I'd like to get peoples feedback on applying Lidsky's and Rider's critiques to various configurations that exist today in the fusion research and startup space.
I think every concept needs to start by comparing itself to two key papers:
Lidsky: https://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/iter/Lidsky-The-Trouble-With-Fusion-1983.pdf
Rider: https://www.w2agz.com/Library/Fusion/TH%20Rider,%20Physics%20of%20Plasmas%204,%201039%20(1997)%201%252E872556.pdf
Lidsky's critique applies to 'conventional' DT-based systems such as tokamaks which use 14MeV neutrons for fuel breeding and thermal conversion. The conclusion is that such systems will likely be too expensive, complicated, and unreliable to be economically competitive with other sources of energy. Not that the physics is impossible.. but that the economics is uncompetitive. Any system that falls into this approach needs, first and foremost, to explain what innovation it has that can produce an economically viable outcome.
Rider's critique is different. It shows the problems with advanced fuels, specifically radiative loss if the electrons are in thermal equilibrium, and recirculating power (i.e. heat exchange from the Ions to electrons) if they are not. These restrictions are essentially fatal for concepts using advanced fuels or non-equilibirum sytems. Any system that falls into this umbrella needs to answer for how it can beat the limitations shown in this paper.
This week, over several threads, I considered four different configurations.
1) TAE --> Fails for Rider trap.. Advanced fuel concept. No proposed mechanism to escape Rider. Conclusion: The physics is impossible.
2) LPP --> In the Rider camp... has a proposed mechanism to escape it... the mechanism is physically possible but implausible in practice. Conclusion: They physics is very unlikely.
3) Helion --> This is in the Rider camp, with no proposed mechanism to escape it. The pulsed nature with direct recovery translates the Rider restriction into implausibly stringent recovery efficieny requirements, which can not be achieved in practice. Conclusion: The physics and recovery efficiencies are implausible.
4) CFS --> This falls into the Lidsky camp. No proposed innovation to improve the cost, complexity, or reliability. Conclusion: This has the strongest physics case of the four I looked at. But the economics is probably uncompetitive.
What experiments/startups are other people looking at, and how do you think they stand up against the Lidsky/Rider critiques?