Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumA small, modular, efficient fusion plant
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810[font face=Serif]A cutaway view of the proposed ARC reactor. Thanks to powerful new magnet technology, the much smaller, less-expensive ARC reactor would deliver the same power output as a much larger reactor.
Illustration courtesy of the MIT ARC team
[font size=5]A small, modular, efficient fusion plant[/font]
[font size=4]New design could finally help to bring the long-sought power source closer to reality.[/font]
David L. Chandler | MIT News Office
August 10, 2015
[font size=3]Its an old joke that many fusion scientists have grown tired of hearing: Practical nuclear fusion power plants are just 30 years away and always will be.
[font size=4]Tenfold boost in power[/font]
While the new superconductors do not produce quite a doubling of the field strength, they are strong enough to increase fusion power by about a factor of 10 compared to standard superconducting technology, Sorbom says. This dramatic improvement leads to a cascade of potential improvements in reactor design.
The worlds most powerful planned fusion reactor, a huge device called ITER that is under construction in France, is expected to cost around $40 billion. Sorbom and the MIT team estimate that the new design, about half the diameter of ITER (which was designed before the new superconductors became available), would produce about the same power at a fraction of the cost and in a shorter construction time.
But despite the difference in size and magnetic field strength, the proposed reactor, called ARC, is based on exactly the same physics as ITER, Whyte says. Were not extrapolating to some brand-new regime, he adds.
[/font][/font]
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 803 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A small, modular, efficient fusion plant (Original Post)
OKIsItJustMe
Aug 2015
OP
I always wonder what the unintended consequences would be if we had "free" power...
HappyPlace
Aug 2015
#1
HappyPlace
(568 posts)1. I always wonder what the unintended consequences would be if we had "free" power...
If we had unlimited electrical energy what would we do with that?
I can't help but think that we'd just destroy our planet that much more quickly.
It seems to be scarcity of a resource that brings us wisdom.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)2. You’re not alone in that thought
This much we know: Despite scarcity, and environmental/suicidal devestation, we are using fossil fuels just as fast as we can. I cant help feeling that a cleaner source of power would be a good thing.
Today, we are cutting down forests to produce biofuels. What if we had enough cheap, clean power that there was no economic incentive to do that?
OnlinePoker
(5,729 posts)3. ARC reactor...where's Tony Stark? n/t