After a tour I was given of the MIT Tokamak, the professor indicated that the problem with fusion reactors wasn't heat, or even fusion. it was neutrons.
Apprently, the reactor is flooded with neutrons during the fusion 'events', and over time it will turn whatever 'steel' the reactor cell is made of into a porous sponge, that may collapse. If it didn't (maybe engineered to stay standing while highly porous) it would be next to impossible to dispose of the neutron-bombarded material.
He indicated that the ideal material was silicon carbide (SiC). the problem? no one knows how to machine it yet.
the funniest thing he said? I asked him when he thought we'd have fusion reactors. He said (I paraphrase) the he started in fusion energy in the early seventies - we were 25 years from a commercial reactor. now, 30-odd years later, we're 50 years away...
an aside - the tokamak is powered by a mind-bogglingly huge flywheel. several megawatts (i think) awe. some.
Slashdot Mirror
After a tour I was given of the MIT Tokamak, the professor indicated that the problem with fusion reactors wasn't heat, or even fusion. it was neutrons.
Apprently, the reactor is flooded with neutrons during the fusion 'events', and over time it will turn whatever 'steel' the reactor cell is made of into a porous sponge, that may collapse. If it didn't (maybe engineered to stay standing while highly porous) it would be next to impossible to dispose of the neutron-bombarded material.
He indicated that the ideal material was silicon carbide (SiC). the problem? no one knows how to machine it yet.
the funniest thing he said? I asked him when he thought we'd have fusion reactors. He said (I paraphrase) the he started in fusion energy in the early seventies - we were 25 years from a commercial reactor. now, 30-odd years later, we're 50 years away...
an aside - the tokamak is powered by a mind-bogglingly huge flywheel. several megawatts (i think) awe. some.