SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In fusion reactor designs, superconductors (which suffer no resistive power loss) are used to generate the magnetic fields that confine the 100 million degree C plasma. While increasing magnetic field strength offers potential ways to improve reactor performance, conventional low-temperature superconductors suffer dramatic drops in current carrying ability at high magnetic fields. Now, the emergence of high-temperature superconductors that can also operate at high magnetic fields opens a new, lower-cost path to fusion energy.
[...] While scientists have explored both of these paths to improving performance, the recent development of the so-called "high-temperature superconductors" opens a window for much higher magnetic fields, as the critical currents do not degrade rapidly, even at magnetic field values of 30 Tesla or higher. So these should really be called high-temperature, high-magnetic-field superconductors.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday November 13 2015, @02:45PM
approximately, 1 barrel oil combustion produces 106J less energy than fission which produces 106J less energy than fusion.
The rewards for cracking fusion are huge.
Only in the last 150 years of physics has humanity known how the sun used fusion and could burn for a billion years.
(Score: 2) by Marco2G on Friday November 13 2015, @03:30PM
While interesting, this has nothing to do with my question.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday November 13 2015, @04:18PM
I provided general ratios. Specifically, I believe that fission is only 1% efficient in our current reactor designs. Compare this with the 30% maximum efficient for the internal combustion engine. Does this help?