This is R&D - not a commercial path.<p>These types of fusion projects are trying to prove the most basic piece of the puzzle: net energy generation. And it is a big problem, even for Commonwealth. I've heard that the magnets are underperforming by about a factor of 2 - and that's 4 years into the project.<p>But commercialization is a lot more than just proving that the concept is physically possible. It was proven possible that man could walk on the moon, but it's not a commercial activity 50 years in. Commercialization for nuclear energy systems means global deployment, mass manufacturing, lack of proliferation risk, extreme safety, etc. Fusion systems like Commonwealth's do not meet any of these criteria. They are constantly generating radioactive waste because they have to breed their fuel and reprocess it on site.<p>To commercialize, you have to be able to deploy the technology in a significantly better way than traditional fission. These large fusion prototypes ($65B for ITER and $5B for Commonwealth based on their 2015 white paper, so probably 2-4x larger now) exacerbate traditional nuclear's cost problems because they are construction projects that will last decades. Viable nuclear solutions will be factory manufactured rather than constructed.<p>For comments from MIT dissenter in 80s that stand true today: <a href="http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trouble-With-Fusion_MIT_Tech_Review_1983.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trou...</a><p>For a review of fusion problems: <a href="https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/iter-is-a-showcase-for-the-drawbacks-of-fusion-energy/" rel="nofollow">https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/iter-is-a-showcase-for-the-d...</a>
For a breakdown of the reasoning behind the project, if you haven't already seen it:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk</a>
For anyone interested in learning more about the history of fusion power research I would recommend the book: A Piece of the Sun: The Quest for Fusion Energy<p>I found it informative, and a really easy read to get a good overview of the history of the research.
The plasma needs to be >=200 million kelvin, the superconductor that contains it doesn't work if its not <=20 kelvin. No wonder this is an engineering nightmare!<p>I wonder if gradients that extreme exist in nature.
How would a commercial venture plan to recoup their investment cost when (if) they finally reach a viable reactor design?<p>If an American/European company came out with a working reactor, would India and China pay for the technology, or would they put hundreds of billions into developing their own? What about the opposite scenario? Even a tiny peek at the design would shave off a large portion of the cutting edge investment.
On the other hand, fusion could completely alter the course of climate change, perhaps it's cheaper in the long run to just give out the technology.
The Omega Tau podcast had some very interesting discussions about various improvements needed for fusions reactors to hit parity in their Wendelstein 7x episode. Some discussions I think come out all the more because the 7x was targeted to plasma research so many practical aspects are discussed outside the normal fusion discussion that hits regular science media.<p><a href="https://omegataupodcast.net/312-the-wendelstein-7-x-fusion-experiment/" rel="nofollow">https://omegataupodcast.net/312-the-wendelstein-7-x-fusion-e...</a>
<i>The SPARC project’s first task, over the next few years, will be to build and test a full-scale prototype HTS fusion magnet. ... one of the primary missions of the prototype HTS coil will be to investigate our ability to detect and mitigate a “quench” event, which is a sudden loss of superconductivity.</i><p>Good for a decade of funding and theses before having to actually work on fusion.<p>This is not a "commercial path to fusion". This is superconducting magnet R&D.
FWIW, Dr. Robert Bussard claimed in 2006 that the inertial electrostatic confinement fusor could be developed for ~$200M IIRC<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confine...</a><p>"Should Google Go Nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear power (no, really)" <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8</a>
SPARC is an HTS experiment, showing the viability of compact Q>1 using the technology, showing you don't have to be ITER -size to have successful fusion. It doesn't claim to be and won't be much more than that.
An important step, nonetheless.
What I find particularly troubling about the design of tokamak reactors is that on one hand you have magnets that need to be cooled to -250C or whatever the “high” temperature is nowadays and in the middle of it you have plasma that will leak thermal radiation in any way possible.
The magnets themselves will heat up from running large electric currents through them.
This just feels like a recipe for a disaster - if things suddenly stop working, due to heat or otherwise you have a very hot, radioactive plasma trying to equalise its energy with the outer world...
Don't fusion reactors have problems with vessel degradation from fast neutrons turning the reactors themselves into radioactive waste?<p>LFTR is what fusion should have been, and should have gotten equivalent funding. Plentiful fuel (thorium), can "burn" current nuclear waste as fuel, meltdown safe, etc etc etc. And they can scale down to pretty small sizes, per another commenter's "construction" vs "factory production" comment.<p>The only interesting fusion idea I've seen is antimatter catalyze fusion rockets for space travel.<p>Wind/Solar/Storage have won. This would be wasted money.