I heard the ITER could achieve Q = 10, what about the engineering (actual) Q?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zheng89120
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Engineering Iter
AI Thread Summary
An engineering Q greater than 1.1 suggests significant progress in solving the fusion problem. The substantial investment of $15 billion in projects like ITER indicates serious commitment to achieving practical fusion energy. While achieving net energy gain is crucial, economic competitiveness remains a key challenge. A Q significantly higher than 1.1 will likely be necessary for fusion to be viable. Overall, advancements in fusion technology are promising but still require further development for practical application.
zheng89120
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
If the engineering Q is greater than 1.1 or so, does that mean the fusion problem has been theoretically solved?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
zheng89120 said:
If the engineering Q is greater than 1.1 or so, does that mean the fusion problem has been theoretically solved?

I believe so.
 
zheng89120 said:
If the engineering Q is greater than 1.1 or so, does that mean the fusion problem has been theoretically solved?

The enormous investment alone should have told you that. No-one gets a blank check (15 billion dollars spent so far) just to play with magnets. ITER is as big a deal as the Fermi pile was in its day. Bigger, actually.
 
When fusion is working with net energy gain, it still needs to be able to compete economically. For that, we'll probably need a Q considerably greater than 1.1
 

Thread 'MCNP6 BURN Card Issue: Zero Burnup for Material in Fuel Assembly'

Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information（power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.） for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
View full post »

Thread 'Beginner Seeking Help: MCNP6 Burnup Example (OECD-NEA Benchmark)'

Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Have I solved this iterative equation correctly?
Replies
2
Views
199
Will the new ITER fusion reactor actually work?
Replies
28
Views
26K
Python Questions about the for loop, iterable, iterator in Python
Replies
16
Views
2K
Can a Rotary Engine Efficiently Charge Batteries in Hybrid Vehicles?
Replies
7
Views
2K
What is the scientific objective of ITER?
Replies
16
Views
6K
You heard about "The Sheared Flow Stabilized Z-Pinch"
Replies
4
Views
2K
Engineering Step response and realiziability of a G(q) transfer function
Replies
1
Views
2K
Why do fusion reactors only work for a few seconds?
Replies
35
Views
11K
Why are gas turbine engines not used in cars? Is what I think correct?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Cylindrical and Symmetrical Nuclear Fusion Reactor
Replies
19
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top