So, is this ‘just’ a matter of ITER being obsoleted by improvements in magnet tech before it is completed, or is there more in this design than scaling down ITER?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3540
Some additional features (besides the magnets) that jump out at me:
The reactor vessel has joints to allow it to open up for maintenance access (previous tokamak designs have a reactor vessel that cannot be opened up once constructed, so maintenance inside has to be done through small access ports using remote manipulators).
The external current drive for heating the plasma to ignition looks like it is more efficient than previous designs.
The blanket around the reactor vessel is liquid instead of solid, using a fluorine-lithium-beryllium compound.
The power density of the reactor is 0.5 MW/m^3, which is 1/40th the power density of a commercial PWR primary reactor vessel.
The reactor (a single one!) uses something like 40% of the world's current annual production of beryllium. If all the world's estimated resource of Be is used to make these reactors, it would be enough for reactors producing just 1% of world primary energy demand.
That's crazy. I guess if the design works out we can start casting about for a beryllium replacement.
The remote manipulators are an amazing piece of technology; having the movements of your arms and hands replicated exactly by a robot is mind-blowing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Criticism
"The project however was significantly delayed at the design stage as result of purposeful decision to decentralize its design and manufacturing among 35 participating states, which resulted in complexity that was unprecedented but consistent with the initial ITER goals of creating knowledge and expertise rather than merely producing energy."
IMO jobs facilitating knowledge, experience & wisdom transfer between so many countries is worthwhile on its own, nevermind that the goal is to help solve our energy problems. If we get experience developing a massive international moonshot program from a jobs program, so be it.
It also says it can be built much cheaper than the total cost for ITER.
The article doesn’t say it, but I would guess that it also can be built for less money than the money needed to complete ITER.
If so, what’s not obsolete about ITER? Are there useful experiments that can be done with it that one can’t do with a more modern design?
Making a tiny machine quickly, skimming over the hard engineering problems is more of a moonshot approach. It's halfway to a startup with actual MIT startups selling HTS coils. Be wary of anyone selling something.
I'd recommend watching the whole thing, I found it quite interesting.
here is the original presentation by Dr Whyte of MIT behind this Sparc project: https://youtu.be/KkpqA8yG9T4?t=1511
he talks about the impact of these newer magnets at around 26min mark.
https://www.psfc.mit.edu/files/psfc/imce/research/topics/spa...