this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
170 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

85168 readers
3897 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
170
US firm validates 1.1-GW nuclear fusion plant design to deliver 400 MW electricity (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 20 hours ago by Delta_V@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 15 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Ah I was wondering this and my cursory search result was that :

  • Their design (ARC) is sound for its physics.
  • their design would produce more energy if nothing goes wrong with the hardware.
  • The hardware is designed but not built yet.

Basically it's really promising because on paper it should really work as expected. But at the same time without building it, there will be obstacles along the way. The materials could last too little time for it to be commercially viable.

So they seem to be at the very last theoretical step of fusion energy but there is still a huge challenge in actually building the thing and most importantly, it to be viable commercially.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 12 hours ago

Fusion power is still basically TRL 3 and every time it looks like they might be going to move up a level everyone loses their damn minds. It's not really possible to put a timeline on any of this because the technology doesn't exist yet and we can't simulate in computers what we've never seen before, not with any degree of accuracy.

[–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Meanwhile the Chinese have working thorium reactors, which are incapable of meltdown.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago

So are Canadian CANDU reactors.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

What's the connection? This is fusion, not fission

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

i assume the point is we could have been building clean nuclear energy without waiting for fusion.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

That's a crappy point, since it isn't a choice between the two. Our collective (bad) decision to abandon fission has nothing to do with this.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 hours ago

Nucluler