Hi #fusion, @USFusionEnergy , #energytwitter, a paper by myself, @wilson_ricks , Egemen Kolemen, and @JesseJenkins on the value of fusion for a decarbonized US electric grid is now available online - In Press at Joule. Read it here: authors.elsevier.com/c/1glnc925JENl… .
There's also a Research Digest, control.princeton.edu/research-diges….
We study the value of fusion plants as a function of their operational parameters (costs of operation, pulsed vs steady-state, ability to ramp power levels) & whether there is attached multi-hour thermal storage.
We study the value of fusion plants as a function of their operational parameters (costs of operation, pulsed vs steady-state, ability to ramp power levels) & whether there is attached multi-hour thermal storage.
Over a range of future scenarios and plant operational parameters & abilities, we found that fusion plants would need a total capital cost of ~$3/W to ~$7.5/W in order for to reach 100 GW of deployment in the US Eastern Interconnection. 100 GW is ~today's US fission fleet. 
The major difference in the required cost for the "optimistic" to "pessimistic" plants is their variable cost, $/MWh.
(Note that this figure shows at most $6.3/W would be needed to reach 100 GW; higher values are reached in scenarios with more restricted competitor resources).
(Note that this figure shows at most $6.3/W would be needed to reach 100 GW; higher values are reached in scenarios with more restricted competitor resources).
Compared to the October preprint version of this paper, there's more emphasis on operational schedules. We found that if a plant has the ability to turn on and off, then the fraction of hours in a year it is on is a strong function of its variable cost.
A plant with a higher variable cost might only want to be on for 60% of the year. (The rest of the time, variable renewables are providing enough power.) This has implications for fusion plant maintenance schedules.
(We didn't model the effect of long maintenance times required for fusion - that's the subject of the next paper.)
We also looked at where fusion might be built, and its effect on the amount of transmission required. In the scenarios shown it's most needed along the east coast, and 100 GW of fusion reduce new transmission requirements by about 1/3.
There's a lot more in the paper & supplemental information, so be sure to check it out!
(Note that this map doesn't take into account actual siting considerations!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
