3 ms·

The large scale project using low temperature superconductors is ITER, initially proposed at $5 billion and currently estimated at $20 billion for a scientific

by baking 8y ago

The large scale project using low temperature superconductors is ITER, initially proposed at $5 billion and currently estimated at $20 billion for a scientific test reactor. The MIT ARC design is half the size using high temperature superconductors and should be in the $1-2 billion range for a full-scale 500MW pilot production fusion reactor. What is currently being proposed (the subject of the papers being delivered tomorrow) and funded with private money is a $200-250 million SPARC (Smallest Possible ARC) that is half the size again of the full-size ARC. So yeah, you are off by a factor of 160.

pontifier 8y ago
I think I could build my prototype fusion device for under $1M Maybe if I said it would cost more to build, people would think it more likely to work.
- baking 8y ago
  SPARC is trying for Q (power out/power in) in the 1-5 range. They see this as critical for getting future funding for ARC. If you think you can get net power, what are you waiting for?
  - pontifier 8y ago
    The prototype would almost certainly be break even at very low powers and densities. There are very few places where my design would lose energy, and basically gives ions unlimited chances to fuse once accelerated. I had many discussions with the head of the physics department at the local university who is a specialist in plasma physics. He was of the opinion that it would work at very low pressures/densities, but that the total output would not be high enough to be commercially viable. What is the actual benefit of a room sized $100k fusion reactor that can only put out 100 watts of energy? I believe I've solved many of those problems, but building a prototype costs $$ that I don't have to spare... I could bankrupt myself to build the prototype but I can't gamble like that with assets that currently feed my family. Though I strongly believe it will work, I'm not going to go down the same hole that Tesla went down. I have no intention of dying penniless surrounded by pigeons. I am on track to build the prototype myself without going into debt in several years once a few of my mortgages are paid off. Right now I own 100% of the IP, and have a submitted patent. I'm not actively looking for funding that would dilute me unless it's a very good deal. I'm kind of stuck bootstrapping unless I can get a grant. I have applied for several in the past, but to no effect.
- FiatLuxDave 8y ago
  That may be possible. I built my fusion prototype for about $600k in 1990s dollars. Being more expensive doesn't make people think it is more likely to work. The easiest way to make people think your design will work is to take an existing design with known parameters and make it 'better'. Unfortunately, 'better' often means bigger and more expensive, which is how we get to projects like ITER. SPARC is a version of a compact tokamak using advances in high temperature superconductors - thus, 'better'. A different way is to propose something completely different than what has been done before. Then, if it is cheap enough, people may be willing to take a chance on it. This is what I did. However, it needs to be different enough to not be easily dismissable as having the same problems as an earlier design. For example, if you are doing a mirror design, you better have a good answer for fixing the ends. One thing that often gets overlooked when talking about cheaper fusion designs is speed. Big projects like ITER take a long time to build, and then a lot of experiments get done on them, taking more years, because you need to get your money's worth from them. Smaller designs get the knowledge gains out of the design much faster. Robert Hirsch has been trying to bring this to our collective attention ever since he converted from a tokamak proponent to opponent decades ago.
  - baking 8y ago
    I think this talk (https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk) makes a pretty good case for why a project of the scale of SPARC makes sense from an engineering standpoint.
    - pontifier 8y ago
      Very interesting video... My answers to the questions in the video are: Fuel: D-D Temperature target: 15kev Confinement: hopefully approaching ideal at small ion counts. (penning traps are very good at trapping particles for long periods of time) Instabilities: unknown but probable at high ion counts. I know there will be challenges to solve, but hopefully they are not fatal problems. I believe the first prototype could achieve Q>1
baking 8y ago
I should clarify that by "half the size" I meant half the radius, which translates to about 1/8 the cost.
noetic_techy 8y ago
I stand corrected. You're almost right, I should have said 4 billion, I remembered the number as 4-something. You can see at 1:16 in, the ARC pilot says 3,000? M$. Without going through the whole video again, I'm almost certain someone during the discussion mentioned 4 billion. You're right thought, a proof of concept can be done for an order of magnitude less.

by baking 8y ago

pontifier 8y ago

I think I could build my prototype fusion device for under $1M Maybe if I said it would cost more to build, people would think it more likely to work.

baking 8y ago
SPARC is trying for Q (power out/power in) in the 1-5 range. They see this as critical for getting future funding for ARC. If you think you can get net power, what are you waiting for?
- pontifier 8y ago
  The prototype would almost certainly be break even at very low powers and densities. There are very few places where my design would lose energy, and basically gives ions unlimited chances to fuse once accelerated. I had many discussions with the head of the physics department at the local university who is a specialist in plasma physics. He was of the opinion that it would work at very low pressures/densities, but that the total output would not be high enough to be commercially viable. What is the actual benefit of a room sized $100k fusion reactor that can only put out 100 watts of energy? I believe I've solved many of those problems, but building a prototype costs $$ that I don't have to spare... I could bankrupt myself to build the prototype but I can't gamble like that with assets that currently feed my family. Though I strongly believe it will work, I'm not going to go down the same hole that Tesla went down. I have no intention of dying penniless surrounded by pigeons. I am on track to build the prototype myself without going into debt in several years once a few of my mortgages are paid off. Right now I own 100% of the IP, and have a submitted patent. I'm not actively looking for funding that would dilute me unless it's a very good deal. I'm kind of stuck bootstrapping unless I can get a grant. I have applied for several in the past, but to no effect.
FiatLuxDave 8y ago
That may be possible. I built my fusion prototype for about $600k in 1990s dollars. Being more expensive doesn't make people think it is more likely to work. The easiest way to make people think your design will work is to take an existing design with known parameters and make it 'better'. Unfortunately, 'better' often means bigger and more expensive, which is how we get to projects like ITER. SPARC is a version of a compact tokamak using advances in high temperature superconductors - thus, 'better'. A different way is to propose something completely different than what has been done before. Then, if it is cheap enough, people may be willing to take a chance on it. This is what I did. However, it needs to be different enough to not be easily dismissable as having the same problems as an earlier design. For example, if you are doing a mirror design, you better have a good answer for fixing the ends. One thing that often gets overlooked when talking about cheaper fusion designs is speed. Big projects like ITER take a long time to build, and then a lot of experiments get done on them, taking more years, because you need to get your money's worth from them. Smaller designs get the knowledge gains out of the design much faster. Robert Hirsch has been trying to bring this to our collective attention ever since he converted from a tokamak proponent to opponent decades ago.
- baking 8y ago
  I think this talk (https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk) makes a pretty good case for why a project of the scale of SPARC makes sense from an engineering standpoint.
  - pontifier 8y ago
    Very interesting video... My answers to the questions in the video are: Fuel: D-D Temperature target: 15kev Confinement: hopefully approaching ideal at small ion counts. (penning traps are very good at trapping particles for long periods of time) Instabilities: unknown but probable at high ion counts. I know there will be challenges to solve, but hopefully they are not fatal problems. I believe the first prototype could achieve Q>1

baking 8y ago

I should clarify that by "half the size" I meant half the radius, which translates to about 1/8 the cost.

noetic_techy 8y ago

I stand corrected. You're almost right, I should have said 4 billion, I remembered the number as 4-something. You can see at 1:16 in, the ARC pilot says 3,000? M$. Without going through the whole video again, I'm almost certain someone during the discussion mentioned 4 billion. You're right thought, a proof of concept can be done for an order of magnitude less.