Page 5 of 5
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:28 pm
by MSimon
TallDave wrote:jmc wrote:They keep finding more problems, so I have to doubt a continously operating net power plant can be close to ITER-sized without some radical advances. It would not surprise me if they come back and say it needs to be 2-4x larger.
2X to 4X bigger has been the tokamak rallying cry for 50 years.
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:10 pm
by jmc
You can get away with a smaller tokamak with high energy densities and net energy production if you increase the field strength aswell, I think that was what the FIRE programme was about, building a reactor the size of JET only running it at 10 Tesla instead of three.
http://fire.pppl.gov/sofe_05_meade_092705.ppt#5
The only catch is morepowerful magnetic fields also cost money.