Alternative fusion devices: Difference between revisions

From FusionWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


* [http://www.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/ Levitated Dipole Experiment]
* [http://www.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/ Levitated Dipole Experiment]
* Compact Spherical [[Tokamak]] - [http://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ Tokamak energy Ltd.]
* Colliding beam reactor - [[:wikipedia:Tri Alpha Energy, Inc.|Tri Alpha Energy]]
* Colliding beam reactor - [[:wikipedia:Tri Alpha Energy, Inc.|Tri Alpha Energy]]
* [[:wikipedia:Polywell|Polywell]] - EMC2 company
* [[:wikipedia:Polywell|Polywell]] - EMC2 company

Revision as of 08:49, 19 February 2015

Economically viable energy production based on nuclear fusion in a magnetic confinement device has not been demonstrated yet. The mainstream tokamak, stellarator, spheromak and Reversed Field Pinch designs may achieve energy production by fusion in the future, but it remains to be seen whether these designs will lead to economically viable and attractive power plants, as fusion reactors based on these designs will almost certainly need to be very large.

Given this situation, there is considerable interest in developing alternative designs. Their common goal is to achieve fusion power generation at lower cost by exploiting the hypothetical improved plasma confinement properties of a different magnetic field configuration (or other design features), which would allow a reduced size of the power plant. [1] [2] Currently, none of the alternative designs have achieved these potential benefits.

Alternative designs and associated companies

See also

References

  1. D. Clery, Fusion's restless pioneers, Science 345, 6195 (2014) 370
  2. M.M. Waldrop, Plasma physics: The fusion upstarts, Nature 511, 7510 (2014)
  3. D. Clery, Updated: Are old secrets behind Lockheed's new fusion machine?, Science, 17 October 2014