Tento web používá soubory cookie. Dalším používáním webu s tímto souhlasíte.
zaregistrujte se
zapomněli jste heslo?
Jaderna fuze aneb spasa svetove energetiky do 30 let
V teto diskusi se probiraji problemy a uspechy jaderne fuze. Od diskutujicich ocekavam jistou argumentacni uroven, jinak je RO nemine.
Máte k tomu co říct? Vložte se do diskuze.
KAERO --- 12:08:55 18.5.2020
:: OSEL.CZ :: - Jak daleko jsme pokročili k jaderné fúzi?

Chudaka Wagnera nejaky Hulva troli v diskuzi pod clankem, ale Wagner dava do kontextu financovani a musim rict ze jsem si vubec neuvedomil, jak je letadlovka nebo olympiada draha:

"Vladimír Wagner,2020-05-18 10:54:09
Pane Hulva, možná by bylo dobré posadit tyto věci do kontextu. Celkové náklady na ITER by měly být okolo 30 miliard EUR. Olympiáda v Londýně (nebyla ta nejnákladnější) stála 15 miliard EUR. Letadlová loď USS Gerald R. Ford stála 13 miliard dolarů. Mrakodrap Burdž Chalifa stál 1,3 miliard dolarů. ZA cenu ITER by byly zhruba čtyři jaderné bloku III. generace. Roční podpora fotovoltaiky jen u nás je více než miliarda euro ročně."
DOTCOM --- 14:23:36 24.2.2020
Nejdražší vědecký projekt na zemi — Studio 6 — iVysílání — Česká televize
DRZEEF --- 2:30:32 16.2.2020
DRZEEF --- 2:01:27 16.2.2020
no, a Cinani jedou prave YBCO... dnes zjisteno. YBCO existuje od roku 1986.

Another significant advancement in nuclear fusion generation utilizing YBCO is China’s “Artificial sun.”

The EAST reactor is a Tokamak reactor that exists in China. This reactor utilizes superconducting YBCO as well and it made a very significant advancement in the last year. This reactor was able to hold a stable plasma for 101.2 seconds on July 3rd of last year. This is the longest time that a stable plasma has been held for in world history and it was facilitated by YBCO.
DRZEEF --- 1:37:12 16.2.2020
ad high-temperature superconductor coil that generates a magnetic field of 14.4 tesla inside a 31.1-tesla resistive background magnet to obtain a d.c. magnetic field of 45.5 tesla ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1293-1 ): irradiated GdBCO tape paper

PETER_PAN --- 22:08:33 3.1.2020
Čína dokončila svůj nejnovější tokamak. „Umělé Slunce“ by se mělo rozsvítit už letos — ČT24 — Česká televize
DRZEEF --- 17:57:11 1.11.2019
Collaboration between MIT and a new private company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems

3Q: Zach Hartwig on MIT's big push on fusion | MIT News

investments come from Eni, a multinational energy company seeking to diversify its portfolio with a forward-looking investment in fusion energy.

A new era in fusion research at MIT | MIT News
DRZEEF --- 17:18:25 1.11.2019
Is it true that this reactor doesn't use the latest REBCO superconductors? I watched a talk where they claim they can make reactors 10x smaller now, because they increased the strength of the magnetic field (can go up to 10-20T, instead of 3T). And the superconducting tape is cheap, much more flexible and only needs to be cooled to 100K instead of 4K.

If that's true and I'm not mistaken, the MIT ARC reactor would be much better posed to win the race than Wendelstein 7-X, especially that W7X doesn't aim to generate surplus energy. A commenter above was wondering at the expensive diamond window they had to use. This project is going to be too expensive and with dated technology. We could do it cheaper now.


The design for ITER was finalized in 2001, amended in 2007. Construction for W7-X started 2003. W7-X is now built, fully functional and operational. At several points during its construction, the construction process for its required parts had to be invented first.

That's 15+ years of research, breakthroughs and inventions in plasma confinement physics and engineering that have had to happen first.

As a noncommercial research reactor, W7-X will continue to be useful for many years to come. For material testing alone I would imagine access to reactor capable of producing a stable, continuous fusion reaction is invaluable.

The ARC is a design proposal from 2015. As such they have access and can utilize all the achievements, results and processes from W7-X, ITER and other material science advances of the last 15 years. If their proposal was not better than already built specimens, it would be a bad proposal. To declare it a race against the research foundation they built upon seems ignorant at best.

In 10-20 years, when the ARC is built, a new design proposal will emerge, based on even newer advances in material science and the lessons learned from building the ARC. And it again will be better than the then current, assembled reactors. That is how it is supposed to be.


W7X isn't a reactor. It is not even fusion. It's just plasma physics research.

Is it true that this reactor doesn't use the latest REBCO superconductors? I wat... | Hacker News
DRZEEF --- 12:55:41 1.11.2019
DRZEEF --- 12:45:45 1.11.2019
FYI: mame 45 TESLA high-field na REBCO.... narozdil od ITERU 5 Tesla supravodic z 50.tych let s Niobem

pres 20 TESLA to ma jiz pres 30 let

REBCO (REBa2Cu3Ox, where RE = Y, Gd)

nedostatek chemickych fyziku imo, materialovych chemiku a fyziku se znalosti chemie.... tolik k materialum

cerven 2019

45.5-tesla direct-current magnetic field generated with a high-temperature superconducting magnet


+ je to odolne proti Quenchi

ja to netusil, vsiml jsem si toho dnes nahodou pri cteni supravodicu pri pokojove teplote, high-pressure

ale je jiste ze to vedouci zodpovedni za ITER totalne podelali

podivej se na ty kalkulace

This can be seen by noting that 9.2 T ARC has a fifth of the ∼$24B price of the 5.3 T ITER (calculated by applying the fabricated component scaling to the ∼ 23,000 tonne ITER). Yet ARC matches ITER's fusion power and produces net electricity. The cost of ARC is approximately one-third the cost of the 8 T ARIES-RS (∼$14B), but ARIES-RS has approximately four times the electrical output. The smaller ARC is appropriate for an “entry-level” fusion Pilot plant, but there likely exists a better economic optimization of magnetic field strength versus mass for a full power plant.

REBCO v ARC vs ITER (niobium-tin (Nb3Sn), "REBCO-free ITER fail")

A natural comparison is ITER which also produces 500 MW of fusion power with a similar shaping (ϵ ∼ 0.33), but with B0 ∼ 5.3 T. As expected from the dependence in fusion power density, the peak on-coil field of Bcoil,max ∼ 20 T enabled by REBCO technology allows ARC to achieve a FNSF/Pilot-relevant areal fusion power density (∼3 MW/m2) in a device with roughly a tenth of ITER's volume. Additionally, as a consequence of the high toroidal field, the ARC design point has double the safety factor of ITER, making it more robust against disruptions.

ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets - ScienceDirect
ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets - ScienceDirect