3 ms·

https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1704_web.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1704_web.p... and https://www-pub.iaea.org/MT

by zbobet2012 4y ago

https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1704_web.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1704_web.p... and https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1911_web.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1911_web.p... actually layout some of the challenges. they are not as you state and there ARE tradeoffs between MCF and ICF. Most experts agree MCF is closer to realization, but that's a very well educated guess not a surity. https://scientific-publications.ukaea.uk/wp-content/uploads/UKAEA-CCFE-PR2094.PDF https://scientific-publications.ukaea.uk/wp-content/uploads/... lays out some of the differences and tradeoffs Even more interesting is to look at approaches which might combine the two: https://medium.com/fusion-energy-league/the-fundamental-parameter-space-of-controlled-thermonuclear-fusion-1c1e34206ed8 https://medium.com/fusion-energy-league/the-fundamental-para...

cpleppert 4y ago
from a brief look, both publications prominently feature discussions about target survival within the reaction vessel. Of course there are tradeoffs between MCF and ICF. They involve different sets of challenges to achieve viable fusion energy production. Neither has been demonstrated to have commercial viability to date. The consensus view that MCF is more viable is rooted in the much better understanding of how to comercialize a MCF reactor.