Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

droans t1_j04pt44 wrote

Reply to comment by Robo-Connery in National Ignition Facility (NIF) announces net positive energy fusion experiment by Robo-Connery

Thanks for this.

At what point would you say that fusion power is more of a political or engineering question than it is a scientific and physics question?

How likely is it that fusion really won't be a feasible energy source, whether that be due to the science not working in our favor or because the cost/designs aren't feasible?

Which design shows more promise? Is it likely that commercial plants will utilize a mixture of the designs? Is it likely that both designs could be the basis for future plants?

5

Robo-Connery OP t1_j06narj wrote

> fusion power is more of a political or engineering question than it is a scientific and physics question?

I'd say not yet.

There are still fundamental physics questions that remain in terms of optimising the plasma, you have 100's of knobs to tweak when designing and operating a machine and we aren't sure exactly what combinations are optimal - though we are getting better, modern machines achieve a huge milestone, called H-mode access, almost instantaneously when this used to be something that took years of tweaking parameters.

Engineering challenges will take over significantly in a post ITER world, when we are trying to design a demonstration power plant.

Once that has been successful it will become a political and economic issue, when is it worthwhile to invest, where should we build them, what does the energy landscape of our country look like 50 years down the line.

3