orbit?
Nah.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-the...
This is because a lot of rich countries seem to me to be well placed to benefit partially from global climate change at the moment, at least within the 1-2C range. Changing the climate past that point is likely to be controversial, since the countries who now benefit from the situation will likely not want to give those newfound advantages away.
I would think of it a lot as the end result of a war - the borders are defined by where the armies stopped ie the division of Europe and Asia after ww2. After climate change I expect whoever has benefitted from it to defend their position and reject any further alterations!
But every cent diverted to fusion from solar brings climate disaster closer.
