3 ms·
It is the opposite, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359947675_Will_We_Ever_Have_a_Quantum_Computer https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359947675_W
by _0w8t 4y ago
It is the opposite, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359947675_Will_We_Ever_Have_a_Quantum_Computer https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359947675_Will_We_E...
But then one still has to be skeptical about tokamaks. Plasma instabilities for unknown reasons alone is enough for that.
And then there is the flux of energetic neutrons with order of magnitude higher energies than that of a fission reactor. Spherical tokamaks are especially bad in that respect as the central thin handle cannot be protected sufficiently.
At least with stellarator designs there are no instabilities and the neutron flux can be managed with a sufficiently thick blanket, so those are safer bets than tokamaks.
- willis936 4y agoBut they also need to be larger for a given power output, so frontrunners are trying tokamaks first because if they can get those to work at reactor relevant levels then they will have a cheaper / more competitive product. If tokamaks don't work out and the price of electricity is sufficiently high, then stellarators will likely make the most sense.
- moogly 4y agoThey're not even sure tokamaks can be run steady-state and not pulsed. That's hand-waved as an "engineering problem" like everything else tokamak-related. Stellarators at least look like they could, since you don't need to induce a current to generate the magnetic field via induction.
- willis936 4y agoPulsed reactors is not a showstopper. If you pulse heat into a coolant blanket there is plenty of thermal energy buffer. Hitting 90+% duty cycle is an engineering challenge with no physics hurdles.