Commonwealth Fusion Systems to Build World's First Commercial Fusion Power Plant in Virginia

CFS is currently completing development of its fusion demonstration machine, SPARC, at its headquarters in Devens, Massachusetts. SPARC is expected to produce its first plasma in 2026 and net fusion energy shortly after, demonstrating for the first time a commercially relevant design that will produce more power than consumed. SPARC paves the way for ARC, which is expected to deliver power to the grid in the early 2030s.

An aggressive goal, and one I think offers us the best chance to be truly energy independent while becoming better stewards of our planet environmentally.  Your thoughts?

Fusion is pie in the sky so far. Hope it happens someday.

Solar, wind, geothermal, is now and doable.

[removed][✘]

It's damn well time.  I recall reading about the possibility many years ago, and its benefits are so obvious and needed more than ever.  Along the same idea, I wonder if anything is being done with hydrogen engines in ships, separating the hydrogen from the oxygen and using the hydrogen as fuel.  The supply of water is endless for a ship.  

The supply of water is doable for any self propelled vehicle.

Hydrogen works and isn't nearly as dangerous as fossil fuel.

The supply of potable water into the future is problematic.

Hydrogen works and isn't nearly as dangerous as fossil fuel.

I'm not so sure about that.  In order to power a vehicle and offer decent range between refills, hydrogen must be transferred to and stored within the vehicle at very high pressure and is extremely flammable.  To store and distribute hydrogen efficiently, vessels and pipelines must be specially designed for very high pressures.  The most efficient storage method for hydrogen would be in a liquid form which requires cryogenic storage vessels at -253 degrees Celsius. 

Here is a pretty good article on the pros and cons of hydrogen powered vehicles.

pirelli

If it is not produced using renewable sources, hydrogen pollutes. To date, more than  96% of the hydrogen used is grey . It costs less, but its impact on the environment is so great that 10 kilos of carbon dioxide are produced for every kilo of hydrogen obtained. World hydrogen production is about 70/75 million tonnes, with a waste of almost 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

So there is much work to be done on the production side as well as distribution and storage of hydrogen.

At this point I think the electric vehicle is likely the more proven technology in the short and long term, so now we need to focus on making our sources of electricity cleaner.

I suspect it would be prohibitably expensive 

Will the World's First Nuclear Fusion Power Plant Be Built in Virginia? Here's Why We're Skeptical | Scientific American

I suspect it would be prohibitably expensive 

Perhaps.  Certainly several hurdles to overcome and milestones to meet.  But moving in the right direction in my opinion.  From a scientific standpoint, if the space race taught us one thing, it is never a bad thing to set your goal high and focus some of the greatest minds in the country towards one end.

From a scientific standpoint, if the space race taught us one thing, it is never a bad thing to set your goal high and focus some of the greatest minds in the country towards one end.

Beats the shit out of half-cocked naysaying.   No matter what the technology there will always be those who take the easy route and dismiss the new-fangled stuff.

The one end at this point would seem to be stopping/slowing anthropogenic global climate change. That's really the only thing that really matters at this point of planetary and human development.

Energy positive fusion will be a game changer.   Depending on the efficiency, it could literally change the planet.

What will convert the planet to an electrical base is a way of generating electrical power that is net cheaper than fossil fuel.   Fusion is the most promising technology for this.   But this is just the beginning of the road.   As commercial fusion grows we will see all sorts of improvement in method, technology and in the efficacy of the raw materials that serve as the 'fuel' for the energy released when the materials are combined.

Quite a bright possibility.

Too many people. Too little space. Too many stupid low IQ folk who never studied physics.

A nuclear fusion reactor will still only be a heat source.  The actual generation of electricity will be accomplished with steam driven equipment.  It is the steam component of the electricity generation system that will be the limiting factor; the same as with using fission reactors as a heat source.  At present it would be much cheaper and faster to improve fission reactors based on a considerable amount of available working knowledge than invest in the fusion skyhook.   We're still stuck with essentially the same technology that Thomas Edison used.  Nuclear fusion as a heat source would only be another incremental improvement.    

Changing the heat source for steam driven electric generation won't do anything to address the resilience and capacity of the distribution grid.  The shortcomings of the grid is not due to how electricity is generated.   In case no one has noticed, we've pretty much transitioned to an all electric lifestyle except for heating and transportation.  Changing the heat source for electricity generation won't make it any easier to transition to resistance heating and EVs.  

The powers-that-be have been using the unproven promise of nuclear fusion to justify kicking the can and scrape money off the economy with unproven (possibly, unprovable) promises.  Solar panels and wind turbines possess the ability to generate electricity at the point of use.  That's a disruptive application of technology.  Nuclear fusion is just another gee whiz black box technology requiring the same methods of distribution and consumption.  The heat source is one tiny piece of the puzzle.  The reality is that all the enviro-geeks are likely going to be greatly disappointed.    

When dealing with technology and the future, one needs to NOT presume the absence of improvements.

Thermodynamic power generation is how it starts, not how it ends.

Advanced technologies will emerge with more efficient methods that more directly generate electricity.   Early prospects include:

• Charge Particle Direct Conversion
• Magnetohydrodynamic Conversion
• Photovoltaic Conversion

We always start at the level of 'feasible' and work our way up into 'practical' and then 'preeminent'.

If the doubters and nay-sayers had their way we would still be using candlelight and horses and buggies.

I still have a crazy horse and a super charged RX-7 for fun.

A Toyota Tacoma is my daily driver.

A Trek mountain bike and a Trek road bike serve me well when I want exercise.

The shortcomings of the grid is not due to how electricity is generated.

Solar panels and wind turbines possess the ability to generate electricity at the point of use.  That's a disruptive application of technology.

Agreed and a good point.  Although, once the technology is proven, the scalability factor will kick in.  Some fusion plants can be larger and more central and feed into our existing transmission grids designed for larger centralized sources, while others can be smaller to create a more distributed source of power with more local distribution.  Those are the models I've seen where plants can be located where they are most needed, and a combination of existing and new transmission and distribution assets can be utilized to get the power to the end user.  

The actual generation of electricity will be accomplished with steam driven equipment.  It is the steam component of the electricity generation system that will be the limiting factor; the same as with using fission reactors as a heat source.

Not sure I understand what "limiting factor" you are talking about.  Other than photovoltaics, most power generation requires a synchronous generator driven by a prime mover.  Whether the prime mover is a gas turbine, a water turbine, a wind turbine, or a steam turbine makes no difference in terms of scalability (up or down) of the generating source capacity.  Those synchronous machines are what set the voltage and frequency of the interconnected systems which other technologies like line interactive PV inverters or battery system inverters follow.  Fusion plants (like fission) can be small with smaller steam turbines, or larger with much larger, likely redundant, steam turbines.  

At present it would be much cheaper and faster to improve fission reactors based on a considerable amount of available working knowledge than invest in the fusion skyhook.

I don't entirely disagree with you on that point, especially in the short term, but I think that the investment in fusion power will be a better solution in the long run, particularly considering the regulatory and spent fuel issues.  I have posted other articles here about newer technologies in the nuclear fission reactor design such as Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) that can be setup in a more distributed fashion, coupled with more creative ways to utilize the waste heat.  And might I suggest we invest in both since they can share the same types of steam turbine output and waste heat utilization techniques?  

 Solar panels and wind turbines possess the ability to generate electricity at the point of use.  That's a disruptive application of technology.

Really, I feel we do not need more massive power generation. Disruptive application? Good. What we need is many more small, localized operations of wind and solar to de-centralize the grid. In my estimation, the more granular the production, the more resilient the network and the greater the freedom from the large producers of the energy. As we move forward with the implementation of more electrical technologies and away from fossil fuels, decentralization will become a larger issue because of the many more large and costly generation plants, distribution stations and transmission lines that will be necessary.

Really, I feel we do not need more massive power generation

Yeah neither do I, but the existing system was built that way so we should leverage that where it makes sense and fill in with more localized distributed resources where that makes sense.  The amount of additional power we will need to generate is indeed massive, but I agree a more distributed approach for the generation is desirable.  That is what I was getting at in my response to Nerm as it relates to scalability.

Disruptive application?

I didn't say that, Nerm did.  I think what he meant was that PV and wind can be utilized at the point of use which of course is the ultimate in distributed resources as opposed to the large central plant and distribution system paradigm of the past.  And I agree, although in order to have optimum reliability around the clock and in any weather, a suitable baseload source of energy is required to be interconnected with those types of sources.  At present batteries appear to be the popular choice to fill in where PV and wind cannot be available to support the load, but I have already expressed my concerns about the environmental impact of that, and add the fact that the battery charge can only hold for so long compared to say a small fusion reactor or SMR nearby. 

Whether we are building new transmission lines, substations, local distribution lines or Microgrids the cost is going to be significant to serve the rising load.  The large power plants and transmission/distribution systems that exist today do so because that was deemed to be the most cost effective approach at the time and given the technology at that time. 

I have a really cool graphic hanging in my office that shows the growth of PG&E over the 100 years from the 1860's to the late 1960's as it gobbled up many small utility districts across the Western U.S.  I have been trying without success to see if whoever drew that has continued it to the present day.  It might cover an entire wall at this point.  The point being that complex systems like this grow and adapt as technology and demand requires thinking and adaptation on an ever growing scale.  It is not practical to simply throw away previous infrastructure and start over as demand increases.  

Just like many other things there are some savings in building infrastructure at a larger scale.  Hopefully these new technologies will shatter that paradigm and change the thinking going forward to consider a more distributed approach.

First off

Disruptive application?

I didn't say that, Nerm did. 

That is very true. The reason I responded to you was because you said, "Agreed and a good point." Sorry that I did not explain that.

Yeah neither do I, but the existing system was built that way so we should leverage that where it makes sense and fill in with more localized distributed resources where that makes sense. 

I agree and do not propose abandoning the current infrastructure on a principled whim. "Evolve" is a very apt term for describing the way I feel that we as a society should proceed with building the electrical infrastructure. 

I think that we are mostly in agreement that as we move into the future, a more distributed generation is preferrable 

Have been dealing with a few hundred watts of solar and some off and on windmills for a few years now. Now that I have it figured out, I'll be selling power back and be making a profit.

I just received in the mail the November/December issue of the IEEE Power & Energy Magazine .  The entire Volume 22 is dedicated to various aspects of Artificial Intelligence and the Power Grid.  I read the foreword summary piece entitled AI to Enhance Power Systems - Modeling, Operation & Control - and I'm hooked.  I endeavor to read the remainder of the eight technical articles by the end of the weekend.

Fascinating stuff that is already underway here, in China, South Korea and other parts of the world. This technology promises to streamline the operation, efficiency and safety of power generation and distribution systems worldwide especially as it evolves toward a more distributed topology of renewable resources.

In the supplement that came with the magazine is a publication called 2025 Grid Edge Technologies Conference & Exposition (Coming 21-23 January 2025 in San Diego, CA).  In that supplement is an article entitled " Distributed Energy Resources and Electrical Vehicle Adoption - A Distribution Planning Strategy and Road Map ".  Unfortunately you need to have an IEEE Membership to access this content.  This was another fascinating read that expands heavily on what we have been discussing here.  The article discusses an integrated distribution planning (IDP) strategy developed by Dominion Energy Virginia.  This is the very same Utility that has partnered with and is collaborating with Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) in my article seeded here.  This circles back to my contention that the players in the future of our power generation and distribution systems must think outside the box and be on the cutting edge of generation technologies and distribution system planning and design.