Not hard to beat if the ITER isn't even existing yet.
Rightfully the world often criticises the EU for slow decision making and politics and so is the same with ITER.
The proposal and design started in the 90's and yet they still have to decide where to build the f'ing thing.
France, that's clear, but where? No clue.
Idiots.
ITER and LM's fusion is totally different though.
LM's is a compact reactor based on a different type and maintenance of fusion reaction.
The upside is no need for expensive superconducting magnets which need expensive cooling.
The downside is that the neutron radiation from that type of reactor obliterates the fusion reactor wall within a year.
This means that this type of fusion isn't so durable as proposed. You need to make a new reactor (basically) every year.
Start rant.
Unsurprisingly, this "coincidentially" offers great commercial opportunities
Believe me, once oil, gas and all the other useful natural resources for energy are gone more companies like LM and oil companies "all of a sudden" show up with new tech.
It's in their vault, waiting to be needed to make money. Sick world.
End of rant.
ITER is a different approach, but much more complex.
The upside is that the reaction can be maintained as long as there's fuel added to the reaction.
The downside is that the reaction is extremely prone to instabilities in the plasma and thus the superconducting magnets need to work beyond perfectly.
The plasma needs to be kept really tight, but since it's 100 million degrees celsius (you look up for Fahrenheit yourself haha) it wants to go anywhere.
This approach is more sustainable type of energy.
