4 ms·

Is it just me, or have we converged on 1 reactor design (the tokamak) relatively early on in the process? I appreciate that funds need to be concentrated in ord

Is it just me, or have we converged on 1 reactor design (the tokamak) relatively early on in the process? I appreciate that funds need to be concentrated in order to have an impact, but we have built dozens of this design since the 1950s, yet here we are.

majewsky 8y ago
Wendelstein 7-X in Germany is a stellarator-type reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X
- tim333 8y ago
  And YC is invested in Helion Energy using pulsed inertial fusion. Though the tokamak seems closest to being functional. The MIT ARC design is theoretically supposed to be able to work, at least on paper: >The ARC design aims to achieve an engineering gain of three (to produce three times the electricity required to operate the machine) while being about half the diameter of the ITER reactor and cheaper to construct. (Wikipedia) It's not been built because of the $5bn or so cost, though given global warming / saving the planet type issues I'd be happy enough as a tax payer to have governments fund one and maybe knock 1% off the defence budget to counter that. It'd probably do more for world peace than churning out some more f35s.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    ARC has some funding now. They spun off a startup called Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which has $50M so far, from an Italian oil/gas company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    The ARC reactor would have a net power output of something like 190 MW(e). At $5B, that's $26/W(e), which is an order of magnitude too high, especially given how high the operating costs are likely to be.
_Microft 8y ago
I think there are a number of startups building on the foundational research done for the other, larger experimental reactors that are trying to build small-scale fusion reactors, some with quick iterations on their designs (i.e. a reactor generation only takes half a year instead of 15 years). Some of them are based near the JET lab, afaik. TAE Technologies also has an own approach for example.
jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago
So, the mainline effort is focused on Tokamaks with good reason. A huge population of the smartest physicists around have been debating this topic for several decades. Not to be rude, but armchair opinions here aren't worth much vs that. Yes we have been building dozens of these. But that's also because it's fundamentally a very difficult project. Do you somehow expect airplanes to go from the Wright flyer to a jumbo jet in less than a dozen steps? There's also been plenty of research into alternatives. Germany is building a stellarator. There's also a whole cohort of startups looking at more speculative ideas. I'm not saying there can't or shouldn't be more research into more alternatives. I am saying it's unreasonable to look at tokamak research as some sort of dead horse we're flogging.

majewsky 8y ago

Wendelstein 7-X in Germany is a stellarator-type reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X

tim333 8y ago
And YC is invested in Helion Energy using pulsed inertial fusion. Though the tokamak seems closest to being functional. The MIT ARC design is theoretically supposed to be able to work, at least on paper: >The ARC design aims to achieve an engineering gain of three (to produce three times the electricity required to operate the machine) while being about half the diameter of the ITER reactor and cheaper to construct. (Wikipedia) It's not been built because of the $5bn or so cost, though given global warming / saving the planet type issues I'd be happy enough as a tax payer to have governments fund one and maybe knock 1% off the defence budget to counter that. It'd probably do more for world peace than churning out some more f35s.
- DennisP 8y ago
  ARC has some funding now. They spun off a startup called Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which has $50M so far, from an Italian oil/gas company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fusion_Systems
- pfdietz 8y ago
  The ARC reactor would have a net power output of something like 190 MW(e). At $5B, that's $26/W(e), which is an order of magnitude too high, especially given how high the operating costs are likely to be.

_Microft 8y ago

I think there are a number of startups building on the foundational research done for the other, larger experimental reactors that are trying to build small-scale fusion reactors, some with quick iterations on their designs (i.e. a reactor generation only takes half a year instead of 15 years). Some of them are based near the JET lab, afaik. TAE Technologies also has an own approach for example.

jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago

So, the mainline effort is focused on Tokamaks with good reason. A huge population of the smartest physicists around have been debating this topic for several decades. Not to be rude, but armchair opinions here aren't worth much vs that. Yes we have been building dozens of these. But that's also because it's fundamentally a very difficult project. Do you somehow expect airplanes to go from the Wright flyer to a jumbo jet in less than a dozen steps? There's also been plenty of research into alternatives. Germany is building a stellarator. There's also a whole cohort of startups looking at more speculative ideas. I'm not saying there can't or shouldn't be more research into more alternatives. I am saying it's unreasonable to look at tokamak research as some sort of dead horse we're flogging.