Collaboration between MIT and a new private company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems

3Q: Zach Hartwig on MIT's big push on fusion | MIT News
http://news.mit.edu/2018/3q-zach-hartwig-mit-big-push-fusion-0309

investments come from Eni, a multinational energy company seeking to diversify its portfolio with a forward-looking investment in fusion energy.

A new era in fusion research at MIT | MIT News
http://news.mit.edu/2018/new-era-fusion-research-mit-eni-0309

Is it true that this reactor doesn't use the latest REBCO superconductors? I watched a talk where they claim they can make reactors 10x smaller now, because they increased the strength of the magnetic field (can go up to 10-20T, instead of 3T). And the superconducting tape is cheap, much more flexible and only needs to be cooled to 100K instead of 4K.

If that's true and I'm not mistaken, the MIT ARC reactor would be much better posed to win the race than Wendelstein 7-X, especially that W7X doesn't aim to generate surplus energy. A commenter above was wondering at the expensive diamond window they had to use. This project is going to be too expensive and with dated technology. We could do it cheaper now.


***

The design for ITER was finalized in 2001, amended in 2007. Construction for W7-X started 2003. W7-X is now built, fully functional and operational. At several points during its construction, the construction process for its required parts had to be invented first.

That's 15+ years of research, breakthroughs and inventions in plasma confinement physics and engineering that have had to happen first.

As a noncommercial research reactor, W7-X will continue to be useful for many years to come. For material testing alone I would imagine access to reactor capable of producing a stable, continuous fusion reaction is invaluable.

The ARC is a design proposal from 2015. As such they have access and can utilize all the achievements, results and processes from W7-X, ITER and other material science advances of the last 15 years. If their proposal was not better than already built specimens, it would be a bad proposal. To declare it a race against the research foundation they built upon seems ignorant at best.

In 10-20 years, when the ARC is built, a new design proposal will emerge, based on even newer advances in material science and the lessons learned from building the ARC. And it again will be better than the then current, assembled reactors. That is how it is supposed to be.

****

W7X isn't a reactor. It is not even fusion. It's just plasma physics research.

Is it true that this reactor doesn't use the latest REBCO superconductors? I wat... | Hacker News
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13150782

A small, modular, efficient fusion plant | MIT News
https://news.mit.edu/...nt-0810?fbclid=IwAR3nEwZLFXB9-i25OLikGOUwAXanuRag2vDK0ihUkbFcw8XLd4KVUNS1pDU

FYI: mame 45 TESLA high-field na REBCO.... narozdil od ITERU 5 Tesla supravodic z 50.tych let s Niobem

pres 20 TESLA to ma jiz pres 30 let

REBCO (REBa2Cu3Ox, where RE = Y, Gd)

nedostatek chemickych fyziku imo, materialovych chemiku a fyziku se znalosti chemie.... tolik k materialum

cerven 2019

45.5-tesla direct-current magnetic field generated with a high-temperature superconducting magnet

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1293-1

+ je to odolne proti Quenchi

ja to netusil, vsiml jsem si toho dnes nahodou pri cteni supravodicu pri pokojove teplote, high-pressure

ale je jiste ze to vedouci zodpovedni za ITER totalne podelali

podivej se na ty kalkulace

This can be seen by noting that 9.2 T ARC has a fifth of the ∼$24B price of the 5.3 T ITER (calculated by applying the fabricated component scaling to the ∼ 23,000 tonne ITER). Yet ARC matches ITER's fusion power and produces net electricity. The cost of ARC is approximately one-third the cost of the 8 T ARIES-RS (∼$14B), but ARIES-RS has approximately four times the electrical output. The smaller ARC is appropriate for an “entry-level” fusion Pilot plant, but there likely exists a better economic optimization of magnetic field strength versus mass for a full power plant.


REBCO v ARC vs ITER (niobium-tin (Nb3Sn), "REBCO-free ITER fail")

A natural comparison is ITER which also produces 500 MW of fusion power with a similar shaping (ϵ ∼ 0.33), but with B0 ∼ 5.3 T. As expected from the dependence in fusion power density, the peak on-coil field of Bcoil,max ∼ 20 T enabled by REBCO technology allows ARC to achieve a FNSF/Pilot-relevant areal fusion power density (∼3 MW/m2) in a device with roughly a tenth of ITER's volume. Additionally, as a consequence of the high toroidal field, the ARC design point has double the safety factor of ITER, making it more robust against disruptions.

ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets - ScienceDirect
ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379615302337?via%3Dihub

KAERO: no tenhle argument docela zabira, ale casem se asi ohraje....

DOTCOM: tak vzdycky muzes jit za ministrem (evropskym komisarem, sefem akademie, panembohem) a rict mu, hele koukej co delaji cinane, my bychom meli taky

DOTCOM: OK .. Ovsem par kilometru od nas, tusim v nejakych Bavorech, tam do toho slapou slusne - lide s timto typem mindsetu.

IMHO je to krucialne on-topic, resit politickou otazku. Bez politicke podpory nejsou penize ani prestiz. Bez penez nejsou projekty a bez prestize mlada generace co to potahne. Ztrata 1 generace je technologicky i bezpecnostni propad mozna o desitky (?) let? Podobne jako utlum raketove techniky v USA kdyz uz studena valka byla vlazna. Ano vedl ke zkostnateni a pozapomenuti nekterych postupu (zejmena oblast H2 motoru, nejnarocnejsich na implementaci) - jen priklad.
Stejne takhle to vidi treba nekteri chirurgove, rikaji ze kdyby se ztratila 1 generace v oblasti neurochirurgie, je to propad toho oboru do minuleho stoleti.

A samozrejmne te politicke podpore predchazi s velkou setrvacnosti nejaka verejna podpora, naladeni verejneho mineni. No a kdyz mas skupinu lidi, tmaru, kteri jsou ochotni pouzivat lzive, zkreslene, prekroucene, vhodnym zpusobem emocionalne zabarvene argumenty aby treba 30 let to verejne minemi menili - pak u projektu ktere jsou na dekady a potrebuji politicke zaruky, tahas za ten kratsi kus provazu.

Takze popularizace vedy a i suvereni vystoupeni proti takovym zajmovym skupinam by mela byt soucast kazdeho zainteresovaneho akademika.

PETER_PAN: tak to je otazka preferenci, kazdopadne tenhle subjekt ma aktualne ~1% preferenci a pokud vim tak nikdy nezasahl do pristupu k jaderne energetice v tehle zemi (uf :)

KAERO: tvl to me desi ve snu :)

DOTCOM: Trochu si rypnu. V tomhle smyslu bych se i zamyslel jaky politicky subjekt jsi v minulosti primo/neprimo (?) podporoval. ;-)

DOTCOM: uz se ucis mandarinstinu? :)

DOTCOM: až tak?

KAERO: OK, tohle uznavam. Me zajima tedy soucasna nejvyssi experimentalne dosazena hodnota pro D-T fuzi v Tokamaku/Stellaratoru. Ne extrapolovana, ne odhadovana. Soucasna dosazena pro samotnou fuzi. Tj. Ohrev plasmatu vysokou frekvenci vs. energeticky zisk v ramci fuze. To ze neco stoji rezie kolem, chlazeni neni ted dulezite (jedna se o experimenty ne o vyladeny provoz). Zajima me energeticky zisk fuze.