How might controlled fusion fit into the emerging low-carbon energy system of the mid-twenty-first century?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the characteristics that fusion-based generation technologies will need to have if they are to compete in the emerging low-carbon energy system of the mid-twenty-first century. It is likely that the majority of future electric energy demand will be provided by the lowest marginal cost energy technology—which in many regions will be stochastically varying renewable solar and wind electric generation coupled to systems that provide up to a few days of energy storage. Firm low-carbon or zero-carbon resources based on gas-fired turbines with carbon capture, advanced fission reactors, hydroelectric and perhaps engineered geothermal systems will then be used to provide the balance of load in a highly dynamic system operating in competitive markets governed by merit-order pricing mechanisms that select the lowest-cost supplies to meet demand. These firm sources will have overnight capital costs in the range of a few $/Watt, be capable of cycling down to a fraction of their maximum power output, operate profitably at low utilization fraction, and have a suitable unit size of order 100 MW e . If controlled fusion using either magnetic confinement or inertial confinement approaches is to have any chance of providing a material contribution to future electrical energy needs, it must demonstrate these key qualities and at the same time prove robust safety characteristics that avoid the perceived dread risk that plagues nuclear fission power, avoid the generation of long-lived radioactive waste and demonstrate highly reliable operations. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘Prospects for high gain inertial fusion energy (part 1)’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".