2 ms·

This is really the most comprehensive write-up of nuclear fusion R & D I've ever come across. However, the conclusions aren't that hopeful for the notion of nuc

This is really the most comprehensive write-up of nuclear fusion R & D I've ever come across. However, the conclusions aren't that hopeful for the notion of nuclear fusion as a useful energy source anytime soon. On the technological scale, it seems closer to the likelihood of terraforming Venus, rather than the much more feasible notion of colonizing Mars. Basically it seems like the ICF method is more effective and as an experimental system, uses much less tritium, but using it to drive a power production system (converting heat to electric power) is much more difficult than with the MCF system, if even possible. The MCF system on the other hand seems nowhere near reaching breakeven.

ncmncm 4y ago
ICF is even less practical than MCF, and MCF is not. We will with certainty not get commercially competitive, or even usable, energy from fusion. Any money spent on that prospect is badly misdirected. Support fusion research to direct money to support plasma physicists, or to keep certain exotic-tech military contractors afloat, or to drive superconducting electromagnetics.
- gruturo 4y ago
  ICF is pretty much bomb research masquerading as civilian fusion research. Always has been. Any money spent on it is not at all badly misdirected, it's rather accurately directed, you could say.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    "So to speak". Precisely directed, anyway.
baking 4y ago
Daniel Jassby is a tiresome crank. Always quoted in the media as the sole critic of fusion. He runs a website devoted to blowing things out of proportion. In this article, he says that SPARC and ITER will both achieve first plasma around the same date (2025) but that SPARC will take another ten years to burn DT fuel because ITER is taking ten years. ITER is taking ten years because the equipment required for DT operation won't be installed until 2035, after their second maintenance shutdown. SPARC is intended to progress to DT operation as soon as possible after first plasma assuming all the equipment checks out. He poo-poos tritium breeding, referring to an article he wrote 5 years ago about the faults of a solid blanket, neglecting to mention that the ARC design has been based on a liquid blanket. If he wants to criticize the MIT/CFS SPARC/ARC design, he should by all means just go ahead and do so, but this lazy approach of his is just plain dumb and tiresome.
- thoms_a 4y ago
  I'm glad you saved me the effort of reading this article. I've been following fusion for years, and have been cautiously optimistic. Recently, with the progress of both Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Tokamak Energy, both startups with private funding which aim to develop commercially viable Tokamaks, I'm ready to throw caution to the wind. Tokamaks work, high temp superconductors work, and the combination is likely to result in working fusion reactors. If it doesn't, then at least we'll know soon enough via these two private companies. It doesn't make sense to write articles heckling companies which have literally put millions of dollars where their mouths are. Just let them get on with the work, and if they fail, they fail, and we learn something.
guerrilla 4y ago
> terraforming Venus, rather than the much more feasible notion of colonizing Mars I've heard from multiple experts now that you may have this backwards. SpaceTime even made a video about it long ago [1] 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag

ncmncm 4y ago

ICF is even less practical than MCF, and MCF is not. We will with certainty not get commercially competitive, or even usable, energy from fusion. Any money spent on that prospect is badly misdirected. Support fusion research to direct money to support plasma physicists, or to keep certain exotic-tech military contractors afloat, or to drive superconducting electromagnetics.

gruturo 4y ago
ICF is pretty much bomb research masquerading as civilian fusion research. Always has been. Any money spent on it is not at all badly misdirected, it's rather accurately directed, you could say.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  "So to speak". Precisely directed, anyway.

baking 4y ago

Daniel Jassby is a tiresome crank. Always quoted in the media as the sole critic of fusion. He runs a website devoted to blowing things out of proportion. In this article, he says that SPARC and ITER will both achieve first plasma around the same date (2025) but that SPARC will take another ten years to burn DT fuel because ITER is taking ten years. ITER is taking ten years because the equipment required for DT operation won't be installed until 2035, after their second maintenance shutdown. SPARC is intended to progress to DT operation as soon as possible after first plasma assuming all the equipment checks out. He poo-poos tritium breeding, referring to an article he wrote 5 years ago about the faults of a solid blanket, neglecting to mention that the ARC design has been based on a liquid blanket. If he wants to criticize the MIT/CFS SPARC/ARC design, he should by all means just go ahead and do so, but this lazy approach of his is just plain dumb and tiresome.

thoms_a 4y ago
I'm glad you saved me the effort of reading this article. I've been following fusion for years, and have been cautiously optimistic. Recently, with the progress of both Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Tokamak Energy, both startups with private funding which aim to develop commercially viable Tokamaks, I'm ready to throw caution to the wind. Tokamaks work, high temp superconductors work, and the combination is likely to result in working fusion reactors. If it doesn't, then at least we'll know soon enough via these two private companies. It doesn't make sense to write articles heckling companies which have literally put millions of dollars where their mouths are. Just let them get on with the work, and if they fail, they fail, and we learn something.

guerrilla 4y ago

> terraforming Venus, rather than the much more feasible notion of colonizing Mars I've heard from multiple experts now that you may have this backwards. SpaceTime even made a video about it long ago [1] 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag