Posted on 08/10/2026 6:40:21 PM PDT by Red Badger
Representational image of a nuclear fusion energy. Commonwealth Fusion Systems
A team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have looked into the economic challenges of fusion power and built a framework to make it commercially feasible. The framework is technology agnostic and takes into account the physical inputs need to build and operate a fusion power plant which is competitive in energy markets.
Nuclear fusion is regarded as the future of energy, which is non-polluting, abundant and cheaply available. In principle, it recreates the reactions that occurs in stars, where hydrogen in a state of high temperature plasma fuses to form helium and releases large amounts of heat, without any carbon emissions or radioactive waste as a by product.
In 2022, the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) achieved a positive energy gain with a fusion energy setup, the first for the approach. Funding from the government as well as private equity is flowing in and startups and national laboratories alike are working to turn fusion power into reality. However, MIT researchers, Dennis Whyte and Andrew W. Lo, do not think that this is sufficient to make fusion energy a commercial success.
Profits for success
Whyte, professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, is also the co-founder of Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a MIT spin-off and global leader in fusion energy industry. Along with Lo, Whyte has also co-founded Rutherford Energy Ventures, a consultancy firm that is working with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to build a consortium for fusion research.
While there are multiple approaches to building a nuclear fusion facility, Whyte and colleagues believe that at the end of the day, the facility should be in a position to generate more money that has gone in to building and operating it, otherwise it won’t last for long. This is irrespective of the technological approach to generate and maintain the plasma or the size of the reactor.
Researchers in fusion energy are often aware of the cost of their experiments but Whyte and Lo suggest that accounting of all costs must be done as rigorously as possible.
“It’s all the things that come along with finding, allocating, and spending money at this scale,” explained Whyte in a press release. “If we want this technology to actually be meaningful in the world economy, we have to start getting straight with ourselves about these topics.”
10 parameters in the framework The researchers were inspired by the Lawson Criterion that helps in the calculation of ‘plasma Q’, a ratio of fusion power produced to external power required to sustain the reaction. Derived in the 1950s, the Lawson Criterion describes the combinations of temperature, plasma density, and energy confinement needed to net energy production from fusion plasma.
The framework proposed by Whyte and Lo is more like an economic Q for fusion energy, comparing money earned versus money spent. Among the 10 parameters included in the framework are engineering features like power density, efficiency of converting fusion power, durability of components, costing and market parameters surrounding capital as well.
As more funding pours into fusion energy, Whyte and Lo believe that the time to assess economic viability is now. They do expect uncertainties and challenges to come up as fusion energy tries to achieve commercial success and their framework will help people quantify their work.
“When you’ve got a framework to evaluate it in a quantitative way, it tells you about the literal worth of making a particular design decision. That seems to me at this moment of fusion development absolutely critical, and what we’ve been missing,” concluded Whyte.
The framework has been published in The Journal of Fusion Energy.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-026-00577-9
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Fusion Ping!.................
10 years off.... as it has been for the last 60 years.
A “framework to assess economic viability” — Like NPV and IRR and 30 year levelized Cost of Electricity?
Will it fit im my DeLorean?
Thorium reactors.
Proven tech, start building and permitting tomorrow.
Fusion?
100 years, maybe.
.
It should.
I don’t know why they are building reactors that are the size of football stadiums.
It’s totally unnecessary.
A fusion reaction can be better handled in a small reactor than in a humongous one..........................
could.
Not true... They used calculations that isolated energy input to the laser system...
Just around the corner.
Just around the corner.... Again!
Must be grant renewal time.
They’ve just about solved it... All they need is a lot more cash... Lots and lots and lots of cash.
I wonder which will come first... Cold fusion energy, Nuclear fusion energy... Or the end of the Iranian war.
I wonder which will come first... Cold fusion energy, Nuclear fusion energy... Or the end of the Iranian war.
With all of the solar farms we have, we already have fusion energy. It’s as safe as the ozone layer, too.
Cold fusion is dead, Jim.................
This would be a larger gain than AI. However maybe AI can solve it.
The National Ignition Facility was used as a prop for “Tron” from 1982.
We’ve been 10-20 years away from fusion power for about the last 50 years. Lemme know when we actually build the first commercial fusion reactor and fire it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.