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.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is like asking “why do R&D to invent solar panels when gas has always been 25¢/gallon?”

      Technological progress isn’t free.

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • 4am@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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?”

        • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          So you’re saying solar panels were a mistake and we should have stuck to horses?

          • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              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

    • sunnie@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Because you can’t stably power a grid on solar. You need to buffer with a source of energy not dependent on environment.

      • Aniki@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        well, the idea that you can’t is a far fetch. battery installments are growing exponentially; it’s possible to produce clean hydrogen and burn it half a year later.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        That said, fusion (and fission as well) isn’t really a great buffer because you don’t really want to be switching it on and off. It’s so expensive that it’s only really economical to run it constantly 24/7. So while fusion could be an awesome and perfectly consistent base load, it doesn’t solve the energy variability problems.

        Ultimately utilizing renewables just requires some amount of energy storage and/or quick to activate gas generators.