Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) has verified the core plasma physics assumptions for its upcoming ARC fusion power plant following a peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Plasma Physics.
The research confirms the ARC reactor design aligns with known physics, allowing the company to shift its focus toward detailed hardware engineering…
According to the validated models, the ARC plant will produce approximately 1.1 gigawatts (GW) of fusion power to generate 400 megawatts (MW) of net electricity for the grid…
CFS engineers are using this simulation framework to optimize upcoming design iterations, adjusting dimensions like tokamak width and divertor length to refine reactor performance before manufacturing begins.
Just watched a really good and incredibly informative video on this, https://youtube.com/watch?v=nt4rZgndOoE. From what is explained in the video is that this is mostly filing paperwork, they haven’t verified their reactor works or that it’s able to output power, let alone output more power than what is required to start and maintain a fusion reaction. So over all, a little exciting, but really nothing to get too excited about yet.
Edit: grammar fixes
So we only need 23 of them to power that one new data center in Utah.
The research confirms the ARC reactor design aligns with known physics
That’s…assuring? I guess?
“We aren’t completely batshit insane!”
Physically possibility is one thing. Materials and engineering constraints are another thing entirely.
Physically possible =/= Feasible.
My bet has always been on Commonwealth Systems getting there first. But they aren’t there yet… so time will tell.
Helios also has a really novel reactor, it would be amazing to see that work. It’s arguably a much more elegant design than a tokamak.
I thought this was 30 years away?
(I feel the need to point out that it’s been 30 years since people started saying this…)
Oh man though this one is cool - I have a dear dear friend working on this project, and it’s absolutely wild. Nothing they’re doing is new, exactly but modern magnet designs have enabled SPARC to simultaneously hit a bunch of metrics that were previously entirely reliant on purpose-built machines.
Excerpt from them when I asked them about this yesterday:
While no existing tokamak has reached the same parameters that SPARC will simultaneously, there is empirical evidence in part for all of the major parameters it seeks to reach. the purple dot is ARC, the power plant design, and the red X is ITER, the gigantic international tokamak being built which doesn’t take advantage of newer and more powerful magnets (which is what allowed SPARC/ARC to have much smaller volume)
so like yeah, we’ve built a ton of reactors that could do all this individually and then CFS have managed a system that has combined those results into a single machine and that has been the big goal for years (beyond stopping the plasma from fizzling out). There’s still challenges to solve, but this system has cleared all the previous hurdles (barring some of the noncritical ones). It’s so damn cool. It’s not fusion happening now, the headline is sensationalist, but it’s the biggest step forward we’ve had probably since research into plasma fusion started.
Amazing. Fusion has been 20 years away since I was in school 50 years ago. I know this isn’t the actual reactor but it’s a big step - so maybe 10 years now?
Honestly, less. At least less for a working fusion reactor. Probably 10 - 20 before first commercial deployment.
That’s incredible. I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Isn’t this how Half-Life began?
No, that had nothing to do with fusion or fission. The Resonance Cascade was a quantum event created when Gordon inserted a Xen crystal sample into a Anti-Mass Spectrometer.
have a very safe day
They’re waiting for you Gordon… In the test chamber
Test chamberrrrrrr
@CapuccinoCoretto @Delta_V cant wait to have another being attatch to my head
So that’s, what, a 36% efficiency? What are the values of some other sources such as nuclear and solar. Or am i misunderstanding the values supplied?
Well, it’s not really an “efficiency” number.
For instance, we’re definitely concerned with efficiency when burning gas, we want to get as much energy as we can out of it per unit of fuel. But with fusion, the fuel cost is negligible, so you can treat it as essential free and in infinite supply. And because maintaining the magnetic containment simply costs electricity, you basically just take the net excess power as the output rating of the plant.
Probably the most useful way to compare these two technologies is by cost per MW. That said, early fusion reactors will not be in any way cheap. Working fusion may be around the corner, but it will in fact be a long time before fusion is really “a good choice” economically.
1.1 Jiggawatts? Pshaw, not even one lightning bolt.
Extremely complex and expensive engineering and technology development for 400 MW of net electricity generation. Why not just build a 400 MW solar farm (with battery shortage, of course)? There’s a massive, natural fusion reactor in the sky blasting the Earth with petawatts of energy every day, for absolutely free.
This is like asking “why do R&D to invent solar panels when gas has always been 25¢/gallon?”
Technological progress isn’t free.
Technological progress isn’t free.
I’m just not convinced progress scales 1:1 with increasing technological complexity. In fact, I think progress might be better achieved by lowering costs and complexity, rather than increasing them. Maybe more isn’t always better.
The amount of electricity we will be able to extract from nuclear fusion, while using an extremely small amount of fuel, means that solar panels may cease to be practical in the first place.
So you’re saying solar panels were a mistake and we should have stuck to horses?
I should clarify. I think increasing technological complexity can lead to progress, but I don’t think it always does. I think progress from increasing technological complexity often follows an s-curve. I’m not denying the progress that has come from the significant technological advancement of the last few centuries, I’m just not sure continued technological advancement will lead to that same level of progress over the next few centuries.
Maybe, but many things are increasingly efficient. Maybe energy need for most things is plateauing and flat id goud enough. You’ll just need fusion for datacenters
It’s funny you should mention scaling, because fusion does not scale like that at all, it scales much better. If you can get a small reactor to work at all, a larger reactor designed with the same principles is significantly more efficient. With fusion, bigger is better.
I do hear what you’re saying though. Sometimes there are just simpler solutions. And I actually think you’re right, in most use cases solar + batteries is a better solution than a fusion plant. That said, solar + batteries has only become truly economical within the last 5-10 years. At this point there’s really nothing “Simple” about photovoltaic or battery technology, lifetimes of study have gone into them. And 25 years ago, solar was cute, it was pie in the sky. And you’d hear these same arguments “shouldn’t we be focusing efforts on something we already know works?”
Because this is how research works and if we manage to get fusion power generation working well, we’ll have practically limitless clean energy available.
Thats what musk masturbates to…
If musk gets off on limitless clean energy that’s actually okay.
Oh the energy isn’t for public usage but for clean AI. Pleps have to pay for the energy that can’t be used to this end.
still better than AI powered from natural gas.
