3 ms·

What makes them industry leaders? Do they have a prototype? Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of t

What makes them industry leaders? Do they have a prototype? Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies? If they don't have a prototype, and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant, why should we believe this is possible? What evidence is there that these plans for a massive breakthrough ten years from now will work out? This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype. It may not be, but it has all those features, and not many other features.

gpm 2y ago
> What makes them industry leaders? They have a plausible relatively well understood path to fusion, have credibility with their background (coming out of fusion research at MIT), and have raised something like 2 billion dollars in funding. > Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies They think so > and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant They aren't. They're currently developing "SPARC", a Q>1 demonstration plant targeting 2027. The 400 MW commercial plant, ARC, is a follow on design targeting 2030s. > This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype They predate the AI boom by a lot. The project started in 2018. They had a $1.8 billion dollar funding round in 2021. The basic concept is "hey look, someone figured out how to build better superconductors. What if we took what ITER is trying to do, but used modern super conductors to make it smaller and actually achievable". I'm not saying I think they're certain to succeed, but I don't think they're a scam and I think it's very reasonable to include them amongst the group of "industry leaders"
- orwin 2y ago
  The reason Iter is so big is not to achieve controlled fusion, but to be able to capture the fusion energy output. I'm not doubting their ability to reach the self-sustaining plasma, I'm doubtful about their ability to capture energy from it though.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    ITER is as big as it is because it would not achieve the targeted Q with the given magnet technology if it were smaller. This has nothing to do with capturing energy.

gpm 2y ago

> What makes them industry leaders? They have a plausible relatively well understood path to fusion, have credibility with their background (coming out of fusion research at MIT), and have raised something like 2 billion dollars in funding. > Can they get Q>1, much less >5 or similar for what will be needed to break even on all the rest of the inefficiencies They think so > and are going straight to plans for a 400MW "commercial" plant They aren't. They're currently developing "SPARC", a Q>1 demonstration plant targeting 2027. The 400 MW commercial plant, ARC, is a follow on design targeting 2030s. > This looks, walks, and talks like a ploy to get in on AI energy demand hype They predate the AI boom by a lot. The project started in 2018. They had a $1.8 billion dollar funding round in 2021. The basic concept is "hey look, someone figured out how to build better superconductors. What if we took what ITER is trying to do, but used modern super conductors to make it smaller and actually achievable". I'm not saying I think they're certain to succeed, but I don't think they're a scam and I think it's very reasonable to include them amongst the group of "industry leaders"

orwin 2y ago
The reason Iter is so big is not to achieve controlled fusion, but to be able to capture the fusion energy output. I'm not doubting their ability to reach the self-sustaining plasma, I'm doubtful about their ability to capture energy from it though.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  ITER is as big as it is because it would not achieve the targeted Q with the given magnet technology if it were smaller. This has nothing to do with capturing energy.