U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
Serious question: how does an article like this get written without mentioning SPARC[1] once? They&#x27;re hardly secretive, they&#x27;re MIT&#x27;s people, they&#x27;re moving on a plan to get results in ~5 years, and they&#x27;re talking about the same kind of things: tokamaks, better computer modeling, and easier to make higher temperature superconductors for stronger magnets.<p>I&#x27;m just a layperson, I only know pop science level stuff here, but they seem clearly like the best game in town -- so, seriously, can a person in the physics world shed some light on why they aren&#x27;t at least a small part of every article about fusion, but ITER is?<p>1 - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;SPARC_(tokamak)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;SPARC_(tokamak)</a><p>(And, for those with an interest who still haven&#x27;t seen Zach Hartwig&#x27;s absolutely excellent 2017 talk: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;L0KuAx1COEk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;L0KuAx1COEk</a> -- watch it!)