this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
184 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

85184 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
184
US firm validates 1.1-GW nuclear fusion plant design to deliver 400 MW electricity (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 1 day ago by Delta_V@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
51 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
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours 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 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

It does a little. funding isn't unlimited. If the goal is to get off fossil fuels ASAP, to me it makes more sense to invest in building technologies that we know work.

Once we stop the house from burning down we can look into upgrading the sprinkler system.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

R&D and actual practical power plant construction are worlds apart. It's extremely questionable that cutting off funding to fusion would have changed any opinions on nuclear. Govts didn't abandon nuclear due to a lack of technology, it was mainly FUD by lobbyists.

If the goal is to get off fossil fuels ASAP

Problem is, that was never the goal for the people in power, it could have been accomplished easily.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

Nucluler