Who has the more promising fusion approach, MIT or ITER?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparative viability of fusion approaches by MIT and ITER. MIT's focus on high-temperature superconductors, which can operate with liquid nitrogen, presents a promising avenue for smaller and potentially more efficient reactors. However, these superconductors are still in the experimental phase and not yet available for practical application. In contrast, ITER, while massive and costly, is utilizing existing technology and aims to provide valuable insights into fusion processes, despite not being expected to function as a viable power plant.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of high-temperature superconductors and their applications in fusion technology.
  • Familiarity with the ITER project and its objectives in fusion research.
  • Knowledge of magnetic confinement in fusion reactors.
  • Basic principles of tritium breeding and reactor divertors.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the current status of high-temperature superconductors and their potential applications in fusion reactors.
  • Explore the technological advancements and challenges faced by the ITER project.
  • Investigate the principles of magnetic confinement and its role in fusion efficiency.
  • Learn about the processes involved in tritium breeding and the design of practical divertors.
USEFUL FOR

Researchers, engineers, and students in the fields of nuclear fusion, materials science, and energy technology will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the future of fusion energy and the comparative analysis of different fusion approaches.

arusse02
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
There's an MIT lecture on youtube where they talk about novel high temperature super conductors and how it will vastly benefit fusion. He claims that these higher temperature super conductors can generate a stronger magnetic field with just liquid nitrogen. They also claim that keeping the reactors smaller is actually better for a number of reasons. Meanwhile ITER has more money and international support but their project is so massive and complicated that I'm wondering how it could ever be an economically viable power plant. To me it seems like MIT is much more promising, but obviously I'm not fusion expert. So who has the most promising fusion approach and why?

Here's the link the lecture, which is excellent:

 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It's not so simple. The high temperature superconductors that MIT wants to use don't really exist yet. They are still in the lab, so you can't really build a fusion reactor with them yet. ITER is being built with existing technology which we know we can build. No one expects it to be a viable power plant. Even though it is probably too large and expensive to be an economical reactor, we expect to learn a great deal. Some of the technology ITER will test include breeding tritium, and practical divertors, as well as many others that I probably don't know about. The hope is that after we have learned what we can from ITER, the high temperature superconductors will have progressed to the point where we can take what was learned at ITER and build a smaller, more economical reactor.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and trurle
phyzguy said:
It's not so simple. The high temperature superconductors that MIT wants to use don't really exist yet. They are still in the lab, so you can't really build a fusion reactor with them yet.

He specifically mentions that the superconducting tape is commercially available and already exceeds the specs they used as basis for the ARC design. Or did he just make it sound like that, and the commercially available stuff is not that good yet?
 
Lord Crc said:
He specifically mentions that the superconducting tape is commercially available and already exceeds the specs they used as basis for the ARC design. Or did he just make it sound like that, and the commercially available stuff is not that good yet?
I don't think it's available in the quantity and with the quality you would need to build a working reactor. But I could be wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
Replies
4
Views
10K