MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
1–10 of 438 posts
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#2The thumbnail of the youtube video made me laugh
Smaller. Smarter. Sooner. 2018
Currently 2021 where is my fusion energy? But this time must be different, after this advance we are only a few years away from fusion energy?
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#3The advances enable a magnetic field strength that would otherwise require 40x more volume using conventional technology - doesn’t the reduced volume imply the plasma temperature would also increase significantly? Or is the magnetic field strong enough to protect the walls of the chamber?
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#4The thumbnail of the youtube video made me laugh Smaller. Smarter. Sooner. 2018 Currently 2021 where is my fusion energy? But this time must be different, after this advance we are only a few years away from fusion energy?
They seem to have made two claims. First, that they have a qualitatively different design that requires a significantly stronger magnetic field. Second, that they could build a magnet that produces such a field.
They are now claiming to have done the latter. Are you skeptical of the new design? Or do you think it does not represent as significant a departure from earlier designs as they claim?
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#5The advances enable a magnetic field strength that would otherwise require 40x more volume using conventional technology - doesn’t the reduced volume imply the plasma temperature would also increase significantly? Or is the magnetic field strong enough to protect the walls of the chamber?
My understanding is that the volume of the magnet is smaller and thus the entire reactor size goes down significantly leading to lower cost.
ITER was designed to use weaker electromagnets and therefore needs a massive building and tons of cranes and a massive budget.
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#6The thumbnail of the youtube video made me laugh Smaller. Smarter. Sooner. 2018 Currently 2021 where is my fusion energy? But this time must be different, after this advance we are only a few years away from fusion energy?
The running joke has always been that “Fusion is 20 years away,” and has been, for the last 50 years.
I really want this to work. I am a bit concerned, with how “the old guard” will react, once we have successful, productive, fusion.
I foresee an astroturf NIMBY campaign against construction of fusion plants.
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#7These university press releases are always very positively framed. This one makes the new magnet seem incredibly promising and fusion seem like almost an inevitability now, but decades of failure have us conditioned for skepticism. What's the catch this time?
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#8The thumbnail of the youtube video made me laugh Smaller. Smarter. Sooner. 2018 Currently 2021 where is my fusion energy? But this time must be different, after this advance we are only a few years away from fusion energy?
The running joke has always been that “Fusion is 20 years away,” and has been, for the last 50 years. I really want this to work. I am a bit concerned, with how “the old guard” will react, once we have successful, productive, fusion. I foresee an astroturf NIMBY campaign against construction of fusion plants.
It wasn't a joke, it was always based on an adequate level of funding. Everything is always off in the future if it never gets funded.
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#9Ah, a university press release.
Nah.
Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy
#10In the original proposal for the ARC reactor, they were proposing making the magnet separable so the top and bottom of the reactor could be separated and the vacuum vessel removed. (See pg. 5 of https://library.psfc.mit.edu/catalog/reports/2010/15ja/15ja0...)
It doesn't look like they are targeting that here. Does anyone know if that is ARC (not SPARC) specific, or if that has been abandoned?