toveja

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by toveja 4y ago

   I agree. The hefty price tag seems smaller when considering the development and design of ITER began during the cold war. The literal size is definitely big even without context, which is why it has the nickname: gigantomak :D.
2. 2.▲
   by toveja 4y ago

   You are correct that at JET there is no tech installed to absorb the neutrons, nor will there ever be in JET, since (as pointed out above) it is a _research_ device. Current fusion devices are not nor were they ever designed to generate ele
3. 3.▲
   by toveja 4y ago

   Thanks for pointing that out. What would be your suggestion/alternatives?
4. 4.▲
   by toveja 4y ago

   59 megajoules of sustained energy ^over the course of a few seconds^. Ideally this energy output would be sustained for days within ITER. JET is not designed to do this, as it has a copper magnet system, which means if you try to sustain su
5. 5.▲
   by toveja 4y ago

   I wouldn't say the (recent) past was grim, but rather that the technology to build an _affordable_ commercial device had not yet been developed yet. We designed and built ITER at such a large size and cost (€20 billion) since high temp
6. 6.▲
   by toveja 4y ago

   To those interested in discussion outside of HN, there is a discord community [0] with professional, academic, and hobby fusion afficionados. [0] https://discord.gg/Rcum9zkBtg