It's a valid point that ITER will not produce net power, but it's still a big step forward.<p>Years ago I worked for a brilliant physicist who believed (usually correctly) that any factor less than an order of magnitude was just an "engineering problem".
Good documentary on Iter's claims by investigative journalist, Steve Krivit. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnikAFWDhNw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnikAFWDhNw</a> Shows that the public claims are not just an exaggeration but outright fraud for the purpose of getting more funding. It's one thing to say that the purpose is experimental research, it's another entirely to claim that it will produce net energy, which is not backed any evidence or even a reasonable scientific analysis. There's a long history of fraud in fusion research, it's really important the public is well educated on the history here.
I think the gap is not as far as the author purports. I've followed fusion research as a layperson for years, and clearly understand the point of these designs is to prove the most meaningful piece of the process of generating energy, not actually doing it, and that it would be a lot more work going from here to there.<p>It think the summary on fusion is:<p>- it's the most amazing energy source we have lined up in the mid term<p>-ots almost certainly going to work<p>- we are making meaningful but slower progress than we would like<p>- it's dramatically underfunded
I have a question, i ve read a book recommended on here, about fusion, called the "The Future of Fusion Energy". (It was very good, can recommend for a general topic overview and history of progress).<p>But i do not understand the general approach to plasma-vessel construction, in particular, why it is so passive. Its either "bend" to orbital shape dicated by the plasma physics properties when constructing (Wendelstein, Stellerators etc.).<p>Or increase the containment vessels magnetic field strength (scaling up the reactor, high-temperature-superconductors) until it is capable to hold all the chaotic increasing fluctuation inside no matter what.<p>My Question: Is there not a more active, not brute force approach for containing the plasma? Sort of "Whack-The-mole" countering the escape-events as they happen in a Tokamak?<p>If i understood correctly, the system adds to itself constantly energy (its a reactor after all) and any chaotic butterfly wing flapping on the plasma current can shape up to a tornado breaching the containment and ending fusion.
As I understand it, the bigger problem around fusion that we're still working towards fixing is being able to maintain an actively fusioning plasma. All of these Q measurements are around very short runs, sub-second I think. ITER seems to have a goal of 400-second runs, which sounds more like it. Once we have enough understanding of plasma physics and confining magnet behavior, it will hopefully be more straightforward to optimize the energy going into the plasma, and the energy going into the magnets and cooling system, etc to hopefully achieve a QTotal > 1. And maybe have enough heat being generated that it'll be necessary and reasonable to attach a boiler to it, hook it up to a steam turbine and generator, and make some electricity.
ITER isnt meant to have Q-total > 1 though, it is meant as an experimental platform not energy generation. I wonder if the author has similar thoughts on promise for smaller reactors that take advantage of HTSC magnets.. should they have an easier time achieving breakeven Q-total?
Fusion research is fundamentally good research to pursue, and vigorously. But in terms of energy for the world, we just happen to have an already made fusion plant some 92 million miles away. Its just an engineering problem of how to get more of it's wasted energy onto the earth using space solar arrays (Only one one-billionth of the Sun's total energy output actually reaches the Earth, now, per a google search...which seems too high, honestly).
Can anyone comment on the heat > electricity conversion ratio? My understanding has been that modern multi-stage steam turbines used in power plants are around 90% efficient, not 50%. I might be missing other energy losses along the way, though.
I would be interested in reading a broader analysis of how scientists and other experts are misleading the public. I imagine there is enough on this subject to write a book. My layman's perspective is that it seems to follow from the belief that the public cannot understand the scientists' preferred decision, and that therefore the scientists must mislead the public "for their own good". The obvious example of course is the health authorities misleading the public on masks early on so that hospitals would be able to stockpile supplies, but I'd like to see even more places where the narrative is being twisted.