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

In summary, the high temperature superconductors that MIT is interested in do not yet exist, but ITER is being built with existing technology. No one expects it to be a viable power plant, but we expect to learn a great deal from it. Some of the technology ITER will test include breeding tritium and practical divertors.
  • #1
arusse02
24
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
  • #2
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 berkeman and trurle
  • #3
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?
 
  • #4
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.
 

1. What is the difference between MIT and ITER's fusion approach?

MIT and ITER both use the same basic concept of fusion, which is to combine light atoms to form a heavier one, releasing energy in the process. However, MIT's approach involves using a compact, high-field tokamak design, while ITER's approach uses a larger, lower-field tokamak design.

2. Which approach is more likely to achieve fusion first?

It is difficult to predict which approach will achieve fusion first, as both MIT and ITER are still in the research and development phase. However, MIT's compact design may have an advantage in terms of cost and speed of development.

3. What are the potential benefits of each approach?

Both MIT and ITER's fusion approaches have the potential to provide a clean and virtually limitless source of energy. Additionally, MIT's compact design may have the added benefit of being more easily integrated into existing energy infrastructure.

4. How do MIT and ITER's fusion approaches differ in terms of funding?

MIT's fusion approach is primarily funded by private investors and government grants, while ITER is a multinational collaboration funded by 35 countries. This difference in funding may impact the speed and direction of research and development for each approach.

5. Is there any collaboration between MIT and ITER in their fusion research?

While there is no official collaboration between MIT and ITER, there is a level of knowledge sharing and collaboration within the larger fusion research community. Additionally, some researchers may have worked or studied at both institutions, bringing their knowledge and expertise to each approach.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
59
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top