3 ms·
Comparing the very optimistic deadline given by Commonwealth Fusion, concerning a prototype that has not even began construction versus the latest postponing of
by thrance 2y ago
Comparing the very optimistic deadline given by Commonwealth Fusion, concerning a prototype that has not even began construction versus the latest postponing of the first firing of ITER is kind of meaningless.
As underlined in the article, ITER is already 9 years behind schedule. Not because they're incompetent or underfunded, but because fusion is hard. I don't expect a private company with much less funding to do any better.
That said, I'd like to be wrong and see one of these companies crack commercial fusion in their basement.
- moomin 2y agoThe Economist always phrases articles to imply that private investment is a magical elixir that will make problems go away.
- IanCal 2y agoThe fundamental thing behind SPARC is (iiuc) to do this far faster by being drastically smaller. Iter was designed a long time ago based on materials available at the time. SPARC can be much smaller with much stronger magnets. The argument from SPARC wasn't that iter was incompetent but that being so vast and expensive requires multiple nation states cooperating which is inherently slow. Slow things being more risks as thing a change too (9 years is probably 3 governments here). Making it smaller makes it cheaper, a d cheaper means a smaller collaboration (or single company).