3 ms·

"ITER on the other hand has an 85+% chance of working (net energy gain)" That is "working" only under an irrelevant definition of the word. The test of a comme

"ITER on the other hand has an 85+% chance of working (net energy gain)" That is "working" only under an irrelevant definition of the word. The test of a commercial power system is not whether it can produce a net energy gain, but whether it can produce large amounts of energy at prices which compare favorably to coal and nuclear. Having a zillion hamsters run on wheels all day might well qualify as "working" in the sense of producing net energy, but we don't use it for a reason. "and only costs the US ~1billion." Although technically true, this is a gross misrepresentation of the actual cost, which is enormous. "ITER was originally expected to cost approximately €5bn, but the rising price of raw materials and changes to the initial design may see that amount double." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER "All fusion devices ... need extensive containment and decommissioning costs." Evidence? Lead is very cheap. "The only way you can build a 20 million$ fusion reactor is by avoiding actually producing significant amounts of fusion." Evidence?

Retric 17y ago
ITER's cost is inflated because it includes a lot of research that would not take place in working power plant. Based on the physical cost of ITER and the scaling factor in fusion reactors a multi GW design similar to ITER should be close to the cost of fission. However, it has significant political advantages both for non-proliferation reasons and Not In My Back Yard reasons. Lead under heavy neutron bombardment becomes radioactive as does all other materials with long term heavy neutron bombardment. PS: If you are interested in fusion I would suggest you look at fusor.net. It's a message board for amateurs but there are some solid posts relating to the amount of neutrons produced per watt of net fusion energy for the better fusion materials. As well as a look into the cost of shielding etc. Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 JT-60 does not have the facilities to handle Tritium; currently only the JET tokamak has such facilities. In fusion terminology JT60 achieved conditions which in D-T would have provided Q=1.25 where Q is the ratio of fusion power to input power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO DEMO must have linear dimensions about 15% larger than ITER... Subsequent commercial fusion reactors could be built for nearly a quarter of the cost of DEMO if things go according to plan.[2][3]

Retric 17y ago

ITER's cost is inflated because it includes a lot of research that would not take place in working power plant. Based on the physical cost of ITER and the scaling factor in fusion reactors a multi GW design similar to ITER should be close to the cost of fission. However, it has significant political advantages both for non-proliferation reasons and Not In My Back Yard reasons. Lead under heavy neutron bombardment becomes radioactive as does all other materials with long term heavy neutron bombardment. PS: If you are interested in fusion I would suggest you look at fusor.net. It's a message board for amateurs but there are some solid posts relating to the amount of neutrons produced per watt of net fusion energy for the better fusion materials. As well as a look into the cost of shielding etc. Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 JT-60 does not have the facilities to handle Tritium; currently only the JET tokamak has such facilities. In fusion terminology JT60 achieved conditions which in D-T would have provided Q=1.25 where Q is the ratio of fusion power to input power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO DEMO must have linear dimensions about 15% larger than ITER... Subsequent commercial fusion reactors could be built for nearly a quarter of the cost of DEMO if things go according to plan.[2][3]