Comment by gpm
4 days 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"
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.
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.