Excited to see where this leads. Been following this project for a few years now and I'm hopeful that it'll be a pivotal solution to numerous clean energy problems
The thing that's important about the new magnets isn't that they're superconducting but that they're HIGH FIELD superconducting magnets. low-field superconducting magnets, and high-field non-super-conducting magnets were both already known, but the new combination of both properties is what made small energy-positive tokamaks possible. :-)
Please cite the maximum amount of deuterium/tritium fueled tokamak fusion reaction energy produced at any of the numerous experimental research machines around the globe. The value should be expressed in units of Joules. Enjoy the search. There never has been an energy-positive tokamak. It has all been a promotional smoke-and-mirrors deception. The gain value, Q, has always been Q-plasma which involves a measure of the input energy that directly heats the plasma. The net input energy, or Q-total is never mentioned when the primary aim is to attract interest from the press, the public and from investors. The facility input energy can easily be over 100 times greater than the energy that couples into the plasma to heat it. This discrepancy can be especially true for machines that must operate in a pulsed mode when operating at near maximum fusion power levels. That is because the Q-plasma value only applies to the time period that the plasma is being heated, not the recovery period of time. The SPARC tokamak is expected to operate in a pulsed mode with a maximum on period of approximately 10-seconds. Most of the people, who work on such projects, and the fans, tend to never even consider asking such questions as I've posed above.
As ITER gets delayed more and more, we are even more depending on your great work. When you can demonstrate fusion Energy gain, it also would push the transition to electrify everything.
Note that the ITER project is grossly over its original budget and is well over a decade behind its original schedule. Currently they don't expect to begin their first D/T fueled fusion experiments until 2039 and they admit that this is to late to deal with the rapidly changing global warming emergency. Many other tokamak-like experimental machines were expecting that ITER fusion results would help them deal with some continuing plasma control issues. That included the SPARC and ARC designers, an issue that they rarely mention as they pitch for more financial support. Typically nuclear fusion energy fans tend to immerse themselves in echo chambers of like-minded fans while they tend to have no interest in seeking out truly independent critical assessments. Here is an example of one of the assessments that I urge readers to search for. ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy (The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) The press, the general public and the funders, are typically misled by the commonly expressed term energy gain, or Q. Typically the nuclear fusion physicists are referring to the energy that is coupled into the fusion plasma to heat it. This is sometimes stated as Q-plasma. That parameter doesn't take into account the quantity of energy required to run the entire facility, which includes the energy required to heat the chamber plasma. The gain of the entire facility is occasionally stated as Q-total. In many cases the Q-total value, in an experimental facility, is over 100 times less than the Q-plasma value. One result of this omission is that the experimental facility is far less likely to be a reasonable path to the 'promise' of a commercially practical nuclear fusion energy electricity generating power plant.
Generally, the track record for nuclear fusion energy projects, achieving any significant amount of fusion energy generation, is abysmal. It has been that way since the experiments began in the 1950s. None have ever demonstrated anywhere close to generating more fusion energy than the energy needed to feed the experimental facilities. The promotional efforts have always relied upon leaving out key evaluation parameters such as this, knowing that most fans have no interest in seeking out real independent 'critical assessments.' When such entities encounter difficulties in meeting their hyped objectives they simply point out that they are experiments and such stumbling blocks should be expected. Like with the ITER project they eventually become too big to pull the plug.
In almost all cases when these magnetic fusion confinement (MFC) machines are operated at near their full fusion energy power levels they are expected to operate in a pulsed mode with lengthy recovery periods in between 'on' pulses. This is the case with the current SPARC design which is rarely mentioned in presentations to the press, the public and to funders. SPARC full fusion operation is expected to last for 10 seconds before the recovery process begins. The key operational parameters are stated for the 'on' period, not for the average of both the 'on' and the 'off' period. Most nuclear fusion energy fans tend to not be aware of this key detail and therefore never inquire about such issues.
@@vernonbrechin4207 SPARC is a research machine. Each fusion pulse will heat it up, so it has a cool-down period after each pulse. It's not a power plant, though. Our first power plant, ARC, will have a molten salt blanket that captures that heat and transfers it to water for power generation purposes. That design will enable much more frequent pulses than is possible with SPARC.
Several approaches to fusion energy are indeed possible, but we picked tokamaks because they're the best understood option and the farthest along the path to actually building a power plant. Our first power plant, ARC (due in the early 2030s), will indeed produce pulses of fusion power. But that'll heat a up molten salt blanket that stores a lot of heat energy that's steadily transferred to a conventional steam-based power generation system that operates continuously.
@@StephenShankland-k1h - I've long been aware that several different approaches are being experimented with to achieve the ultimate goal of creating a commercially practical nuclear fusion energy electricity generating power plant and I've long been aware that the majority physicists in the fusion energy field have agreed that magnetically confined fusion (MCF) approaches are most likely to achieve that goal. I began closely following the field in the early 1960s. All early experimenter expected that we would have such a demonstration power plant many decades before now. The ARC power plant demonstration, by the early 1930s is based upon numerous assumptions. 1) That SPARC will achieve its stated goal in a timely manner. 2) That ARC will breed enough tritium to fuel itself, a goal none of the other D/T fueled experimental machines have ever demonstrated. Thank you for confirming that both SPARC and ARC are intended to operate in a pulsed mode when operating at close to their maximum fusion power levels. As I stated above SPARC's 'on' period is intended to last for 10 seconds. The Q-plasma value is only based upon the on period of time. What is the expected 'off' period of time between 'on' pulses? What is the Q-total value when both the 'on' and the 'off' period are combined? What is the expected 'on' and 'off' periods for the ARC machine? What is the Q-total value of it expected to be for a 24 hour operating period of time? Perhaps these are some questions that you never considers looking into, which is the case for most fans of the project. When nuclear fusion energy operate in a pulsed mode the thermal energy of the pulses tend to be far greater than the averaged thermal energy of the intended steady-state electrical generating plant. Such plants must be designed to operate reliably over a period of time of months, or years while undergoing millions of such thermal cycles. These are not details that are presented to the press, the general public and to investors, in the efforts to promote such projects.
Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following two article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5.7 years ago.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Look forward to seeing the HTS magnets coming off your production line and into the machine.
That will be a real milestone
Excited to see where this leads. Been following this project for a few years now and I'm hopeful that it'll be a pivotal solution to numerous clean energy problems
Most nuclear energy promoters have learned to employ the anxieties, surrounding global warming, to push for their favored technologies.
@@vernonbrechin4207 But nuclear energy has many benefits beyond emitting fewer GHGs
The thing that's important about the new magnets isn't that they're superconducting but that they're HIGH FIELD superconducting magnets. low-field superconducting magnets, and high-field non-super-conducting magnets were both already known, but the new combination of both properties is what made small energy-positive tokamaks possible. :-)
Please cite the maximum amount of deuterium/tritium fueled tokamak fusion reaction energy produced at any of the numerous experimental research machines around the globe. The value should be expressed in units of Joules. Enjoy the search.
There never has been an energy-positive tokamak. It has all been a promotional smoke-and-mirrors deception. The gain value, Q, has always been Q-plasma which involves a measure of the input energy that directly heats the plasma. The net input energy, or Q-total is never mentioned when the primary aim is to attract interest from the press, the public and from investors. The facility input energy can easily be over 100 times greater than the energy that couples into the plasma to heat it. This discrepancy can be especially true for machines that must operate in a pulsed mode when operating at near maximum fusion power levels. That is because the Q-plasma value only applies to the time period that the plasma is being heated, not the recovery period of time. The SPARC tokamak is expected to operate in a pulsed mode with a maximum on period of approximately 10-seconds.
Most of the people, who work on such projects, and the fans, tend to never even consider asking such questions as I've posed above.
As ITER gets delayed more and more, we are even more depending on your great work. When you can demonstrate fusion Energy gain, it also would push the transition to electrify everything.
Note that the ITER project is grossly over its original budget and is well over a decade behind its original schedule. Currently they don't expect to begin their first D/T fueled fusion experiments until 2039 and they admit that this is to late to deal with the rapidly changing global warming emergency. Many other tokamak-like experimental machines were expecting that ITER fusion results would help them deal with some continuing plasma control issues. That included the SPARC and ARC designers, an issue that they rarely mention as they pitch for more financial support.
Typically nuclear fusion energy fans tend to immerse themselves in echo chambers of like-minded fans while they tend to have no interest in seeking out truly independent critical assessments. Here is an example of one of the assessments that I urge readers to search for.
ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy (The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)
The press, the general public and the funders, are typically misled by the commonly expressed term energy gain, or Q. Typically the nuclear fusion physicists are referring to the energy that is coupled into the fusion plasma to heat it. This is sometimes stated as Q-plasma. That parameter doesn't take into account the quantity of energy required to run the entire facility, which includes the energy required to heat the chamber plasma. The gain of the entire facility is occasionally stated as Q-total. In many cases the Q-total value, in an experimental facility, is over 100 times less than the Q-plasma value. One result of this omission is that the experimental facility is far less likely to be a reasonable path to the 'promise' of a commercially practical nuclear fusion energy electricity generating power plant.
Amazing!!!
0:34 Curious to know why is he wearing 2 watches in one hand?
I"ll ask him, but I think one is for regular time and one is for living in the future.
So how many magnets have been built? I guess you need 18 for the first test run, which is supposed to happen this year right? Is that still on track?
Generally, the track record for nuclear fusion energy projects, achieving any significant amount of fusion energy generation, is abysmal. It has been that way since the experiments began in the 1950s. None have ever demonstrated anywhere close to generating more fusion energy than the energy needed to feed the experimental facilities. The promotional efforts have always relied upon leaving out key evaluation parameters such as this, knowing that most fans have no interest in seeking out real independent 'critical assessments.' When such entities encounter difficulties in meeting their hyped objectives they simply point out that they are experiments and such stumbling blocks should be expected. Like with the ITER project they eventually become too big to pull the plug.
So, let’s go! Make it happen we believe in you! No new science !
Stellarators seem far more suited to constant, stable plasma. Why not build those?
In almost all cases when these magnetic fusion confinement (MFC) machines are operated at near their full fusion energy power levels they are expected to operate in a pulsed mode with lengthy recovery periods in between 'on' pulses. This is the case with the current SPARC design which is rarely mentioned in presentations to the press, the public and to funders. SPARC full fusion operation is expected to last for 10 seconds before the recovery process begins. The key operational parameters are stated for the 'on' period, not for the average of both the 'on' and the 'off' period. Most nuclear fusion energy fans tend to not be aware of this key detail and therefore never inquire about such issues.
@@vernonbrechin4207 SPARC is a research machine. Each fusion pulse will heat it up, so it has a cool-down period after each pulse. It's not a power plant, though. Our first power plant, ARC, will have a molten salt blanket that captures that heat and transfers it to water for power generation purposes. That design will enable much more frequent pulses than is possible with SPARC.
Several approaches to fusion energy are indeed possible, but we picked tokamaks because they're the best understood option and the farthest along the path to actually building a power plant. Our first power plant, ARC (due in the early 2030s), will indeed produce pulses of fusion power. But that'll heat a up molten salt blanket that stores a lot of heat energy that's steadily transferred to a conventional steam-based power generation system that operates continuously.
@@StephenShankland-k1h - I've long been aware that several different approaches are being experimented with to achieve the ultimate goal of creating a commercially practical nuclear fusion energy electricity generating power plant and I've long been aware that the majority physicists in the fusion energy field have agreed that magnetically confined fusion (MCF) approaches are most likely to achieve that goal. I began closely following the field in the early 1960s.
All early experimenter expected that we would have such a demonstration power plant many decades before now. The ARC power plant demonstration, by the early 1930s is based upon numerous assumptions. 1) That SPARC will achieve its stated goal in a timely manner. 2) That ARC will breed enough tritium to fuel itself, a goal none of the other D/T fueled experimental machines have ever demonstrated.
Thank you for confirming that both SPARC and ARC are intended to operate in a pulsed mode when operating at close to their maximum fusion power levels. As I stated above SPARC's 'on' period is intended to last for 10 seconds. The Q-plasma value is only based upon the on period of time. What is the expected 'off' period of time between 'on' pulses? What is the Q-total value when both the 'on' and the 'off' period are combined? What is the expected 'on' and 'off' periods for the ARC machine? What is the Q-total value of it expected to be for a 24 hour operating period of time? Perhaps these are some questions that you never considers looking into, which is the case for most fans of the project.
When nuclear fusion energy operate in a pulsed mode the thermal energy of the pulses tend to be far greater than the averaged thermal energy of the intended steady-state electrical generating plant. Such plants must be designed to operate reliably over a period of time of months, or years while undergoing millions of such thermal cycles. These are not details that are presented to the press, the general public and to investors, in the efforts to promote such projects.
And they dont all have to be fusion nuclear power plants either! We can apply pressure for more nuclear power now!
Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following two article titles.
IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian)
UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill)
* This statement was made 5.7 years ago.
total fantasy, the only interesting question is how and when this project will fail