4 ms·
I don't think they'll have SPARC by 2025 but the physics work out. It's basically a bog-standard tokamak with superconducting magnets but with much more current
by nimish 5y ago
I don't think they'll have SPARC by 2025 but the physics work out. It's basically a bog-standard tokamak with superconducting magnets but with much more current capacity and therefore magnetic field strength from newer HTS. It's the fabrication of the magnets at scale that's totally new engineering and manufacturing; as we saw with Tesla that's quite hard. Plus the supply chains of HTS tapes aren't exactly mature.
I think both Tokamak and CFS have roughly the same strategy of using bigger magnetic fields. Given the scalings here https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.0437 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.043... + JET working well it's a lot less risk than whatever most others are doing. Make a JET sized tokamak but have 5x the magnetic field strength gives a 625x gain in power, ideally.
- Retric 5y agoI agree with what your saying, but that’s doesn’t mean the end result is even close to an economically viable fusion reactor. Look back in 1990 people could have spend a lot of money building a truly monumental reactor and hitting Q>100 briefly. Nobody suggested that was a good idea because all the other unsolved problems which is why ITER was being built in the first place. The point wasn’t simply to scale it was to test blanket materials etc in an environment very close to a working reactor. SPARK is undoubtedly a more efficient design but it’s not a solution for any of the major outstanding problems.
- nimish 5y agoOf course. They are basically a privately funded research group at this point. No one has any idea how to operate a profitable fusion plant.