MIT claim they will build the SPARC

[Munchausen]

MIT claim they will build the SPARC

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/mit-commo ... sion-race/

[Carl White]

“By putting the magnet development up front, we think that this gives you a really solid answer in three years,”

[Skipjack]

I am glad they finally got funding for this. Interestingly it looks like their schedule is less aggressive than that of Tokamak Energy.

[crowberry]

This is quite interesting for several reasons. Commonwealth Fusion Systems https://www.cfs.energy/ got their initial funding from one investor. The 50 MUSD investment is quite large for alternative fusion. The investor Eni is one of the largest energy companies in the world. This might have a positive effect in general on the funding of alternative fusion.

Here are the press releases from MIT and Eni:
MIT and newly formed company launch novel approach to fusion power
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-formed-company-launch-novel-approach-fusion-power-0309

MIT Energy Initiative founding member Eni announces support for key research through MIT Laboratory for Innovation in Fusion Technologies.
http://news.mit.edu/2018/new-era-fusion-research-mit-eni-0309

[3Q: Zach Hartwig on MIT's big push on fusion
http://news.mit.edu/2018/3q-zach-hartwig-mit-big-push-fusion-0309

Eni joins MIT and CFS to advanced fusion energy
https://www.eni.com/en_IT/media/2018/03/eni-joins-mit-and-cfs-to-advanced-fusion-energy

[Tom Ligon]

This should be fun to watch.

If nothing else, the magnets will benefit several fusion efforts, Polywell included.

[crowberry]

In his article In search of clean energy, investments in nuclear-fusion startups are heating up Akshat Rathi claims that in part, CFS is funded by Breakthrough Energy Ventures led by a group of billionaires, including Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma, Mukesh Ambani, and Richard Branson.

https://qz.com/1402282/in-search-of-clean-energy-investments-in-nuclear-fusion-startups-are-heating-up/

[Skipjack]

I think that Dennis Whyte and his team at the MIT have done a great job at making Tokamaks interesting again.
That said, I think Tokamak Energy will beat CFS and their reactor design is even more compact.

[Diogenes]

"We spent $15 billion dollars studying tokamaks and what we learned about them is that they are no d@mn good."


-Plasma Physicist Dr. Nicholas Krall-

[crowberry]

Bob Mumgaard from CFS gave the talk SPARC and the high-field path to commercial fusion energy at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Fusion Power Associates. It is a detailed description of what CFS aims to do.
http://firefusionpower.org/Mumgaard_CFS_rev1.pdf

[crowberry]

D.G. Whyte (MIT), SPARC and the high-field approach to fusion energy,
28th IEEE Symposium on Fusion Engineering, 2 – 6 June, 2019, Sawgrass Marriott Resort, 1000 PGA Tour Boulevard, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 USA

The SPARC tokamak and accompanying R&D program is based around the high-field approach to near-term fusion power in a privately funded milestone-based risk-retirement program. Building on Alcator C-Mod results, SPARC is a pre-conceptual design to use high-temperature superconductors (HTS) in a compact (R=1.65 m), high-field (B=12 T) pulsed D-T tokamak to demonstrate net-gain from fusion energy for the first time. SPARC builds on the well-established tokamak physics basis for ITER as well as the previous series of high-field copper tokamak designs. Whereas the high-field copper designs were seen as technological dead-ends for fusion energy, due to the large recirculating power, HTS—with its high critical magnetic field—now provides a technological pathway towards compact, tokamak-based fusion power plants such as that envisioned in the ARC design. The projected SPARC performance, using a pre-conceptual design point, rests on conservative plasma physics – essentially the ITER baseline scenario. In terms of dimensionless plasma parameters, SPARC is closer to the database median than ITER. In fact, a number of shots exist in the ITER confinement database that simultaneously match all of the plasma and geometric dimensionless parameters, increasing confidence in the projections. Under the baseline assumptions for confinement and access to H-mode, SPARC would achieve Q ~ 3.6 and generate up to 100 MW of fusion power. Assessments of the divertor, RF heating and tritium footprint in SPARC will be presented. The technological, physics, and organizational approach for the high-field path keyed on SPARC and HTS magnets will be discussed and placed in context as part of the wider fusion R&D effort.

https://indico.cern.ch/event/749923/contributions/3315374/

[crowberry]

Whytes talk is now available on the conference site:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/749923/contributions/3315374/attachments/1855772/3048091/SPARC_SOFE_2019_Whyte.pdf

CFS has more than 100 people working now and 70 of them are working on the HTS magnets. The HTS magnet development project is scheduled for 3 years and then the SPARC project is scheduled for 4 years, assumebly with some overlap. Their present funding level is about 100 M$.

[Skipjack]

Whytes talk is now available on the conference site:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/749923/contributions/3315374/attachments/1855772/3048091/SPARC_SOFE_2019_Whyte.pdf

CFS has more than 100 people working now and 70 of them are working on the HTS magnets. The HTS magnet development project is scheduled for 3 years and then the SPARC project is scheduled for 4 years, assumebly with some overlap. Their present funding level is about 100 M$.

If there is a good overlap, this will be an interesting race between CFS and Tokamak Energy. Personally, I think TE will beat CFS, but it could be close.