4 ms·

> Better superconductors means better magnets, which means cheaper fusion. obviously that's untrue, since fusion for power use at the moment isn't "too expensi

> Better superconductors means better magnets, which means cheaper fusion. obviously that's untrue, since fusion for power use at the moment isn't "too expensive", it's "too hard". literally hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and we're still not close. I can't tell why there are so many uninformed posters on this topic on HN. is astroturfing by the nuclear/fossil fuel industry to delay doing the hard work to eliminate fossil fuel use? is it just that people read too much scifi as a kid and then didn't read any real science on the topic for thirty years?

barfbagginus 2y ago
ITER will have 10x more volume and 6.6x greater thermal efficiency (Q factor) than any previous reactor. It fires in 2025. The reactor will use around 600mw of electricity to generated 500mw of heat, in 10 minute runs. Not break even by any means, but getting much closer than ever before. ITER uses - I'm estimating - about 5 billion dollars of cryogenic superconductors - 10,000 tons of superconducting tape. These require let's guess an extra 3 billion dollars in cooling capacity and cryonics. Cooling these magnets costs around 150mw of energy, reducing reactor efficiency significantly. We also use much bigger magnets than theoretically necessary, because cryogenic superconductors quench - instantly lose superconductivity - if they take too much power. Now imagine we have some 10x cheaper room temp superconductor that is 10x to 100x harder to quench: + Magnet mass drops 10-100x (to 1000 tons or 100 tons) + Magnet cost drops 100x-1000x (to 50 million or 5 million) + Cryonics system is 1.5 billion cheaper + We cut the reactor's electricity budget by 150mw, to 450mw Overall we saved over 6 billion dollars, thanks to a non-fusion innovation. Keep in mind these numbers are guesses and wishful thinking. But it suggests that a miracle superconductor could push ITER like devices closer to break even, perhaps even achieving it.

barfbagginus 2y ago

ITER will have 10x more volume and 6.6x greater thermal efficiency (Q factor) than any previous reactor. It fires in 2025. The reactor will use around 600mw of electricity to generated 500mw of heat, in 10 minute runs. Not break even by any means, but getting much closer than ever before. ITER uses - I'm estimating - about 5 billion dollars of cryogenic superconductors - 10,000 tons of superconducting tape. These require let's guess an extra 3 billion dollars in cooling capacity and cryonics. Cooling these magnets costs around 150mw of energy, reducing reactor efficiency significantly. We also use much bigger magnets than theoretically necessary, because cryogenic superconductors quench - instantly lose superconductivity - if they take too much power. Now imagine we have some 10x cheaper room temp superconductor that is 10x to 100x harder to quench: + Magnet mass drops 10-100x (to 1000 tons or 100 tons) + Magnet cost drops 100x-1000x (to 50 million or 5 million) + Cryonics system is 1.5 billion cheaper + We cut the reactor's electricity budget by 150mw, to 450mw Overall we saved over 6 billion dollars, thanks to a non-fusion innovation. Keep in mind these numbers are guesses and wishful thinking. But it suggests that a miracle superconductor could push ITER like devices closer to break even, perhaps even achieving it.