Slashdot Mirror
MIT Inches Closer To ARC Reactor Despite Losing Federal Funding (computerworld.com)
Lucas123 writes: Experimenting with a fusion device over the past 20 years has edged MIT researchers to their final goal, creating a small and relatively inexpensive ARC reactor, three of which would produce enough energy to power a city the size of Boston. The lessons already learned from MIT's even current Alcator C-Mod fusion device — with a plasma radius of just 0.68 meters — have enabled researchers to publish a paper on a prototype ARC that would be the world's smallest fusion reactor but with the greatest magnetic force and energy output for its size. The ARC would require 50MW to run while putting out about 200MW of electricity to the grid. Key to MIT's ARC reactor would be the use of a "high-temperature" rare-earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) superconducting tape for its magnetic coils, which only need to be cooled to 100 Kelvin, which enables the use of abundant liquid nitrogen as a cooling agent. Other fusion reactors' superconducting coils must be cooled to 4 degrees Kelvin. While there remain hurdles to overcome, such as sustaining the fusion reaction long enough to achieve a net power return, building the ARC would only take 4 to 5 years and cost about $5 billion, compared to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the world's largest tokamak fusion reactor due to go online and begin producing energy in 2027.
"building the ARC would only take 4 to 5 years"
We all know this is at least 10 years out.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
ARC is a very interesting scientific and engineering development project, but it is not a power generation facility. It is a demonstration experiment to learn how to run a fusion reactor with net energy production. There are still several major steps between ARC and a commercial electric generation facility.
With a box of scraps!
Does this mean we'll have a bunch of Ironmen guys running around with halo lights in their chests?
If so, maybe we should rethink things..
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
You realize research isn't free, don't you? If you think fusion is a worthwhile goal, than the 5 billion isn't a waste.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Marvel will be suing them for trademark infringement.
The world's smallest or largest [anything] will tend to have the most [any characteristic] and the least [any characteristic] for it's size.
Scientific value != social value != economic value.
We can argue all we want about how interesting, promising, or (potentially) useful a research project may be. Or how much $$ should go to project X, and how much to project Y.
But whenever there's proper scientific research done, the money invested will yield a return: answers. Answers in terms of facts, measurement data, what works and what doesn't, perhaps even the odd conclusion about what seems best to try next. Some answers come cheap, some answers come only at great expense. Even if you find nothing: if you looked everywhere, properly, that means you now know there's nothing there, when before you could only guess what was there. Read: you still got answer(s).
Given the enormous size of the energy market, damage to our environment that's currently done as a result of extraction and burning of -mostly- fossil fuels, and huge benefits to mankind if cheap(er) energy sources were developed, imho we (as mankind) aren't spending nearly enough on fusion-related research. But hey that's just me.
We are going to need portable fusion if we ever want to do serious interstellar travel. Wind power sucks in space, natural gas (combustion) takes up a lot of space and PV produces only a very slight bit of energy once you get a fair bit away from the sun.
Small fusion reactors can be superuseful even without taking into account space travel. From battleships to trains to large aircraft to small aircraft: they have a use at many scales where high energy density (production) is required or preferred.
Bill, Warren, can you look into funding this? If it works, it could have great ROI for the foundations...
Greed is the root of all evil.
MIT wants me to pay $28 to read this paper at Elsevier.
Is this how MIT plans to finance construction of the reactor?
It might be faster to borrow $5 billion from the Harvard endowment.
Oh wait, almost forgot that MIT has a $12 billion endowment,
yet they still want to nickel and dime the public.
Hey, MIT go fuck yourself.
Well, $5 billion is a waste...of time...$40 billion is more like actual fusion research, like what the researchers said in the first "fusion is 50 years out" report.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Could someone explain the difference between what MIT accomplished with the ARC reactor, versus what the Wendelstein 7-X demonstrated today; successful hydrogen plasma containment. Sounds like the German project is closer to success... The ARC reactor sounds like it's smaller and less expensive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X
yeah, but that's like 2 months of guarding the heroin supply in Afghanistan, so, like, priorities dude.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"While there remain hurdles to overcome, such as sustaining the fusion reaction long enough to achieve a net power return, "
So apparently actually generating power is just a small final detail with building a new power station.
Next up... the new perpetual motion machine. Designs are done which sustain motion for a while, now we just need to work out how to get around the laws of physics.
Note: not trying to say fusion power is impossible, but it is a pet hate hearing how something is almost done, when they still have the biggest challenges in front of them.
Because you removed non-radioactive material that would be perfectly safe to carry around in your pockets, then fissioned it to create highly radioactive waste, which you now want to dump into the same hole so that it can leach out and contaminate the surrounding environment for centuries to come.
Key points
- Virtually all fissionable material is NOT radioactive. Those multi-millenia half lives mean essentially nothing is going to decay in any given moment, and so essentially no radiation will be produced.
- Fission byproducts (the actual "waste") tend to have relatively short half-lives, which means lots of atoms decay in any given moment, so lots of radiation is produced. Potentially good for making radiothermic generators, bad for anyone exposed.
- Long-term storage is a problem because we store the radioactive material all mixed in with unspent fuel, just like it came out of the reactor. Which means the decaying waste can trigger fission in the remaining fuel, producing fresh radioactive waste.
The logical solution is reprocessing, wherein the fuel is separated from the waste to be reused, and the waste can either itself be used in radiation-driven processes, or buried for a few centuries to decay to safe levels. We don't do that because reprocessing is an dangerous and moderately expensive process that can't compete economically with mining and refining fresh fuel. And God forbid we mandate reprocessing and roll the cost into the initial purchase price of the fuel. I mean the cost of fuel is several percent of the lifetime cost of a fission reactor. Won't somebody think of the profit margins!
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
It sounds like the powers-that-be behind ITER are going to press ahead with it, despite the fact that progress would come better, faster and cheaper by switching to an ARC-like design.
Just as the powers that be are pressing forward with Space Launch System, even though we could put more stuff in orbit, sooner and cheaper, by developing the Falcon XX instead.
The phrase "shaking my head" is apt here.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Fission (which we've had for decades) is a perfectly workable and acceptable energy source for "serious interstellar travel".
Fission works nicely for aircraft carriers, already. Trains are better accommodated by electrification via overhead power lines.
It's completely crazy to claim "small aircraft" would be a suitable use-case for a fusion power plant... A bit like saying a massive turbine could "have a use" in your leaf-blower.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant