Fusion Power Company CFS Raises $863M More From Google, Nvidia, and Many Others (techcrunch.com)
- Reference: 0178946450
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/08/30/1751217/fusion-power-company-cfs-raises-863m-more-from-google-nvidia-and-many-others
- Source link: https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/28/nvidia-google-and-bill-gates-help-commonwealth-fusion-systems-raise-863m/
Commonwealth's CEO/co-founder Bob Mumgaard says "This round of capital isn't just about fusion just generally as a concept... It's about how do we go to make fusion into a commercial industrial endeavor."
> The Massachusetts-based company has raised nearly $3 billion to date, [2]the most of any fusion startup . Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) previously raised a $1.8 billion round in 2021...
>
> CFS is currently building a prototype reactor called Sparc in a Boston suburb. The company expects to turn that device on later next year and achieve scientific breakeven in 2027, a milestone in which the fusion reaction produces more energy than was required to ignite it. Though Sparc isn't designed to sell power to the grid, it's still vital to CFS's success. "There are parts of the modeling and the physics that we don't yet understand," Saskia Mordijck, an associate professor of physics at the College of William and Mary, told TechCrunch. "It's always an open question when you turn on a completely new device that it might go into plasma regimes we've never been into, that maybe we uncover things that we just did not expect." Assuming Sparc doesn't reveal any major problems, CFS expects to begin construction on Arc, its commercial-scale power plant, in Virginia starting in 2027 or 2028...
>
> "We know that this kind of idea should work," Mordijck said. "The question is naturally, how will it perform?" Investors appear to like what they've seen so far. The list of participants in the Series B2 round is lengthy. No single investor led the round, and a number of existing investors increased their stakes, said Ally Yost, CFS's senior vice president of corporate development... The new round will help CFS make progress on Sparc, but it will not be enough to build Arc, which will likely cost several billion dollars, Mumgaard said.
"As [3]advances in computing and AI have quickened the pace of research and development, the sector has become a hotbed of startup and investor activity," the article points out.
And CEO Mumgaard told TechCrunch that their Sparc prototype will prove the soundness of the science — but it's also important to learn "the capabilities that you need to be able to deliver it. It's also to have the receipts, know what these things cost!"
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/28/nvidia-google-and-bill-gates-help-commonwealth-fusion-systems-raise-863m/
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/19/every-fusion-startup-that-has-raised-over-100m/
[3] https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/02/the-biological-theory-that-explains-why-investors-are-bullish-on-fusion/
It's a Tokamak (Score:3)
If I understand correctly... their innovation is using stronger magnets than anyone has before.
To me that doesn't imply any better control over plasma, just that the current level of control will be confined in a tighter space. IANA fusion researcher, though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is basically correct. They're using "high temperature" superconducting "tape" to build toroidal magnets. It's a big deal for tokamak design because they can get extremely powerful magnetic fields in a "small" toroid: SPARC is physically tiny when compared to ITER, but expected to produce to higher field strength. This lowers costs, risks, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds great in theory, just like all the other advances over the past 70 years that supposedly brought us closer to practical fusion. The road from theory to commercial product is a very long one. There will undoubtedly be setbacks along the way. If they were honest, they would freely admit that.
They haven't even finished building a prototype to test the theory yet. They hope to prove the theory by sometime in 2027 and then start building a commercial power plant... in 2027??? Everything about th
Re: (Score:2)
"There will undoubtedly be setbacks along the way. If they were honest, they would freely admit that."
Yes, an honest company would have stated that it's always an open question when you turn on a completely new device that it might go into plasma regimes we've never been into, that maybe we uncover things that we just did not expect.
It's just utterly dishonest that they didn... oh wait...
Fusion? You mean NUKULAR fusion? Ahhhh! (Score:2)
I expect that the same opposition to nuclear fission power will be applied to nuclear fusion power once the people that oppose fission figure out that fusion is also a process that involves radiation, neutrons flying around at near the speed of light, and all the other scary things that make them fear anything that has the word "nukular" associated with it. After that happens then they are back at trying to educate people about what protective measures are in place to keep the radiation contained, and that
Tax to Support Fusion Research (Score:2)
There should be a tax imposed on these data centers and ML centers that are strangling our power grid. If they are going to create a major problem like this, then it should incumbent on them to fund research into a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
> There should be a tax imposed on these data centers and ML centers that are strangling our power grid. If they are going to create a major problem like this, then it should incumbent on them to fund research into a solution.
Research? That takes me back to 2008 when Obama and McCain had a debate.
When asked about energy, maybe it was a question specifically on nuclear energy, I saw two very different responses from the two. Perhaps I recall incorrectly, but I'll give what I recall. McCain answered first with something to the effect of an "all the above" energy policy which would include building nuclear power plants by the dozens. Again, I'm going by memory but that's the gist I picked up so maybe it wasn't dozens, maybe it
Progress (Score:2)
We have gone from perpetually 20 years away to perpetually 2 years away.
horse cart (Score:2)
Yeah, sure. They'll need all sorts of infrastructure and capital investments once they can F*CKING GENERATE ELECTRICITY.
How did it work in space? (Score:2)
Here's the question. We are having a difficult time trying to get plasma to do what we want to create fusion. We're using all kinds of magnets and electrical fields and can only sustain fusion for a few minutes.
Someone needs to explain how, in space, with no confinement of any kind, individual atoms can collect in enough mass to produce a self-sustaining fusin reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
> Someone needs to explain how, in space, with no confinement of any kind, individual atoms can collect in enough mass to produce a self-sustaining fusin reaction.
Gravity. All you need is enough hydrogen to make a star, which is about equivalent to the mass of 300,000 Earths. Simple.
Compare to wave energy (Score:2)
The [1]other story just posted [slashdot.org] about wave energy makes a good counterpoint to this one. Wave energy and fusion energy both promise huge amounts of inexpensive, non-polluting, non-intermittent energy. They also have both been in development for many years. The road to commercialization has been far slower than anyone expected for both of them.
But the differences are striking. The first working wave energy system was built in 1910. The challenges have never been with fundamental physics, just how to make it
[1] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/08/30/1954220/wave-energy-projects-have-come-a-long-way-after-10-years
Re: (Score:2)
This is how it should work. Private sector investors taking big R&D risk for potential but unlikely big reward. Happily no tax dollars being used here, so this really does not concern me at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like part of their funding comes from several power companies so their customers will be paying for this for many years.
"Fusion power is always 10 years in the future"
Re: (Score:2)
> Looks like part of their funding comes from several power companies so their customers will be paying for this for many years. "Fusion power is always 10 years in the future"
I guess that should concern those customers. Good that I am not one.
Re: (Score:1)
> "Fusion power is always 10 years in the future"
Until it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
It still isn't.
All we have ever had is hype.
Re:FUSION is ILLUSION (Score:4, Interesting)
> Happily no tax dollars being used here, so this really does not concern me at all.
You don't know about ITER?
Assuming the person reading this is an American then billions of federal tax dollars have been spent on ITER. Those reading this in some other nation participating in ITER have had at least millions of dollars/euros/whatever sucked out of your government to fund this.
ITER is just the science experiment. ITER is to prove we can sustain fusion. After that is supposed to come DEMO, a "demonstration" reactor to prove some of the engineering. Then would come PROTO, the "prototype" for an economically viable fusion reactor upon which to develop mass produced fusion reactors for commercial energy production.
If we are to believe ITER is on the tip of the spear on fusion energy then consider their planned budget and timeline to fusion energy. They are not expecting to see commercially viable fusion power until at least 2050, and after many more billions of dollars (if not trillions) are spent on materials and labor. After seeing an interview of one of the physicists working on ITER it appears that 2050 is optimistic as this physicist had a different timeline in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm well aware of ITER, and while I'm not American I'd not be surprised if my own government has put money into it also, but I'm too lazy to check.
And I'm not saying there is no place for international collaboration on things that are too big for any one country or company to do. As long as the electorate is transparently informed and have no expectation of financial payback that is between them and their politicians. It should not be surprising if this is not near the top of the list of taxpayer pri
Re: (Score:2)
Pro tip:
This article is not about ITER.
Re: (Score:2)
> Happily no tax dollars being used here
Not true. DOE has awarded CFS grants, as has the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It's on the back of decades of publicly funded fusion research.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not really. It's on the back of decades of publicly funded fusion research.
And how's that working out?
Re: (Score:2)
> So has snake-oil
Actually, the snake oil sold in Chinese stores did have health benefits, because of the omega-3 fatty acids in the oil. Unfortunately, when it was brought to the US, the traveling salesmen who picked up on the idea didn't know what kind of snakes to use, and the ones readily available in the US didn't have a significant omega-3 content. So it was an actual health product turned into worthless crap by greedy American marketeers.