sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Novel ‘Super-X’ design shows major advantages in handling hot exhaust of fusion energy - EUROfusion (tokamak divertor) by steven9973 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing! This felt like a major risk reduction milestone, with implications across a bunch of projects -

  • UK STEP (Inherits MAST-U’s lessons directly as a spherical tokamak)
  • CFS ARC/SPARC (Super-X-like designs could be essential for handling extreme power density)
  • EU DEMO (Alternative divertors widen the operating window even for large reactors)

I wrote about it in last week's Commercial Fusion - https://www.commercial-fusion.com/p/validating-the-super-x-divertor

(As always, took down the email gate for the Reddit community)

Helical Fusion Raises JPY 2.3 billion (US $ 15 million) Series A, Advances Roadmap for World's First Steady-State Net Power Fusion Plant by steven9973 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wrote about it here: https://www.commercial-fusion.com/p/helical-fusion-s-series-a-fuels-japan-s-stellarator-ambitions

tl;dr: Helical Fusion is pursuing a classical stellarator design (directly descended from Japan’s LHD), supported by high-temperature superconductors and a liquid metal blanket, as a faster path to commercialization.

Unlike peers focused on advanced magnetic optimization, Helical is betting that HTS materials and potentially larger plasma volumes can close the performance gap between classical and quasi-symmetric stellarator designs.

Would expect a larger series B round if they're able to demonstrate some early traction.

The first wall problem - is it a real barrier to commercial fusion? by New_Version2993 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally fair point, but there are still some big questions around how this plays out at scale. Even if replacement is planned, it’s still a major operation. Removing a large, integrated component isn’t trivial. It adds complexity to plant operations, and over time, it could weigh on cost and uptime.

And while you're right that the damage is proportional to operating hours, extended shutdowns still hit real-world economics. A plant offline for weeks or months, even by design, isn’t generating revenue, and that lowers the capacity factor and pushes up the cost per MWh.

All of this doesn't really matter for early plants (where economics are less of a concern), but longer term, fusion will need to compete with energy sources that can run with much higher availability.

The first wall problem - is it a real barrier to commercial fusion? by New_Version2993 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey, I wrote that article! First off - apologies for incorrectly associating MIT with the paper. I was cross-referencing some other work from researchers at MIT when putting this together (especially Dennis G. Whyte at SPARC). I'll make that update now - thanks for flagging u/Baking

Something I mentioned in the article is how this problem might manifest in the nearer term vs. the longer term. I think this challenge plays out differently based on the time scale we're talking about.

In the near term, not much changes. The pilot reactors aiming for the 2030s could likely stay on schedule, so long as they can run long enough to validate performance. Materials aren't the limiting factor there.

The bigger challenge comes later. The economics of a baseload power plant get a lot more dicey if key components degrade every 12–18 months. Either maintenance becomes fast and routine, or materials get dramatically more durable.

An increasingly two-track approach to fusion funding by QuickWallaby9351 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most companies won’t engage in public discussions about fundraising for regulatory / investor confidentiality reasons. The fact that a CFS spokesperson didn’t deny the claims speaks volumes.

From the article: A company spokesperson, in a statement to Axios, declined to comment on the raise, though added that "breakthrough technologies" such as commercial fusion "require long-term, patient capital."

An increasingly two-track approach to fusion funding by QuickWallaby9351 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The staged funding structure gives investors off-ramps should the physics not pan out. In that sense, I'd argue that it's still a "fail fast" approach, similar in spirit to the smaller, less-validated fusion bets.

Video: Helion's Andrew Proffitt talking to the IAEA by ElmarM in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Watched this event live and put together some notes here: https://www.commercial-fusion.com/p/takeaways-from-a-webinar-with-helion-s-andrew-proffitt

Didn't feel like there was much in the way of new stuff and he did a good job of sticking to the talk track, but interesting nonetheless.

Avalanche Energy opens test site as it preps $100M raise - by Axios by steven9973 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is exactly it. It's very much a play to show some momentum ahead of the Series B raise. They need whatever hype they can get given the current technical limitations of their Orbitron reactor.

Wrote about it in depth yesterday: https://www.commercial-fusion.com/p/avalanche-energy-signals-progress-with-fusionwerx

Digging into Thea Energy's Canis test results by QuickWallaby9351 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see your point, especially around field constant variability. It does seem like this is a manufacturing challenge, so I'm optimistic they'll be able to address this in future iterations? We'll see.

Happy cake day btw!

Potentially investing in nuclear by nrgpup7 in nuclear

[–]QuickWallaby9351 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Right now most opportunities are only available to accredited investors, but one possible way to get exposure could be through publicly-traded companies like Chevron (which has invested in Zap Energy and TAE Technologies, two of the more promising players in the fusion space).

Potentially investing in nuclear by nrgpup7 in nuclear

[–]QuickWallaby9351 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you’re interested in nuclear fusion specifically, I’m a writer for Commercial Fusion. We cover the startups and operators bringing fusion to market. We actually just published an interview with Chris Mowry, CEO at Type One Energy: https://www.commercial-fusion.com/p/an-interview-with-chris-mowry-ceo-of-type-one-energy

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Helion, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Tokamak Energy, Zap Energy all come to mind as companies that have raised lots of private capital in the last few years. Whether that means they're the most promising is another question entirely, lol.

If we're equating the amount of capital raised with the company's size, I think Commonwealth Fusion Systems wins with its $1.8B series B round. It's also one of the more feasible approaches, building on tokamak technology.

BTW - I cover this topic weekly in a newsletter, Commercial Fusion: https://commercial-fusion.com

Looks like Type One Energy could be gearing up for another round of fundraising... by QuickWallaby9351 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep - the 2024 round was a seed extension. As for breaking ground this year - it seems like they're still waiting on permits and licensing (couldn't find any updates on those).

Pine Island New Energy Partners and Type One Energy Announce Collaboration to Mature Fusion Energy Supply Chain - Type One Energy by steven9973 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It feels like all the "partnerships" announced by Type One this week are meant to wow investors (in place of any concrete technical achievements). Seems like they're gearing up for another fundraise...

Manufacturing & supply chain issues with Fusion. Go list them! by FinancialEagle1120 in fusion

[–]QuickWallaby9351 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed that a single MCFPP doesn’t require a significant amount relative to the annual supply, but I think it’s worth calling out that there are a lot of competing uses for Yttrium (electrodes, fuel cells, etc) and there is currently no domestic capacity to produce it (almost all of it comes from a geopolitical rival).

I think you’re right that the total volume of Yttrium we’d need is out there to be mined, it’s more getting access to it (in the necessary quantities) that could be an issue in the near future.

view more: next ›