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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on comparing the fusion approaches of MIT and ITER, focusing on the potential of high temperature superconductors and the implications of reactor size and technology readiness. It explores theoretical and practical aspects of fusion energy development.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight that MIT's use of novel high temperature superconductors could lead to stronger magnetic fields and smaller reactors, potentially making their approach more promising.
  • Others argue that the high temperature superconductors proposed by MIT are not yet available for practical use, as they remain in the lab stage.
  • Some participants note that ITER is being constructed with existing technology, which, while large and expensive, is expected to provide valuable insights for future fusion reactors.
  • There is a question about the availability and quality of commercially available superconducting tape, with some suggesting it may not meet the necessary specifications for reactor construction.
  • Concerns are raised about the economic viability of ITER as a power plant, despite its international support and funding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the readiness and potential of MIT's approach compared to ITER, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a clear consensus on which approach is more promising.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions about the readiness of high temperature superconductors and the economic implications of ITER's scale. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the practical application of technologies mentioned.

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
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
463
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K