Fusion reactor concept potentially less expensive than fossil fuels

Generally speaking, current fusion reactors model have not yet reached the point of outperforming the economics of traditional fossil fuels reactors, instead, they cost more to operate at the same level of performance. A new design conjured by University of Washington engineers seeks to alter this machination by demonstrating that reactors up-scaled to size of large electrical plants better rival the cost of coal-fired plants with similar electrical output. The advantage of fusion energy is that it produces virtually zero greenhouse gas emission or radioactive waste.

UW’s reactor, dubbed dynomak, initially began as a class project taught by UW professor of aeronautics and astronautics, Thomas Jarboe, but was further developed by both Jarboe and doctoral student Derek Sutherland.  Dynomak resembles pre-existing technology, but creates a magnetic field within a closed space to hold the plasma in position long enough for the fusion to occur. This in turn, allows the ot plasma to react and burn, creating a self-sustaining reactor that continuously heats the plasma to maintain thermonuclear conditions. The heat generated by the reactor heats a coolant that’s used to spin the turbine that produces the actual electricity.

“This is a much more elegant solution because the medium in which you generate fusion is the medium in which you're also driving all the current required to confine it,” Sutherland said.

Dynomak creates the magnetic field needed to maintain itself by driving electrical currents into the plasma in process called spheromak. Spheromak reduces the amount of material required to generate the magnetic field and allows the size of the overall reactor to be shrank. 

To determine the cost of building their design, the reseachers factored in all costs, including startup and infrastructure fees. It was determine that a fusion powerplant producing 1 gigawatt (1 billion watts) of power would cost $2.7 billion, whereas a coal plant producing the same amount of wattage would cost $2.8.

Source: Sciencedaily