Why is the last plot basically empty between 2000 and 2020? I understand that NIF was probably being built during that time, but were there no significant tokamak experiments in that time?
Author here - some other posters have touched on the reasons. Much of the focus on high performing tokamaks shifted to ITER in recent decades, though this is now changing as fusion companies are utilizing new enabling technologies like high-temperature superconductors.
Additionally the final plot of scientific gain (Qsci) vs time effectively requires the use of deuterium-tritium fuel to generate the amounts of fusion energy needed for an appreciable level of Qsci. The number of tokamak experiments utilizing deuterium tritium is small.
Thanks a lot for this research. Seing the comments here I think it's really important to make breakthroughs and progress more visible to the public. Otherwise the impression that "we're always 50 years away" stays strong.
In the 2037 timeframe, modeling trends doesn’t matter as much as looking at the actual players. I think odds are good because you have at least 4 very well funded groups shooting to have something before 2035: commercial groups including CFS, Helios, TAE, also the efforts by ITER. Maybe more. Each with generally independent approaches. I think scientific viability will be proven by 2035, but getting economic viability could take much longer.
Companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems are an example of those utilizing high-temperature superconductors which did not exist commercially when ITER was being designed.
> The design operating current of the feeders is 68Ka. High temperature superconductor (HTS) current leads transmit the high-power currents from the room-temperature power supplies to the low-temperature superconducting coils 4K (-269°C) with minimum heat load.
HTS current feeds are a good idea (we also use them at CFS, my employer: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXInDUuDAK/). It's HTS in the coils (electromagnets) that enables higher magnetic fields and thus a more compact tokamak.
Mind you, it's not useless! It produced a TON of very useful fusion research: neutral beam injectors, divertors, construction techniques for complex vacuum chambers, etc. At this point, I don't think it's going to be complete by the time its competitors arrive.
One spinoff of this is high-temperature superconductor research that is now close to producing actually usable high-TC flexible tapes. This might make it possible to have cheaper MRI and NMR machines, and probably a lot of other innovations.
> actually usable high-TC flexible tapes. This might make it possible to have cheaper MRI and NMR machines, and probably a lot of other innovations.
I'm sure there'll be plenty of fascinating applications of high-Tc tape, however I'm not sure MRI/NMR machines will be one of those. There would still be a lot of thermal noise due to the high temperature. Which is why MRI/NMR machines tend to use liquid helium cooling, not because superconductors capable of operating at higher temperatures don't exist.
ITER doesn't use high temperature superconductors. It uses niobium-tin and niobium-titanium low temperature superconductors in its magnets.
ITER has been criticized since early days as a dead end, for example because of its enormous size relative to the power produced. A commercial follow-on would not be much better by that power density metric, certainly far worse than a fission reactor.
There is basically no chance than a fusion reactor operating in a regime similar to ITER could ever become an economical energy source. And this has been known since the beginning.
I call things like ITER "Blazing Saddles" projects. "We have to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!"
> ITER doesn't use high temperature superconductors.
It does, for high-current buses that interface with regular resistive power distribution. They are also planned for some auxiliary components (like the neutral beam injectors).
> ITER has been criticized since early days as a dead end, for example because of its enormous size relative to the power produced.
ITER is NOT designed for power generation. It's essentially a lab experiment to see how plasma behaves in magnetic confinement and test various technologies.
That's why ITER was designed with a very conservative approach to reduce the technical risk. We don't need it to be compact, this can come later. We just need it to work.
> ITER is NOT designed for power generation. It's essentially a lab experiment to see how plasma behaves in magnetic confinement and test various technologies.
That's the go-to excuse. But if you look at DEMO, it's power density is not enormously greater. ITER is so far out of the running that DEMO (or PROTO, etc.) will be too.
We're learning a great deal about something that's largely irrelevant.
DEMO concept sketches are completely obsolete at this point. It's not going to look anything like this.
They're based on the state-of-the art from about 2005. Since then, a lot of improvements happened. A more realistic power plant design is going to use a thinner center column (because of better superconducting magnets), resulting in a smaller cryostat volume. Possibly high-TC magnets.
It can also be made more compact, if neutral beams can be used to suppress some plasma instabilities.
misunderstanding about ITER what you some people doing is that it is just one thing, it is not.
ITER is not only facility in france it is multitude of manufacturing capabilities all over the globe which build parts for ITER and all future power plants.
It's my understanding that neutron wall loading of DEMO concepts had been trending downward (due to materials limits), the opposite of the trend you're trying to portray there. And in no future world is the power density of DEMO going to be anywhere close to that of a fission reactor.
> I call things like ITER "Blazing Saddles" projects. "We have to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!"
I think this is overly harsh and somewhat unfair. You could make the same argument that anything operating in a regime similar to the Chicago Pile 1 could never be an economical reactor nor a bomb, but that does not mean skipping that particular development step is viable.
As far as fusion reporting goes, articles are at least somewhat consistent on the fact that ITER is a pure research project/reactor, while every 10-man fusion startup is being hyped up beyond all reason even if there is not even a credible roadmap towards an actual reactor in the 100MW range at all.
Personally I don't see fusion being a mainstream energy source (or helpful against climate change) in this century at all and maybe never, but ITER (even with all the delays) is at least an honest attempt at a credible size, and being stuck on older technology is an unfortunate side-effect of that.
I don't think it's unfair at all. And I don't see ITER as an "honest attempt", far from it.
The initial cost figures for ITER were obviously deliberate lies. When the true costs inevitably came out (after commitment had been made) this led to alternative approaches being canned. ITER has done grievous damage to fusion as a field, in a way eerily similar to how the Space Shuttle and ISS have done damage to NASA.
The true purpose of ITER wasn't to achieve fusion or push forward fusion; it was to preserve funding until those making the decisions had retired. If this required sacrificing long term goals, like actually delivering competitive energy (or, really, delivering anything at all), so be it.
As an engineer, the difference between "deliberate lies" and "overoptimistic estimates" is often just in the eye of the beholder; Hanlons Razor should be applied IMO.
Was ITER overambitious? Timeline and budget unrealistic from the start? Maybe. But I'm fairly confident that most people involved had perfectly defensible intentions.
I also think that if the goal is commercial fusion, small reactors (100MW and below) are nothing but a stepping stone and inherently commercially useless; I don't see the output (hundreds of termal megawatts) ever justifying the "fixed" overhead costs, and a scale at least close to GW scale seems completely inevitable to me.
If you agree with that premise, then building a reactor that size has a lot of utility already that you'd never achieve from building Wendelstein 7x equivalents or whatever at 50 different university campuses (or however else you'd want to spend the funds instead).
> The true purpose of ITER wasn't to achieve fusion or push forward fusion; it was to preserve funding until those making the decisions had retired. If this required sacrificing long term goals, like actually delivering competitive energy (or, really, delivering anything at all), so be it.
This is what I most disagree with; if commercial fusion is viable (I believe it really isn't) then I think ITER (or an equivalent of its size) is a very necessary, if expensive, step to make, and spending the money on dozens of smaller projects is not an "obviously better long term approach" at all in my view.
I also think that speaking about "true purpose" of the whole project is personifying the output of a complex process way too much, where individual actors in that scheme just want to make ITER happen (for very defensible reasons IMO).
conceptually sure; but size-wise they are so different as to warrant valid questions about ROI.
Chicago Pile 1 ran for 12 years, ITER started ~12 years ago and plans to run into the 2030s at least. Budget and headcount would likely be vastly different too, I’d welcome any educated guesses. Sometimes quantity has a quality of its own, as they say.
Sure but those are not really equivalent/comparable in scale; just looking at power/size and conceptual distance from commercial viability, the Chicago pile does not even match up to something like SPARC or JET, much less ITER.
A more fitting comparison to ITER would be something like Fermi-1 or other prototype designs at almost commercial scale, IMO, and those were multi-year, large projects too (and fission is much simpler than fusion, which obviously also helps).
The X-10 reactor at Argonne went critical less than a year after CP-1, with a power of 500 kW, rising to 4 MW in 1944.
The Hanford B reactor, with a power of 250 MW, was in operation less than two years after CP-1 went critical.
I looked hopefully at the HR report https://www.iter.org/sites/default/files/media/2024-11/rh-20... to see if there was some sort of job categorisation - scientist, engineer, management. Disappointingly scant. PhD heavy. Perhaps the budget would be more insightful.
"Execution not ideas" is a common refrain for startups.
I wonder how much of the real engineering for ITER is occurring in subcontractors?
Presumably because everyone in MCF has been waiting for ITER for decades, and JET is being decommissioned after a last gasp. Every other tokamak is considerably smaller (or similar size like DIII-D or JT-60SA).
Much of the interesting tokamak engineering ideas were on small (so low-power) machines or just concepts using high-temperature superconducting magnets.
The really depressing part is if you plot rate of new delays against real time elapsed, the projected finishing date is even further.
This is why much of the fusion research community feel disillusioned with ITER, and so are more interested in these smaller (and supposedly more "agile") machines with high-temperature superconductors instead.
Additionally the final plot of scientific gain (Qsci) vs time effectively requires the use of deuterium-tritium fuel to generate the amounts of fusion energy needed for an appreciable level of Qsci. The number of tokamak experiments utilizing deuterium tritium is small.