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
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the engineering Q factor of the ITER project and its implications for the viability of fusion energy. Participants explore the relationship between the engineering Q and the theoretical resolution of the fusion problem, as well as economic considerations related to energy gain.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if the engineering Q is greater than 1.1, it could indicate that the fusion problem has been theoretically solved.
  • Others express agreement with the idea that achieving a Q above 1.1 would signify a significant advancement in fusion technology.
  • One participant highlights the substantial financial investment in ITER, suggesting that such funding implies serious expectations for success, comparing it to historical projects like the Fermi pile.
  • Another participant argues that even with net energy gain, fusion must be economically competitive, implying that a Q significantly greater than 1.1 may be necessary for practical application.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that achieving a Q above 1.1 is significant, but there is disagreement regarding whether this alone would resolve the fusion problem or if further advancements are needed for economic viability.

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
 

Similar threads

Graduate Have I solved this iterative equation correctly?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Will the new ITER fusion reactor actually work?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
27K
Python Questions about the for loop, iterable, iterator in Python
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Can a Rotary Engine Efficiently Charge Batteries in Hybrid Vehicles?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
What is the scientific objective of ITER?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
You heard about "The Sheared Flow Stabilized Z-Pinch"
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Engineering Step response and realiziability of a G(q) transfer function
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Why do fusion reactors only work for a few seconds?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
12K
Why are gas turbine engines not used in cars? Is what I think correct?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Cylindrical and Symmetrical Nuclear Fusion Reactor
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K