Are there challenges, absolutely. But does that mean we just give up?
JET’s latest result for a prolonged pulse gives huge confidence for ITER, and I’m fully onboard that fusion on the grid won’t be any time soon. Fusion won’t solve our generation it’s to solve the next.
First: Everyone talks about the Q number being power into reactor vs power out because no one knows what the rest of a future plant will need power wise. A bit like a car engine having its BHP tested at the flywheel, it’s tells you the power of the engine. Drop that engine in a mini, mustang or 18 wheeler and test power at the wheels; the numbers are going to be drastically different.
Second: The civilian supply of tritium is short (your number above). But it has dual use so I bet there’s a lot more knocking about. Plus there’s a lot of interesting work going on with lithium and tritium breeding.
JackSkiSensei t1_ir79iwf wrote
Reply to comment by wwarnout in Many scientists see fusion as the future of energy – and they're betting big. by filosoful
Are there challenges, absolutely. But does that mean we just give up?
JET’s latest result for a prolonged pulse gives huge confidence for ITER, and I’m fully onboard that fusion on the grid won’t be any time soon. Fusion won’t solve our generation it’s to solve the next.
First: Everyone talks about the Q number being power into reactor vs power out because no one knows what the rest of a future plant will need power wise. A bit like a car engine having its BHP tested at the flywheel, it’s tells you the power of the engine. Drop that engine in a mini, mustang or 18 wheeler and test power at the wheels; the numbers are going to be drastically different.
Second: The civilian supply of tritium is short (your number above). But it has dual use so I bet there’s a lot more knocking about. Plus there’s a lot of interesting work going on with lithium and tritium breeding.