← Back to context

Comment by andriesm

5 days ago

How can they build something commercial/grid-scale when not a single research-level reactor truly generates net energy out, and none can do it anywhere near continously enough to be of any practical use?

This news is either based on misleading the public, or I am about to be updated with where Fusion is?

13 comments

andriesm

Reply
Gud  4 days ago

I think you are about to be updated.

Watch this clip with Prof. Whyte from 8 years ago. It’s the team behind CFS(then still at MIT). Highly interesting. He will explain exactly what they will do(now doing), how they will do it, and why they will do it they way they are doing it.

Please note that they are pretty much on target since. I have been following CFS closely.

Essentially the breakthrough has been the ability to manufacture more powerful magnets. CFS makes the most powerful magnets in the world.

That was always the main issue, how to contain the plasma.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&pp=ygUrYnJlYWt0aHJ...

  • pfdietz  4 days ago

    Now ask: what is the power density of their proposed reactor?

    The predecessor, the ARC reactor in the 2014 paper, had a power density of 0.5 MW/m^3.

    In comparison, a commercial PWR, which you can buy today, has a power density of 20 MW/m^3.

    So, even with all the HTSC hype, their machine is still a factor of 40 worse than existing proven fission technology.

    How is such a bloated, much more complex machine even going to compete with fission, never mind the alternatives that have sidelined new fission construction? The capex will be completely out of bounds.

cladopa  5 days ago

Because they are more or less certain (because of their magnets) they will get the necessary temperatures for ignition, giving more energy that it consumes.

If they get ignitions, all the other problems will be solved very fast, because there will be an enormous rush from investors wanting to invest billions.

  • nradov  4 days ago

    I hope they succeed, but throwing more money at problems like this doesn't necessarily accelerate progress. There is still basic research needed. Building large, high-precision devices can't be rushed.